[House Report 106-1048]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 610
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session 106-1048
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
Committee on the Judiciary
of the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
during the
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
pursuant to
Clause 1(d) Rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives
January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-006 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
House of Representatives
one hundred sixth congress
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman \1\
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \3\ MAXINE WATERS, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee \5\ MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
BOB BARR, Georgia ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama \2\
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \4\
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana \6\
Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., Chief of Staff/General Counsel
Jon Dudas, Staff Director/Deputy General Counsel
Julian Epstein, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Perry Apelbaum, Minority General Counsel
----------
\1\ Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman
pursuant to House Resolution 6, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
Republican Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House
Resolution 6, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
Democratic Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House
Resolution 7, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
\2\ Spencer Bachus, Alabama, elected to the Committee pursuant to House
Resolution 30, approved by the House February 2, 1999.
\3\ Stephen E. Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee March 4,
1999.
\4\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, elected to the Committee pursuant to
House Resolution 108, approved by the House March 11, 1999.
\5\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee June 25, 1999.
\6\ David Vitter, Louisiana, elected to the Committee pursuant to House
Resolution 223, approved by the House June 25, 1999.
Subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary \1\
------
Crime
BILL MCCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \2\ ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB BARR, Georgia STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas \3\
------
Commercial and Administrative Law
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ED BRYANT, Tennessee \4\ JERROLD NADLER, New York
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \2\ MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MARY BONO, California \5\
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \6\
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana \7\
------
Courts and Intellectual Property
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
Wisconsin JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
ELTON GALLEGLY, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
MARY BONO, California
Immigration and Claims
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chairman
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
MARY BONO, California \5\ MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \6\
------
The Constitution
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BOB BARR, Georgia JERROLD NADLER, New York
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
----------
\1\ Subcommittee chairmanships and assignments approved February 4,
1999.
\2\ Stephen E. Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee effective
the afternoon of March 4, 1999.
\3\ Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas, assigned to the Subcommittee on Crime
March 24, 1999.
\4\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee June 25, 1999.
\5\ Mary Bono, California, reassigned from the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims to the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law March 24, 1999.
\6\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, assigned to the Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims March 24, 1999.
\7\ David Vitter, Louisiana, assigned to the Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law July 20, 1999.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, January 2, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Trandahl: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am transmitting
the report on the activities of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the U.S. House of Representatives for the 106th Congress.
Sincerely,
Henry Hyde,
Chairman.
Union Calendar No. 610
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session 106-1048
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
_______
January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
Jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary
The jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary is set
forth in Rule X, 1.(k) of the rules of the House of
Representatives for the 106th Congress:
* * * * * * *
Rule X.--Establishment and Jurisdiction of Standing Committees
THE COMMITTEES AND THEIR JURISDICTION
1. There shall be in the House the following standing
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and
related functions assigned to it by this clause and clauses 2,
3, and 4. All bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to
subjects within the jurisdiction of the standing committees
listed in this clause shall be referred to those committees, in
accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as follows:
* * * * * * *
(k) Committee on the Judiciary
(1) The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and
criminal.
(2) Administrative practice and procedure.
(3) Apportionment of Representatives.
(4) Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and
counterfeiting.
(5) Civil liberties.
(6) Constitutional amendments.
(7) Federal courts and judges, and local courts in
the Territories and possessions.
(8) Immigration and naturalization.
(9) Interstate compacts, generally.
(10) Measures relating to claims against the United
States.
(11) Meetings of Congress, attendance of Members and
their acceptance of incompatible offices.
(12) National penitentiaries.
(13) Patents, the Patent Office, copyrights, and
trademarks.
(14) Presidential succession.
(15) Protection of trade and commerce against
unlawful restraints and monopolies.
(16) Revision and codification of the Statutes of the
United States.
(17) State and Territorial boundaries.
(18) Subversive activities affecting the internal
security of the United States.
Tabulation of Legislation and Activity
----------
legislation referred to committee
Public Legislation:
House bills............................................... 789
House joint resolutions................................... 59
House concurrent resolutions.............................. 38
House resolutions........................................ 34
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
920
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Senate bills.............................................. 30
Senate concurrent resolutions............................. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
31
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 951
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Private Legislation:
House bills (claims)...................................... 34
House bills (copyrights).................................. 1
House bills (criminal procedure).......................... 1
House bills (immigration)................................. 82
House resolutions (claims)................................ 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
121
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Senate bills (claims)..................................... 1
Senate bills (immigration)................................ 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
15
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 136
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 1,087
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
action on legislation not referred to committee
Originated for House action:
House resolutions......................................... 1
Held at desk for House action:
Senate bills.............................................. 11
Conference appointments:
House bills............................................... 2
House bills............................................... 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 16
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
final action
House concurrent resolutions approved (public)................ 2
House resolutions approved (public)........................... 9
Public legislation vetoed by the President.................... 1
Public Laws................................................... 73
Private Laws.................................................. 21
Hearings
Serial No. and Title
__________
1. Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act.
Subcommittee on the Constitution. October 26, 1999. (H.R. 2442).
2. Bankruptcy Reform. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative
Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly with the
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary. March 11, 1999.
3. Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce (E-Sign)
Act. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. September 30,
1999. (H.R. 1714).
4. Prison Industries Reform Act of 1999 and Federal Prison
Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 1999. Subcommittee on
Crime. August 5, 1999. (H.R. 2558 and H.R. 2551).
5. Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act. Committee on the
Judiciary. April 13, 1999. (H.R. 775).
6. United States Secret Service. Subcommittee on Crime. June 24,
1999.
7. Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999. Committee on the
Judiciary. September 29, 1999. (H.R. 2366).
8. Illegal Immigration Issues. Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims. June 10, 1999.
9. Trademark Amendments Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property. May 5, 1999. (H.R. 1565).
10. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. (Parts 1, 2, and 3).
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. March 16, 17, 18,
1999. (H.R. 833).
11. Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 1999.
Subcommittee on the Constitution. October 21, 1999. (H.R. 906).
12. Nonimmigrant Visa Fraud. Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims. May 5, 1999.
13. Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act. Subcommittee on
Crime. May 12, 1999. (H.R. 764).
14. Operations of the Chicago District Office of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
September 13, 1999.
15. Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999.
Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 15, 1999. (H.R. 2372).
16. Child Custody Protection Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution.
May 27, 1999. (H.R. 1218).
17. Law Enforcement Problems at the Border Between the United
States and Canada: Drug Smuggling, Illegal Immigration and Terrorism.
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims April 14, 1999.
18. Impact of Immigration on Recent Immigrants and Black and
Hispanic Citizens. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 11,
1999.
19. Antitampering Act of 1999. Subcommittee on the Courts and
Intellectual Property. October 21, 1999. (H.R. 2100).
20. Youth Culture and Violence. Committee on the Judiciary. May 13,
1999.
21. Miscellaneous Immigration and Claims Issues: Blackhawk Friendly
Fire Incident Payments; Removal of Aliens Associated with Terrorists;
Increasing Penalties for Alien Smuggling; and Asylum in Guam.
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. May 18, 1999. (H.R. 456, H.R.
1745, H.R. 238, and H.R. 945).
22. Justice in Fair Housing Enforcement Act of 1999. Subcommittee
on the Constitution. October 28, 1999. (H.R. 2437).
23. Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act. Subcommittee on
Courts and Intellectual Property. February 25, 1999. (H.R. 768).
24. Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of
1999 and Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Courts
and Intellectual Property. June 16, 1999. (H.R. 2112 and H.R. 1752).
25. Implementation of the ``NET'' Act and Enforcement Against
Internet Piracy. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May
12, 1999.
26. Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 1999. Committee on the
Judiciary. June 22, 1999. (H.R. 1304).
27. Legal Services Corporation. Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law. September 29, 1999.
28. Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United
States. Subcommittee on the Constitution. March 23, 1999. (H.J. Res,
33).
29. Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999. Subcommittee on the
Constitution. July 21, 1999. (H.R. 2436).
30. Antitrust Aspects of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998.
Committee on the Judiciary. May 5, 1999.
31. H-1B Temporary Professional Worker Visa Program and Information
Technology Workforce Issues. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
August 5, 1999.
32. Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. Subcommittee on the
Constitution. June 24, 1999. (H.R. 2260).
33. Immigration and Naturalization Service Decisions Impacting the
Agency's Ability to Control Criminal and Illegal Aliens. Subcommittee
on Immigration and Claims. February 25, 1999.
34. Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act.
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. March 4, 1999. (H.R.
850).
35. Benefits to the American Economy of a More Educated Workforce.
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 25, 1999.
36. Shoot-Down of the Brothers to the Rescue Planes. Subcommittee
on Crime. July 15, 1999.
37. Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program.
Subcommittee on Crime. October 28, 1999.
38. Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of
Justice. Subcommittee on Crime. July 22, 1999.
39. Punishing Depictions of Animal Cruelty and the Federal Prison
Health Care Co-payment Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Crime. September
30, 1999. (H.R. 1887 and H.R. 1349).
40. Federal Agency Compliance Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law. October 27, 1999. (H.R. 1924).
41. States' Choice of Voting Systems Act. Subcommittee on the
Constitution. September 23, 1999. (H.R. 1173).
42. Internet Domain Names and Intellectual Property Rights.
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. July 28, 1999.
43. Fairness in Telecommunications License Transfers Act of 1999,
Taxpayer's Defense Act and Justice for MAS Applicants Act of 1999.
Committee on the Judiciary. November 3, 1999. (H.R. 2533, H.R. 2636,
and H.R. 2701).
44. National Police Training Commission Act of 1999. Committee on
the Judiciary. May 12, 1999. (H.R. 1659).
45. Illegal Aliens in the United States. Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims. March 18, 1999.
46. Internet Freedom Act and Internet Growth and Development Act of
1999. (Parts 1 and 2). Committee on the Judiciary. June 30, 1999, July
18, 2000. (H.R. 1686 and H.R. 1685).
47. Cost of Living Adjustment in the Pay of Administrative Law
Judges. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 27,
1999. (H.R. 915).
48. Reinvented Taxation and the Taxpayer's Defense Act.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 29, 1999.
49. First Amendment and Restrictions on Politcal Speech.
Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 5, 1999.
50. Consent of Congress to the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact
and the Boundary Change Between Georgia and South Carolina.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 29, 1999. (H.J.
Res. 54 and H.J. Res. 62).
51. Patent Reform and the Patent and Trademark Office
Reauthorization for Fiscal Year 2000. Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property. March 25, 1999.
52. Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims. February 10, 2000.
53. Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act and Anti-Atrocity Alien
Deportation Act. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. February 17,
2000. (H.R. 2883 and H.R. 3058).
54. Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. Subcommittee on
Courts and Intellectual Property. March 18, 1999. (H.R. 354).
55. Electronic Communication Privacy Policy Disclosure.
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May 27, 1999.
56. Violence Against Women Act of 1999, Stalking Prevention and
Victim Protection Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Crime. September 29,
1999. (H.R. 1248 and H.R. 1869).
57. Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 and Workplace
Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999. Committee on the
Judiciary. July 21, 1999. (H.R. 1875 and H.R. 2005).
58. Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999.
Subcommittee on Crime. March 30, 2000. (H.R. 3380).
59. Novel Procedures in FCC License Transfer Proceedings.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 25, 1999.
60. Counterfeiting and Misuse of the Social Security Card and State
and Local Identity Documents. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
July 22, 1999.
61. Patent Fairness Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property. July 1, 1999. (H.R. 1598).
62. ``Know Your Customer'' Rules: Privacy in the Hands of Federal
Regulators. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. March 4,
1999.
63. Immigration and Naturalization Service's Interior Enforcement
Strategy. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. July 1, 1999.
64. Congressional Limitation of Executive Orders. Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law. October 28, 1999. (H.R. 3131, H.
Con. Res. 30, and H.R. 2655).
65. Drug Enforcement Administration. Subcommittee on Crime. July
29, 1999.
66. Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 4, 2000. (H.R.
3489).
67. Competitive Issues in Agriculture and the Food Marketing
Industry. Committee on the Judiciary. October 20, 1999.
68. Final Report of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for
the Federal Courts of Appeals. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual
Property. July 22, 1999.
69. Competitive Issues in Electricity Deregulation. Committee on
the Judiciary. July 28, 1999.
70. Private Property Rights and Telecommunications Policy.
Subcommittee on the Constitution. March 21, 2000.
71. Designations of Temporary Protected Status and Fraud in Prior
Amnesty Programs. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 4,
1999.
72. Criminal Fines and Restitution: Are Federal Offenders
Compensating Victims? Subcommittee on Crime. May 6, 1999.
73. Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999. Subcommittee on the
Constitution. May 12, 1999. (H.R. 1691).
74. Hate Crimes Violence. Committee on the Judiciary. August 4,
1999.
75. Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999. Committee on the
Judiciary. July 1, 1999. (H.R. 1283).
76. Immigration Reorganization and Improvement Act of 1999.
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. July 29, 1999. (H.R. 2528).
77. Consent of Congress to the Red River Boundary Compact.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. October 26, 1999.
(H.J. Res. 72).
78. Threat to Rural Communities from Methamphetamine Production,
Trafficking, and Use. Subcommittee on Crime. February 25, 2000
(Springdale, Arkansas).
79. Intellectual Property Security Registration and the Report of
the U.S. Copyright Office on Copyright and Digital Distance Education.
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 24, 1999.
80. Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice
Regarding Charter Schools. Subcommittee on the Constitution. October
14, 1999.
81. Regulatory Fair Warning Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law. June 29, 1999. (H.R. 881).
82. Special Counsel Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law. September 15, 1999. (H.R. 2083).
83. Putting Consequences Back into Juvenile Justice at the Federal,
State, and Local Levels. Subcommittee on Crime. March 10, 11, 1999.
84. Pending Firearms Legislation and the Administration's
Enforcement of Current Gun Laws. Subcommittee on Crime. May 27, 1999.
85. Terrorist Threats to the United States. Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims. January 26, 2000.
86. Reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Statute. (Parts 1
and 2). Subcommittee on Commercial and administrative Law. March 2, 10,
June 11 September 23, 1999.
87. Privacy and Electronic Communications. Subcommittee on Courts
and Intellectural Property. May 18, 2000.
88. Limits on Regulatory Powers Under the Bankruptcy Code.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. April 11, 2000.
89. Volunteer Organization Safety Act of 1999. Subcommittee on
Crime. May 18, 2000. (H.R. 3410).
90. Bankruptcy Judgeship Needs. Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly with
the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. November 2, 1999.
91. Item Veto Constitutional Amendment. Subcommittee on the
Constitution March 23, 2000. (H.J. Res. 9).
92. Franchising Relationship, Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law. June 24, 1999.
93 Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection Act and Rescinding
Consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 17, 1999. (H.R.
1604 and H.R. 744).
94. Fairness and Voluntary Arbitration Act. Subcommitee on
Commercial and Administrative Law. June 8, 2000. (H.R. 744).
95. Breaches of Security at Federal Agencies and Airports.
Subcommittee on Crime. May 25, 2000.
96. Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to
Private Internet Sites. Subcommittee on the Constitution. February 9,
2000.
97. Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 1999. (H.R. 2121). Part 1--
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims--February 10, 2000. Part 2--
Committee on the Judiciary--May 23, 2000.
98. Religious Worker Visa Program. Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims. June 29, 2000.
99. State Soveign Immunity and Protection of Intellectual Property.
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. July 27, 2000.
100. Captive Elephant Accident Prevention Act of 1999. Subcommittee
on Crime. June 13, 2000. (H.R. 2929).
101. Threat Posed by the Illegal Importation, Trafficking, and Use
of Ecstasy and Other `'Club'' Drugs. Subcommittee on Crime. June 15,
2000.
102. Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999. Subcommittee on
Crime. March 9, 2000. (H.R. 3125).
103. Transportation Employee Fair Taxation Act of 1999 and Consent
of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Culture District
Compact. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 18,
2000. (H.R. 1293 and H.R. 4700).
104. Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: The Bureau of Competition of
the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice. Committee on the Judiciary. April 12, 2000.
105. United States Marshals Service. Subcommittee on Crime. July
13, 2000.
106. Internet and Federal Courts: Issues and Obstacles.
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 29, 2000.
107. Bounty Hunter Responsibility Act of 1999. Subcommittee on
Crime. March 30, 2000. (H.R. 2964).
108. Constitutional Amendment to Allow Foreign-Born Citizens to be
President. Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 24, 2000 (H.J.Res.
88).
109. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Subcommittee on
Courts and Intellectual Property. March 9, 2000.
110. Money Laundering Crisis. Subcommittee on Crime. February 10,
2000.
111. Federal Property Campaign Fundraising Reform Act of 2000.
Committee on the Judiciary. July 20, 2000. (H.R. 4845).
112. Student Athlete Protection Act. Committee on the Judiciary.
June 13, 2000. (H.R. 3575).
113. Status of Regulations Implementing the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998. Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims. May 25, 2000.
114. Constitutional Rights and the Grand Jury. Subcommittee on the
Constitution. July 27, 2000.
115. Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 12, 2000.
116. Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 1999. Subcommittee
on Immigration and Claims. July 20, 2000. (H.R. 3083).
117. Antitrust Enforcement Improvement Act of 2000. Committee on
the Judiciary. September 12, 2000. (H.R. 4321).
118. Probation Officers' Protection Act of 2000 and Child Sex
Crimes Wiretapping Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Crime. July 13, 2000.
(H.R. 4423 and H.R. 3484).
119. Copyrighted Webcast Programming on the Internet. Subcommittee
on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 15, 2000.
120. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000. Subcommittee on the
Constitution. July 20, 2000. (H.R. 4292).
121. Gene Patents and Other Genomic Inventions. Subcommittee on
Courts and Intellectual Property. July 13, 2000.
122. Aimee's Law, Matthew's Law, Two Strikes and You're Out Child
Protection Act and Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens Act. Subcommittee
on Crime. May 11, 2000. (H.R. 894, H.R. 4045, H.R. 1989/H.R. 4047, and
H.R. 4147).
123. Jeremy and Julia's Law. Subcommittee on Crime. October 4,
2000. (H.R. 469).
124. Free Market Antitrust Immunity Reform (FAIR) Act of 1999.
Committee on the Judiciary. March 22, 2000. (H.R. 3138).
125. Justice Department Inspector General's Investigation of
Citizenship USA. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. September 7,
2000.
126. State of Competition in the Airline Industry. Committee on the
Judiciary. June 14, 23, 2000.
127. Solutions to Competitive Problems in the Oil Industry.
Committee on the Judiciary. March 29, April 7, June 28, 2000.
128. Investigation of Misconduct and Mismanagement at ICITAP, OPDAT
and Criminal Division's Office of Administration. Committee on the
Judiciary. September 21, 2000.
129. Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims. April 13, 2000. (H.R. 3485).
130. CT-43A Federal Employee Settlement Act and Federal Tort Claims
Arising Outside the United States. Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims. June 8, 2000 (H.R. 3295 and H.R. 1371).
131. Agricultural Opportunities Act. Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims. June 15, 2000. (H.R. 4548).
132. Compensation for Illnesses Realized by Department of Energy
Workers Due to Exposure to Hazardous Materials. Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims. September 21, 2000. (H.R. 675, H.R. 3418, H.R.
3478, H.R. 3495, H.R. 4263, and H.R. 4398).
133. Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability Act of 2000.
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. September 28, 2000. (H.R.
5285).
134. Rights of Crime Victims Constitutional Amendment. Subcommittee
on the Constitution. February 10, 2000 (H.J. Res. 64).
135. Fourth Amendment and the Internet. Subcommittee on the
Constitution. April 6, 2000.
136. ADA Notification Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution. May
18, 2000. (H.R. 3590).
137. Fourth Amendment Issues Raised by the FBI's ``Carnivore''
Program. Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 24, 2000.
138. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2000, Digital Privacy
Act of 2000 and Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act. Subcommittee on
the Constitution. September 6, 2000. (H.R. 5018, H.R. 4987, and H.R.
4908).
139. Internet Denial of Service Attacks and the Federal Response.
Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly
with the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary. February 29, 2000.
140. Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999, DNA Backlog
Elimination Act and Convicted Offender DNA Index System Support Act.
Subcommittee on Crime. March 23, 2000. (H.R. 2810, H.R. 3087, and H.R.
3375).
141. Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000.
Subcommittee on Crime. April 6, 2000. (H.R. 4051).
142. Innocence Protection Act of 2000. Subcommittee on Crime. June
20, 2000. (H.R. 4167).
143. Impact of Mentally Ill Offenders on the Criminal Justice
System. Subcommittee on Crime. September 21, 2000.
144. Preventing and Fighting Crime: What Works? Subcommittee on
Crime. October 2, 2000.
145. United States Copyright Office and Sound Recordings as Work
Made for Hire. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May
25, 2000.
146. Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act of 2000, Internet Tax
Simplification Act of 2000 and Fair and Equitable Interstate Tax
Compact Simplification Act of 2000. Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law. May 17, June 29, 2000. (H.R. 4267, H.R. 4460, and
H.R. 4462).
147. Fair Justice Act of 2000. Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law. July 27, 2000. (H.R. 4105).
148. Threat Posed by the Convergence of Organized Crime, Drug
Trafficking, and Terrorism. Subcommittee on Crime. December 13, 2000.
Committee Prints
Serial No. and Title
__________
1. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 1999.
2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 1999.
3. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 1999.
4. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 1999.
5. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 2000.
6. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 2000.
7. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 2000.
8. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 2000.
House Documents
H. Doc. No. and Title
__________
106-53. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure as adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2075. April
29, 1999. (Executive Communication No. 1786).
106-54. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Communications from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. April 29,
1999. (Executive Communication No. 1787).
106-55. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. April 29,
1999. (Executive Communication No. 1788).
106-114. Central American and Haitian Parity Act of 1999. Message
from the President of the United States transmitting the Central
American and Haitian Parity Act of 1999. August 6 (legislative day of
August 5), 1999. (Presidential Message No. 50).
106-123. Legislative Proposal--the Cyberspace Electronic Security
Act of 1999. Message from the President of the United States
transmitting a legislative proposal to protect the privacy, security
and safety of the people of the United States through support for the
widespread use of encryption, protection of the security of
cryptographic keys, and facilitation of access to the plain text of
data for legitimate law enforcement purposes. September 21, 1999.
(Presidential Message No. 53).
106-197. How Our Laws Are Made. January 31, 2000.
106-208. National Money Laundering Strategy for 2000. Message from
the President of the United States transmitting the National Money
Laundering Strategy for 2000. March 8, 2000. (Presidential Message No.
90).
106-214. The Constitution of the United States of America. January
31, 2000.
106-225. Amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence. Communication
from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States,
transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that have been
adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. May 2, 2000.
(Executive Communication No. 7333).
106-226. Amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy. Communication
from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States,
transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2075. May 2,
2000. (Executive Communication No. 7334).
106-227. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Communication from
the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting
amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure adopted by the
Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. May 2, 2000. (Executive
Communication No. 7335).
106-228. Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. May 2,
2000. (Executive Communication No. 7336).
106-250. The Report of the National Commission on Terroism.
Communication from the Commissioners, the National Commission on
Terrorism, transmitting a report entitled, ``Countering the Changing
Threat of International Terrorism'', pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
Referred jointly to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
International Relations. June 6, 2000. (Executive Communication No.
8031).
Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary
Legislation Enacted Into Law
----------
A variety of legislation within the Committee's
jurisdiction was enacted into law during the 106th Congress.
The public and private laws are listed below and are more fully
detailed in the subsequent sections of this report recounting
the activities of the Committee and its individual
subcommittees.
public laws
Public Law 106-5.--To extend for 6 additional months the
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States
Code is reenacted. (H.R. 808) (Approved March 30, 1999).
Public Law 106-37.--To establish certain procedures for
civil actions brought for damages relating to the failure of
any device or system to process or otherwise deal with the
transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other
purposes. ``Y2K Act''. (H.R. 775) (Approved July 20, 1999; not
applicable to first-time violations caused by a Y2K failure
occurring after December 31, 2000).
Public Law 106-42.--To authorize funds for the payment of
salaries and expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office, and
for other purposes. ``Patent Fee Integrity and Innovation
Protection Act of 1999''. (S. 1258) (Approved August 5, 1999;
effective date October 1, 1999).
Public Law 106-43.--To amend the Trademark Act of 1946
relating to dilution of famous marks, and for other purposes.
``Trademark Amendments Act of 1999''. (S. 1259) (Approved
August 5, 1999).
Public Law 106-44.--To make technical corrections in title
17, United States Code, and other laws. (S. 1260) (Approved
August 5, 1999).
Public Law 106-49.--To amend the Miller Act, relating to
payment protections for persons providing labor and materials
for Federal construction projects. ``Construction Industry
Payment Protection Act of 1999''. (H.R. 1219) (Approved August
17, 1999).
Public Law 106-54.--For the relief of Global Exploration
and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-
McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical
Corporation), and for other purposes. (Includes public
legislative language relating to explosive devices; and
additional private legislative language relating to settlement
of claims of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin). (S. 606)
(Approved August 17, 1999).
Public Law 106-65.--To authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''.
``Troops-to-Teachers Program Act of 1999''. ``Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''.
``Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999''. ``Department of
Energy Facilities Safeguards, Security, and Counterintelligence
Enhancement Act of 1999''. ``National Nuclear Security
Administration Act''. ``Panama Canal Commission Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000''. ``Maritime Administration
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''. (S. 1059) (Approved
October 5, 1999; effective dates vary).
Public Law 106-70.--To extend for 9 additional months the
period for which chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is
reenacted. (S. 1606) (Approved October 9, 1999).
Public Law 106-80.--To amend title 4, United States Code,
to add the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday to the list of days
on which the flag should especially be displayed. (S. 322)
(Approved October 25, 1999).
Public Law 106-90.--To grant the consent of Congress to the
boundary change between Georgia and South Carolina. (H.J. Res.
62) (Approved November 8, 1999).
Public Law 106-95.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act with respect to the requirements for the
admission of nonimmigrant nurses who will practice in health
professional shortage areas. ``Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged
Areas Act of 1999''. (H.R. 441) (Approved November 12, 1999).
Public Law 106-101.--Granting the consent of Congress to
the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact. (H.J. Res. 54)
(Approved November 12, 1999).
Public Law 106-102.--To enhance competition in the
financial services industry by providing a prudential framework
for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, insurance
companies, and other financial service providers, and for other
purposes. ``Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act''. ``Federal Home Loan Bank
System Modernization Act''. ``ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999''.
``Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999
(PRIME Act)''. (S. 900) (Approved November 12, 1999; effective
dates vary).
Public Law 106-104.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to extend for an additional 2 years the period
for admission of an alien as a nonimmigrant under section
101(a)(15)(S) of such Act, and to authorize appropriations for
the refugee assistance program under chapter 2 of title IV of
the Immigration and Nationality Act. (H.R. 3061) (Approved
November 13, 1999).
Public Law 106-110.--To amend part G of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow
railroad police officers to attend the Federal Bureau of
Investigation National Academy for law enforcement training.
(S. 1235) (Approved November 24, 1999).
Public Law 106-130.--To provide for the holding of court at
Natchez, Mississippi in the same manner as court is held at
Vicksburg, Mississippi, and for other purposes. (S. 1418)
(Approved December 6, 1999).
Public Law 106-139.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide that an adopted alien who is less
than 18 years of age may be considered a child under such Act
if adopted with or after a sibling who is a child under such
Act. (H.R. 2886) (Approved December 7, 1999).
Public Law 106-152.--To amend title 18, United States Code,
to punish the depiction of animal cruelty. (H.R. 1887)
(Approved December 9, 1999).
Public Law 106-160.--To amend statutory damages provisions
of title 17, United States Code. ``Digital Theft Deterrence and
Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999''. (H.R. 3456)
(Approved December 9, 1999; effective with respect to any
action brought on or after December 9, 1999, regardless of the
date on which the alleged activity that is the basis of the
action occurred).
Public Law 106-172.--To amend the Controlled Substances Act
to direct the emergency scheduling of gamma hydroxybutyric
acid, to provide for a national awareness campaign, and for
other purposes. ``Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape
Drug Prohibition Act of 2000''. (H.R. 2130) (Approved February
18, 2000; deadlines vary).
Public Law 106-177.--To reduce the incidence of child abuse
and neglect, and for other purposes. ``Child Abuse Prevention
and Enforcement Act''. ``Jennifer's Law''. (H.R. 764) (Approved
March 10, 2000).
Public Law 106-185.--To provide a more just and uniform
procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, and for other
purposes. ``Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000''. (H.R.
1658) (Approved April 25, 2000; effective date August 23,
2000).
Public Law 106-197.--To exempt certain reports from
automatic elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, and for other
purposes. (S. 1769) (Approved May 2, 2000).
Public Law 106-207.--To facilitate the naturalization of
aliens who served with special guerrilla units or irregular
forces in Laos. ``Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000''.
(H.R. 371) (Approved May 26, 2000).
Public Law 106-215.--To amend section 110 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
and for other purposes. (H.R. 4489) (Approved June 15, 2000).
Public Law 106-229.--To facilitate the use of electronic
records and signatures in interstate or foreign commerce.
``Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act''.
(S. 761) (Approved June 30, 2000; effective dates vary).
Public Law 106-245.--To amend the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act, and for other purposes. ``Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act Amendments of 2000''. (S. 1515) (Approved July
10, 2000).
Public Law 106-252.--To amend title 4 of the United States
Code to establish sourcing requirements for State and local
taxation of mobile telecommunication services. ``Mobile
Telecommunications Sourcing Act''.(H.R. 4391) (Approved July
28, 2000; effective dates vary).
Public Law 106-254.--To amend title 18, United States Code,
to provide penalties for harming animals used in Federal law
enforcement. ``Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act of
2000''. (H.R. 1791) (Approved August 2, 2000).
Public Law 106-274.--To protect religious liberty, and for
other purposes. ``Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000''. (S. 2869) (Approved September 22, 2000).
Public Law 106-276.--To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the retroactive eligibility
dates for financial assistance for higher education for spouses
and dependent children of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officers who are killed in the line of duty. (S.
1638) (Approved October 2, 2000; effective date October 1,
1999).
Public Law 106-279.--To provide for implementation by the
United States of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children
and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and for
other purposes. ``Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000''. (H.R.
2909) (approved October 6, 2000; effective dates vary).
Public Law 106-287.--To grant the consent of the Congress
to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Culture District
Compact. (H.R. 4700) (Approved October 10, 2000).
Public Law 106-288.--Granting the consent of the Congress
to the Red River Boundary Compact. (H.J. Res. 72) (Approved
October 10, 2000; effective date August 31, 2000).
Public Law 106-294.--To amend title 18, United States Code,
to combat the overutilization of prison health care services
and control rising prisoner health care costs. ``Federal
Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act of 2000''. (S. 704)
(Approved October 12, 2000).
Public Law 106-297.--To amend the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to ensure that certain information
regarding prisoners is reported to the Attorney General.
``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000''. (H.R. 1800)
(Approved October 13, 2000).
Public Law 106-311.--To increase the amount of fees charged
to employers who are petitioners for the employment of H-1B
non-immigrant workers, and for other purposes. (H.R. 5362)
(Approved October 17, 2000; effective with respect to petitions
that are filed on or after December 17, 2000).
Public Law 106-313.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens.
``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of
2000''. (S. 2045) (Approved October 17, 2000).
Public Law 106-314.--To improve the administrative
efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation's abuse and neglect
courts and for other purposes consistent with the Adoption and
Safe Families Act of 1997. ``Strengthening Abuse and Neglect
Courts Act of 2000''. (S. 2272) (Approved October 17, 2000).
Public Law 106-367.--To improve academic and social
outcomes for youth and reduce both juvenile crime and the risk
that youth will become victims of crime by providing productive
activities conducted by law enforcement personnel during non-
school hours. ``National Police Athletic League Youth
Enrichment Act of 2000''. (H.R. 3235) (Approved October 27,
2000).
Public Law 106-378.--To provide for the adjustment of
status of certain Syrian nationals. (H.R. 4681) (Approved
October 27, 2000).
Public Law 106-379.--To make certain corrections in
copyright law. ``Work Made For Hire and Copyright Corrections
Act of 2000''. (H.R. 5107) (Approved October 27, 2000).
Public Law 106-386.--To combat trafficking in persons,
especially into the sex trade, slavery, and involuntary
servitude, to reauthorize certain Federal programs to prevent
violence against women, and for other purposes. ``Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000''. (H.R. 3244)
(Approved October 28, 2000).
Public Law 106-395.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to modify the provisions governing acquisition
of citizenship by children born outside the United States, and
for other purposes. ``Child Citizenship Act of 2000''. (H.R.
2883) (Approved October 30, 2000).
Public Law 106-396.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to make improvements to, and permanently
authorize, the visa waiver pilot program under section 217 of
such Act. ``Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act''. (H.R. 3767)
(Approved October 30, 2000).
Public Law 106-398.--To authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
``Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001''. `Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001''. Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000''. (H.R. 4205) (Approved
October 30, 2000).
Public Law 106-404.--To improve the ability of Federal
agencies to license federally owned inventions. ``Technology
Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000''. (H.R. 209) (Approved
November 1, 2000).
Public Law 106-406.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to authorize a 3-year pilot program under which
the Attorney General may extend the period for voluntary
departure in the case of certain nonimmigrant aliens who
require medical treatment in the United States and were
admitted under the visa waiver pilot program, and for other
purposes. ``International Patient Act of 2000''. (H.R. 2961)
(Approved November 1, 2000).
Public Law 106-409.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to extend for an additional 3 years the special
immigrant religious worker program. ``Religious Workers Act of
2000''. (H.R. 4068) (Approved November 1, 2000).
Public Law 106-415.--To amend the Hmong Veterans'
Naturalization Act of 2000 to extend the applicability of that
Act to certain former spouses of deceased Hmong veterans. (H.R.
5234) (Approved November 1, 2000).
Public Law 106-420.--To enhance protections against fraud
in the offering of financial assistance for college education,
and for other purposes. ``College Scholarship Fraud Prevention
Act of 2000''. (S. 1455) (Approved November 1, 2000).
Public Law 106-448.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the oath of renunciation
and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having certain
disabilities. (S. 2812) (Approved November 6, 2000).
Public Law 106-451.--To provide for the preparation of a
Government report detailing injustices suffered by Italian
Americans during World War II, and a formal acknowledgment of
such injustices by the President. ``Wartime Violation of
Italian American Civil Liberties Act''. (H.R. 2442) (Approved
November 7, 2000).
Public Law 106-468.--To authorize the Attorney General to
provide grants for organizations to find missing adults.
``Kristen's Act''. (H.R. 2780) (Approved November 9, 2000).
Public Law 106-474.--To establish the National Recording
Registry in the Library of Congress to maintain and preserve
sound recordings that are culturally, historically, or
aesthetically significant, and for other purposes. ``National
Recording Preservation Act of 2000''. (H.R. 4846) (Approved
November 9, 2000).
Public Law 106-483.--Recognizing that the Birmingham Pledge
has made a significant contribution in fostering racial harmony
and reconciliation in the United States and around the world,
and for other purposes. (H.J. Res. 102) (Approved November 9,
2000).
Public Law 106-484.--To provide for the granting of refugee
status in the United States to nationals of certain foreign
countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or American
Korean War POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist
in the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs alive.
``Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000''. (S. 484) (Approved
November 9, 2000).
Public Law 106-489.--To amend title 46, United States Code,
to provide equitable treatment with respect to State and local
income taxes for certain individuals who perform duties on
vessels. (S. 893) (Approved November 9, 2000).
Public Law 106-515.--To provide grants to establish
demonstration mental health courts. ``America's Law Enforcement
and Mental Health Project''. (S. 1865) (Approved November 13,
2000).
Public Law 106-517.--To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify the procedures and
conditions for the award of matching grants for the purchase of
armor vests. ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of
2000''. (S. 2413) (Approved November 13, 2000).
Public Law 106-518.--To make improvements in the operation
and administration of the Federal courts,and for other
purposes. ``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000''. (S. 2915)
(Approved November 13, 2000).
Public Law 106-523.--To establish court-martial
jurisdiction over civilians serving with the Armed Forces
during contingency operations, and to establish Federal
jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the United States by
former members of the Armed Forces and civilians accompanying
the Armed Forces outside the United States. ``Military
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000''. (S. 768) (Approved
November 22, 2000).
Public Law 106-534.--To protect seniors from fraud.
``Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act''. (S. 3164) (Approved
November 22, 2000.
Public Law 106-536.--To amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act provide special immigrant status to certain
United States international broadcasting employees. (S. 3239)
(Approved November 22, 2000).
Public Law 106-544.--To amend section 879, United States
Code, to provide clearer coverage over threats against former
Presidents and members of their families, and for other
purposes. ``Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000''. (H.R.
3048) (Approved December 19, 2000).
Public Law 106-546.--To make grants to States for carrying
out DNA analyses for use in the Combined DNA Index System of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to provide for the
collection and analysis of DNA samples from certain violent and
sexual offenders for use in such system, and for other
purposes. ``DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000''.
(H.R. 4640) (Approved December 19, 2000).
Public Law 106-547.--To amend title 18, United States Code,
to prevent the entry by false pretenses to any real property,
vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any
airport, to prevent the misuse of genuine and counterfeit
police badges by those seeking to commit a crime, and for other
purposes. ``Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000''. (H.R.
4827) (Approved December 19, 2000).
Public Law 106-559.--To provide technical and legal
assistance for tribal justice systems and members of Indian
tribes, and for other purposes. ``Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000''. (S. 1508)
(Approved December 21, 2000).
Public Law 106-560.--To provide protection against the
risks to the public that are inherent in the interstate
transportation of violent prisoners. ``Interstate
Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of 2000''. ``Jeanna's
Act''. (S. 1898) (Approved December 21, 2000).
Public Law 106-561.--To improve the quality, timeliness,
and credibility of forensic science services for criminal
justice programs. ``Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Act of 2000''. (S. 3045) (Approved December 21,
2000).
Public Law 106-572.--To establish a grant program to assist
State and local law enforcement in deterring, investigating,
and prosecuting computer crime. ``Computer Crime Enforcement
Act''. (H.R. 2816) (Approved December 28, 2000).
Public Law 106-578.--To strengthen the enforcement of
Federal statues relating to false identification and for other
purposes. ``Internet False Identification Prevention Act of
2000''. (S. 2924) (Approved December 28, 2000).
Private Laws
Private Law 106-3.--For the relief of Suchada Kwong. (H.R.
322) (Approved December 3, 1999).
Private Law 106-4.--For the relief of Belinda McGregor. (S.
452) (Approved May 15, 2000.
Private Law 106-6.--For the relief of Akal Security,
Incorporated. (H.R. 3363) (Approved October 10, 2000).
Private Law 106-7.--For the relief of Kerantha Poole-
Christian. (S. 302) (Approved October 13, 2000).
Private Law 106-8.--For the relief of certain Persian Gulf
evacuees. (H.R. 3646) (Approved November 7, 2000).
Private Law 106-9.--For the relief of Ruth Hairston by
waiver of a deadline for appeal from a ruling relating to her
application for a survivor annuity. (H.R. 660) (Approved
November 9, 2000).
Private Law 106-10.--For the relief of Sepandan Farnia and
Farbod Farnia. (H.R. 848) (Approved November 9, 2000).
Private Law 106-11.--For the relief of Zohreh Farhang
Ghahfarokhi. (H.R. 3184 (Approved November 9, 2000).
Private Law 106-12.--For the relief of Luis A. Leon-Molina,
Ligia Padron, Juan Leon Padron, Rendy Leon Padron, Manual Leon
Padron, and Luis Leon Padron. (H.R. 3414) (Approved November 9,
2000).
Private Law 106-13.--For the relief of Saeed Rezai. (H.R.
5266) (Approved November 9, 2000).
Private Law 106-14.--For the relief of Wei Jingsheng. (S.
11) (Approved November 22, 2000).
Private Law 106-15.--For the relief of Marina Khalina and
her son, Albert Mifakhov. (S. 150) (Approved November 22,
2000).
Private Law 106-16.--For the relief of Sergio Lozano,
Faurico Lozano and Ana Lozano. (S. 276) (Approved November 22,
2000).
Private Law 106-17.--For the relief of Frances
Schochenmaier. (S. 785) (Approved November 22, 2000).
Private Law 106-18.--For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash.
(S. 869) (Approved November 22, 2000).
Private Law 106-19.--For the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth Eka
Bassey and her children, Emmanuel O. Paul Bassey, Jacob Paul
Bassey, and Mary Idongesit Paul Berry. (S. 1078) (Approved
November 22, 2000).
Private Law 106-20.--For the relief of Jacqueline Salinas
and her children Gabriela Salinas, Alejandro Salinas, and Omar
Salinas. (S. 1513) (Approved November 22, 2000).
Private Law 106-21.--For the relief of Guy Taylor. (S.
2000) (Approved November 22, 2000).
Private Law 106-22.--For the relief of Tony Lara. (S. 2002)
(Approved November 22, 2000).
Private Law 106-23.--For the relief of Malia Miller. (S.
2019) (Approved November 22, 2000).
Private Law 106-24.--For the relief of Jose Guadalupe
Tellez Pinales. (S. 2289) (Approved November 22, 2000).
Conference Appointments
Members of the Committee were named by the Speaker as
conferees on the following bills which contained legislative
language within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction:
H.R. 2415
Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 2415,
the ``American Embassy Security Act of 1999.'' The conference
committee substituted the language of S. 3186, the ``Bankruptcy
Reform Act of 2000'' as introduced in the House. H.R. 2415 was
pocket vetoed by the President on December 19, 2000.
H.R. 4205
Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 4205,
the ``Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001.'' H.R. 4205 became law on October 30, 2000,
as Public Law 106-398.
S. 900
Members of the Committee served as conferees on S. 900, the
``Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.'' S. 900 became
law on November 12, 1999, as Public Law 106-102.
S. 1059
Members of the Committee served as conferees on S. 1059,
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000.'' S. 1059 became law on October 5, 1999, as Public Law
106-65.
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois,
Chairman\1\
JOHN CONYERS, Jr, Michigan F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts Wisconsin
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
JERROLD NADLER, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MAXINE WATERS, California STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \3\
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts ED BRYANT, Tennessee \5\
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida BOB BARR, Georgia
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama \2\
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \4\
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana \6\
----------
\1\ Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman
pursuant to House Resolution 6, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
Republician Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House
Resolution 6, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
Democratic Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House
Resolution 7, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
\2\ Spencer Bachus, Alabama, elected to the Committee pursuant to House
Resolution 30, approved by the House February 2, 1999.
\3\ Stephen E. Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee March 4,
1999.
\4\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, elected to the Committee pursuant to
House Resolution 108, approved by the House March 11, 1999.
\5\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee June 25, 1999.
\6\ David Vitter, Louisiana, elected to the Committee pursuant to House
Resolution 223, approved by the House June 25, 1999.
Tabulation of activity on legislation held at the full Committee
Legislation held at the full Committee............................ 104
Legislation reported to the House................................. 12
Legislation discharged from the Committee......................... 12
Legislation pending in the House.................................. 5
Legislation failed passage by the House........................... 1
Legislation passed by the House................................... 19
Legislation pending in the Senate................................. 7
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another measure.... 1
Legislation enacted into public law............................... 3
House resolutions approved........................................ 4
Legislation on which hearings were held........................... 17
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)...................... 26
Full Committee Activities
During the 106th Congress, the full Judiciary Committee
retained original jurisdiction with respect to a number of
legislative and oversight matters. This included exclusive
jurisdiction over antitrust and liability issues. In addition,
a number of specific legislative issues were handled
exclusively by the full Committee, including civil asset
forfeiture reform, a ban on partial birth abortion, and the
Student Athlete Protection Act.
Legislative Activities
Antitrust
H.R. 1304, the ``Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 1999''
Summary.--In recent years, health insurers and health
maintenance organizations (HMOs) have increasingly asserted
control over health care decisions that doctors and patients
once made. The insurers and HMOs contend that these kinds of
controls are necessary to keep prices low and to keep health
insurance coverage affordable. Doctors contend that these kinds
of controls invade the traditional doctor-patient relationship
and that keep prices so low that doctors cannot practice
economically. Doctors further contend that in negotiating
contracts that establish these controls the insurers have much
greater bargaining power than do individual doctors.
H.R. 1304 arises from this last point. Proponents argue
that doctors will be able to get a fair deal in these
negotiations only if the law allows them to band together to
negotiate with insurers and HMOs. They argue that doctors
cannot engage in these kinds of joint negotiations without an
antitrust exemption. They also believe that patients will be
better served because the doctors will use their greater
bargaining power to seek contracts that allow the insurers less
control over patient care.
Critics argue that the bill would harm consumers because it
would allow doctors to fix prices and engage in group boycotts
thereby driving up the cost of insurance. To the extent that
health insurance premiums do rise, critics argue that this
would cause a corresponding drop in federal tax revenue because
of the deductibility of such premiums. The bill places no
limits on the percentage of providers in a market that could
band together. Thus, doctors, particularly in smaller markets,
could exercise high degrees of market power. They also contend
that under current guidelines issued by the Federal Trade
Commission and the Department of Justice, doctors are free to
band together in group practices and negotiate directly with
employers if they do not like the deals they get with insurers.
Ultimately, they argue that the bill will end the ability of
competitive forces to control health care costs and to improve
efficiency.
Legislative History.--Representative Campbell introduced
H.R. 1304 on March 25, 1999, and it was referred to the
Committee. On June 22, 1999, the Committee held a hearing at
which the following witnesses appeared: Honorable Tom Campbell,
United States Representative, 15th District of California;
Honorable John Cooksey, United States Representative, 5th
District of Louisiana; Honorable Robert Pitofsky, Chairman,
Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.; Honorable Joel
Klein, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Edgar Anderson,
M.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer,
American Medical Association, Chicago Illinois Gary Dennis,
M.D., President, National Medical Association, Washington,
D.C.; Robert Weinmann, M.D., President, Union of American
Physicians and Dentists, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Oakland California;
Ms. Holly Henry, Legislative Chairperson, National Community
Pharmacists Association, Seattle, Washington; Don Young, M.D,
Chief Operating Officer and Medical Director, Health Insurance
Association of America, Washington D.C.; Mr. Bill Jones,
President, Materials Transportation Company, Temple, Texas on
behalf of the Antitrust Coalition and the Texas Association of
Business and Chambers of Commerce; Jan Stewart, C.R.N.A.,
A.R.N.P, President-Elect, Association of Nurse Anesthetists,
Seattle, Washington; and Mr. Stuart Bascomb, Executive Vice
President, Express Scripts, Inc., Maryland Heights, Missouri.
On March 16 and 30, 2000, the Committee conducted markup
sessions on H.R. 1304. On March 30, 2000, the Committee ordered
H.R. 1304 reported by a vote of 26-2. The Committee filed its
report, H. Rept. 106-625, on May 18, 2000. On June 29 and 30,
2000, the House considered H.R. 1304. On June 30, 2000, the
House passed H.R. 1304 by a vote of 276-136.
H.R. 1686, the ``Internet Freedom Act,'' and H.R. 1685, the ``Internet
Growth and Development Act of 1999''
Summary.--Before 1984, America had one dominant telephone
company--the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (``AT&T'').
AT&T provided almost all local and long distance service
throughout the United States, except that in some isolated
areas independent phone companies provided local service.
During the AT&T era, local service rates were kept artificially
low, and the substantial differences in costs of providing
local service in urban and rural areas were not reflected in
local service rates. AT&T kept long distance rates, which were
paid primarily by business, artificially high in order to
subsidize low local rates. The policy, known as universal
service, was that all Americans should have access to a
telephone at an affordable rate regardless of the cost of
providing the service. Because AT&T was one company, it was
relatively easy to administer this system of subsidies.
In 1974, the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice sued AT&T for violating the antitrust laws in a number
of ways--most importantly, not letting potential long distance
competitors hook up to its local networks. In 1982, the parties
settled the lawsuit, and Judge Harold Greene of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a
consent decree known as the Modification of Final Judgment or
MFJ. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company,
552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983).
Beginning in 1984, the MFJ broke up AT&T into a new smaller
AT&T, which was to provide long distance service in competition
with other companies, and seven regional Bell operating
companies (``RBOCs'')--Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth,
Nynex, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell (now known as SBC
Communications), and US West. There was also one preexisting
independent phone company, GTE Corporation, which was of a
comparable size. These seven regional RBOCs were to provide
local service where AT&T had previously been doing so.
At the time, the general consensus was that long distance
service could be provided competitively, but that local service
remained a natural monopoly. Based on that assumption, the MFJ
prohibited the RBOCs from entering long distance service and
other lines of business without prior court approval. The
court's procedures under the MFJ required companies seeking
that approval to negotiate with the Department of Justice
before filing for the approval. As a practical matter, DOJ
approval was required to get court approval.
In addition, policymakers wanted to maintain the universal
service system. To do so, they required the long distance
companies to pay ``access charges'' to the local companies for
completing long distance calls. The local companies used these
access charges to maintain low local rates in all geographical
areas.
This system lasted from 1984 through 1996, when Congress
passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the ``1996 Act''),
Pub. L. No. 104-104. The Act set up a new statutory framework
governing the industry and ended the MFJ. Under the Act, the
RBOCs were to be allowed into long distance service within
their region. However, they first had to open up their local
networks to allow competitors to provide local service. The Act
also required the FCC to set up a new process to deal with
universal service issues.
Local competition is progressing, albeit slowly. To date,
only two RBOCs have gotten into long distance service--one in
New York and one in Texas. RBOCs may provide long distance
service outside their region, and some have done so. RBOCs may
compete for local service outside their regions, and some have
done so on a limited basis. Some RBOCs have also made efforts
to get into other businesses like cable television.
Cable television first began to appear in this country in
the late 1940s. In the early days, state and local governments
made some attempts to regulate cable through a patchwork of
laws, but there was no national policy. In 1984, Congress
responded to numerous complaints that rates were too high and
that local governments were making unreasonable demands on
cable companies by passing the Cable Communications Policy Act
(the ``1984 Act''), Pub. L. No. 98-549. On its face, the 1984
Act allowed local governments to regulate rates if their local
operator did not face effective competition. However, the FCC
defined effective competition so broadly that the Act
essentially deregulated most cable rates. The 1984 Act did
little to encourage new entrants to build competing systems. In
fact, it codified FCC rules prohibiting broadcasters and
telephone companies from operating cable systems.
Eight years of experience with the 1984 Act led to mounting
complaints. In 1992, Congress passed the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the ``1992
Act''), Pub. L. No. 102-385. At that time, the types of cable
competition we see today were just beginning to emerge. Because
of the relative lack of competition existing then, the 1992 Act
reregulated cable rates. Local goverments were allowed to
regulate rates for the basic tier and for cable equipment. The
FCC would regulate rates for the expanded basic tier (what most
subscribers choose). Rates for premium channels like HBO and
Cinemax were left unregulated. In addition, the FCC would
regulate the rates for the basic tier and equipment if a local
government chose not to do so. Rate regulation was to end if
there was effective competition, which under the statute had a
new, much narrower definition. The effect of the new definition
was that almost all cable systems faced rate regulation.
The story of rate regulation by the FCC and the local
governments under the 1992 Act is far too long and complicated
to go into here. Suffice it to say that none of the parties to
this experience has found it entirely satisfactory. The 1996
Act made some changes to the process of rate regulation under
the 1992 Act, but it was not a major overhaul. The far more
important substantive change was that it ended rate regulation
of the expanded basic tier as of March 31, 1999. Since most
cable subscribers have the expanded basic tier, as a practical
matter, this means that cable rates are now largely
unregulated. This action reflects that underlying philosophy of
the 1996 Act that the market was moving towards real
competition. Another important part of the 1996 Act was to
remove the prohibition on telephone companies getting into
cable although few have done so.
President Clinton signed the 1996 Act on February 8, 1996.
At the time, the Internet was in its infancy, and it was barely
mentioned in the 1996 Act. Most observers thought that the
RBOCs would remain separate companies, that they would begin
competing in long distance quickly, and that they might enter
the cable business. By the same token, most observers thought
that the long distance companies would remain separate
companies, that they would begin competing in local service
quickly, and that they probably would not enter the cable
business. As for the cable companies, most observers thought
that they would remain separate companies, that they might
enter the telephone business, and that they would face
substantial competition in the cable business from satellite
companies and telephone companies. Hardly anyone thought of the
Internet or other data traffic as an important part of the
picture.
In the nearly five years since the 1996 Act was signed, the
Internet has changed everything. At that time, it was a
technological marvel that was just becoming available to
ordinary people and was hardly used for commerce. Since then,
it has become almost a necessity for ordinary people and a
means for conducting a substantial and ever growing amount of
commerce.
In 1996, data traffic was not a substantial portion of the
long distance business. Estimates vary as to what the
percentage was, but it was probably less than 10%. Today, it is
probably more than 50%. The demand keeps exploding. As a
result, being a carrier of voice (i.e. traditional telephone
calls) has become relatively less important and being a carrier
of data has become relatively more important.
As anyone who has used the Internet knows, it can be
frustratingly slow depending on what technology one is using.
The details of that technology are too complicated to get into
in much detail here. The most important thing to know is that
cable technology (known as broadband) is much faster than
telephone technology and it has more capacity. Telephone
companies are upgrading their networks in many areas, but even
this upgraded technology (known as Digital Subscriber Line or
DSL) has limitations and is not as fast as cable technology. At
the same time that both of these technologies are getting
better and faster, they are also becoming capable of carrying
voice (i.e. telephone calls), video (i.e. programming), anddata
(i.e. Internet content) through the same pipe.
Most telecommunications companies, irrespective of whether
they started as RBOCs, long distance companies, cable
companies, or something else, now think that their future lies
in being capable of providing a package of all of these
services on a global basis. Because getting into a new part of
this business from scratch requires massive investment, many
companies have decided to buy another company rather than build
from scratch. That has led to a wave of mergers.
First, the RBOCs began to merge with each other. Bell
Atlantic bought Nynex and GTE. SBC Communications bought
Pacific Telesis and Ameritech. Then, new competitors began to
buy existing companies. WorldCom, a relatively new local
competitor, bought MCI, one of the major long distance
companies. Qwest, a relatively new long distance competitor,
bought USWest, and RBOC.
Finally, AT&T, the biggest of the old line long distance
companies, has bought TCI and MediaOne. TCI and MediaOne are
two of the largest cable companies in the nation. These mergers
will give AT&T ownership of many cable lines going into
American homes. At the same time, Microsoft has purchased a
stake in AT&T as part of an effort to accelerate the deployment
of broadband services across the country.
The debate on this issue revolves around two separate, but
closely related issues: (1) whether those who do not own cable
broadband lines will be able to access them on the same terms
as those who do; and (2) whether the RBOCs will be able to
transport data over long distance lines within their regions.
Proponents of H.R. 1686 and H.R. 1685 argue that cable
broadband lines are, as a practical matter, an essential
facility. (An essential facility is an antitrust term of art
meaning a necessary means of doing business that cannot be
practically reproduced by competitors.) Internet service
providers (e.g. Erol's) and online service providers (e.g.
Earthlink) cannot possibly reproduce the existing cable
systems. Therefore, they argue that they should be granted
access to those lines on the same terms that the owner of the
lines grants to its own competing services. They maintain that
this is the only way to preserve competition in the ISP and OSP
markets. They raise the fear that a company like AT&T may
eventually not only control the lines, but the content as well
by striking preferential deals with content providers for space
on their own OSP service.
Critics of the bills argue that government regulation of
the cable broadband lines is not necessary. AT&T argues that
its lines are open to all and that users can access any content
provider through AT&T's @home service. They contend that those
who have invested in the cable broadband lines should reap the
benefits of their investments and that the bills would stifle
the investment necessary to make these services available. They
also argue that there are any number of alternative routes to
reach the home including telephone, satellite, and wireless.
They argue that simply because cable technology is faster than
telephone it is not a separate market, but rather a gradation
of the same market in which consumers can pick the speed that
they need.
Proponents of the bills argued that allowing the RBOCs into
the long distance data market would increase competition in the
market and help it meet the ever growing demand for long
distance data capacity. They contend that the regulatory scheme
set up by the 1996 Act is overly burdensome and that it
discourages investment. They argue that it is slowing the
deployment of the telephone DSL technology throughout the rural
areas of the country. They believe that the Internet would grow
faster without the regulation.
Critics of the bills say that the 1996 Act is working
exactly as it was intended and that Congress should leave it
alone. They argue that the long distance prohibitions is the
only thing motivating the RBOCs to open their local markets to
competitions as the 1996 Act envisioned. They believe that
giving the RBOCs date relief would greatly undermine their
incentives to open their networks and thereby slow the growth
of local competition in telephone service. They believe that
such a charge would be disastrous for the new competitor local
telephone companies.
Because cable broadband technology has made cable such an
important part of the convergence issue, some local governments
have hit upon the idea of using their power over cable
franchises to impose regulations on cable companies providing
cable broadband services. In one recent case, a federal
district judge ruled that such regulations were legal and not
preempted by federal law. AT&T Corp v. City of Portland, 43
F.Supp.2d 1146 (D. Ore. 1999). In other cities, local
governments have rejected such regulations. See, e.g., Victory
for Los Angeles Cable Providers, The New York Times, June 19,
1999, at C-2.
As the Committee delved into this issue, a number of new
developments affected the debate. On December 6, 1999, AT&T
announced a voluntary statement of principles under which it
would allow Mindspring to provide content over its cable lines.
(Mindspring has subsequently merged with Earthlink.) However,
that agreement would not take effect until 2002 when an
exclusive contract with Excite@Home expires.
AT&T believes that this agreement is the first step towards
opening its cable lines to other content providers. It argues
that it is continuing to work out similar agreements with other
providers. Critics say that this agreement is an unenforceable
``agreement to agree.'' They further argue that there is no
need to delay because AT&T owns a majority stake in Excite@Home
and could abandon the exclusive contract at any time.
Originally, one of the principal proponents of open access
was America Online (``AOL''). At the time, AOL was a major
content provider, but is had no access to the means of
distributing that content. On January 10, 2000, AOL announced
that it would merge with Time Warner, a major cable company and
the owner of a great deal of content. This proposed merger is
currently under review by the Federal Trade Commission and the
Federal Communications Commission. To date, neither agency has
reached any conclusion.
If the merger is consummated, it will place the newly
merged company in much the same position as AT&T--i.e., a
company that owns cable lines that is also a content provider.
On February 29, 2000, the two companies announced that they had
signed a memorandum ofunderstanding setting forth principles
under which Time Warner's cable companies would allow open access to
their lines.
Like AT&T, these two companies believe that this memorandum
of understanding is a first step towards providing open access.
Critics argue that it is nonenforceable. They further argue
that the merger should not be allowed because the temptations
for the new company to discriminate in favor of its own content
will simply be too strong.
In addition, a number of local governments were trying to
address the open access issue by requiring open access as a
condition the local cable franchise agreement. The leading case
had been taking place in Portland, Oregon. On June 22, 2000,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decision holding that the Communications Act prohibited local
governments from placing these conditions on cable franchise
agreements. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871 (9th
Cir. 2000). Originally, Chairman Kennard of the Federal
Communications Commission had been publicly saying that he did
not see the need for the FCC to regulate in this area. However,
in response to the Ninth Circuit's decision, he announced that
the FCC would begin a formal proceeding on the issue.
As noted above, the consent decree that broke up the old
AT&T and created the regional Bell operating companies
prevented the Bells from entering long distance in their
regions without court approval. That court approval was never
obtained. The telecommunications Act of 1996 provided that the
Bells could get into long distance in their regions if they met
a series of stringent requirements about opening up their local
networks to competing local service providers. This process was
to occur state by state.
At the time, many thought that the Bells would meet these
requirements fairly easily and soon be into long distance. The
actual experience proved more difficult. Nonetheless, after
many fits and starts, two Bell companies have finally cleared
this hurdle. On December 22, 1999, the FCC approval Verizon's
(then known as Bell Atlantic) application to provide long
distance service in New York. On June 30, 2000, SBC
Communications won approval for its application to provide long
distance service in Texas. More applications are currently
pending.
On October 5, 1999, WorldCom and Sprint announced their
intent to merge. These two companies are the second and third
largest long distance phone companies, respectively. In
addition, the two companies combined control approximately 53%
of the Internet backbone traffic. (If you think of the Internet
as similar to the our national system of roads and highways,
the ``backbone'' of the Internet is analogous to the interstate
highways.)
This proposed merger raised significant concerns in several
markets, including long distance phone service and the Internet
backbone. Both the Justice Department and the European
Commission raised these concerns. On January 27, 2000, the
Justice Department brought suit to block the merger. On July
13, 2000, the companies announced that they had agreed to
terminate their merger agreement.
Legislative History.--Congressman Goodlatte introduced H.R.
1686 on May 5, 1999. Congressman Boucher introduced H.R. 1685
on May 5, 1999. Both bills were referred to the Committee. On
June 30, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1686 and
H.R. 1685 at which the following witnesses appeared: Honorable
William Barr, Executive Vice-President and General Counsel, GTE
Corporation, Washington, D.C.; Mr. George Vradenburg, Senior
Vice President, America Online, Dulles, Virginia; Mr. Ken
Wasch, President, Software and Information Industry
Association, Washington, D.C.; Honorable Erik Sten,
Commissioner of Public Works, City of Portland, Oregon; Mr.
Scott Cleland, Managing Director, Legg Mason Precursor Group,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Mark Rosenblum, Vice President for Law,
AT&T Corporation, Basking Ridge, New Jersey; Mr. Mike Salsbury,
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, MCI WorldCom,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Tim Boggs, Senior Vice President for
Public Policy, Time Warner, Inc., Washington, D.C.; Mr. John
Windhausen, President, Association for Local Telecommunications
Services, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Tod Jacobs, Senior
Telecommunications Analyst, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Inc.,
New York, New York; and Mr. Gene Kimmelman, Co-Director,
Washington Office, Consumers Union, Washington, D.C.
On July 18, 2000, the Committee held a second hearing on
H.R. 1686 and H.R. 1685 at which the following witnesses
appeared: Honorable Billy Tauzin, United States Representative,
3rd District of Louisiana; Honorable Anna Eshoo, United States
Representative, 14th District of California; Honorable William
Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C.; Honorable Tom Tauke, Senior Vice President
for Public Policy and External Affairs, Verizon Communications,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Mike McCurry, Co-Chair, iAdvance,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Randy Lowe, Executive Vice President and
Chief Legal Officer, Prism Communications Services, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.; Honorable Glenn Ivey, Chairman, Maryland
Public Service Commission, Baltimore, Maryland, on behalf of
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners;
Mr. Scott Cleland, Chief Executive Officer, the Precursor
Group, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Preston Padden, Executive Vice
President, The Walt Disney Company, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Dave
Baker, Vice President for Law and Public Policy, EarthLink,
Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of the openNET Coalition; Mr. Len
Cali, Vice President for Federal Government Affairs, AT&T,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Tom Wolzien, Senior Media Analyst,
Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., New York; Mr. Robert Sachs,
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cable
Television Association, Washington, D.C.
H.R. 1801, the ``Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 1999''
The ``Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 1999'' makes
four miscellaneous technical corrections to our antitrust laws.
Three of these corrections repeal outdated provisions of the
law and one clarifies a long existing ambiguity regarding the
application of the law to the District of Columbia and the
territories. The Committee informally consulted the antitrust
enforcement agencies, the Antitrust Division of the Department
of Justice and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade
Commission, and the agencies have indicated that they did not
object to any of these changes. In response to written
questions following the Committee's November 5, 1997 oversight
hearing on the antitrust enforcement agencies, the Department
of Justice recommended two of the repeals and the clarification
contained in this bill.
The Act of March 3, 1913 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 30) requires that
all depositions taken in antitrust cases brought by the
government be conducted in public. In the early days, the
courts conducted such cases by deposition without any formal
trial proceeding. Thus, Congress required that the depositions
be open as a trial would be. Under the modern practice of broad
discovery, depositions are generally taken in private and then
made public if they are used at trial. Under our system,
Sec. 30 causes three problems: (1) it sets up a special rule
for a narrow class of cases when the justification for that
rule has disappeared; (2) it makes it hard for a court to
protect proprietary information that may be at issue in an
antitrust case; and (3) it can create a circus atmosphere in
the deposition of a high profile figure. In an appeal in the
Microsoft case, the D.C. Circuit invited Congress to repeal
this law. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 165 F.3d 952, 958
(D.C. Cir. 1999). H.R. 1801 repeals this provision.
Section 11 of the Panama Canal Act provides that no vessel
owned by someone who is violating the antitrust laws may pass
through the Panama Canal. The Committee has not been able to
determine why this provision was added to the Act or whether it
has ever been used. However, with the return of the Canal to
Panamanian sovereignty at the end of 1999, it is appropriate to
repeal this outdated provision. The Committee consulted
informally with the House Committee on Armed Services, which
has jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Act, and they indicated
that they had no objection to this repeal. H.R. 1801 repeals
this provision.
Two of the primary provisions of antitrust law are Section
1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 prohibits
conspiracies in restraint of trade, and Section 2 prohibits
monopolization, attempts to monopolize, and conspiracies to
monopolize. Section 3 of the Sherman Act was intended to apply
these provisions to the District of Columbia and the various
territories of the United States. Unfortunately, however,
ambiguous drafting in Section 3 leaves it unclear whether
Section 2 applies to those areas. The Committee is aware of at
least one instance in which the Department of Justice declined
to bring an otherwise meritorious Section 2 claim in a Virgin
Islands case because of this ambiguity. H.R. 1801 clarifies
that both Section 1 and Section 2 apply to the District and the
Territories. All of the congressional representatives of the
District and the Territories are cosponsors of the bill.
In 1955, Congress modernized the jurisdictional and venue
provisions relating to antitrust suits by amending Section 4 of
the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15). 69 Stat. 282. At that
time, it repealed the redundant jurisdictional provision in
Section 7 of the Sherman Act, but not the one contained in
Section 77 of the Wilson Tariff Act. Id. It appears that this
was an oversight because Section 77 was never codified and has
rarely been used. Repealing Section 77 will not diminish any
substantive rights because Section 4 of the Clayton Act
provides any potential plaintiff with broader rights of
jurisdiction and venue than does Section 77. Rather, the repeal
of this provision in H.R. 1801 simply rids the law of a
confusing, redundant, and little used provision.
Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 1801 on
May 13, 1999, and it was referred to the Committee. On October
13, 1999, the Committee ordered H.R. reported by voice vote.
The Committee filed its report on October 25, 1999, H. Rept.
No. 106-411, Part 1. On November 2, 1999, the House suspended
the rules and passed H.R. 1801 by voice vote. The Senate
Judiciary Committee reported companion legislation S. 1764 on
October 28, 1999, but it was not brought up on the Senate
floor.
H.R. 2533, the ``Fairness in Telecommunications License Transfers Act
of 1999''
Summary.--H.R. 2533 addresses the FCC's review of license
transfers. As a starting point, it is helpful to state the
obvious. The governing statutes empower the FCC to review the
transfer of licenses or lines--not to review mergers as such.
The transfer of licenses or lines may be integral to a merger,
but they are not coextensive with it.
The FCC reviews the transfer of telephone lines under
Sec. 214(a) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 214(a).
That section provides that: ``[n]o carrier shall * * * acquire
or operate any line, * * * unless and until there shall first
have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the
present or future public convenience and necessity require * *
*'' the acquisition. The FCC reviews the transfer of radio
licenses under Sec. 310(d) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 310(d). These radio licenses are not only commercial radio
station licenses. They also cover radio licenses that are
important in the transmission of telephone traffic. Thus, a
telephone company merger is likely to include applications
under both sections. Section 310(d) provides that: ``[n]o * * *
station license * * * shall be transferred * * * to any person
except upon application to the Commission and upon finding by
the Commission that the public interest, convenience, and
necessity will be served thereby.''
These provisions and the experiences that companies have
had under them since 1996 raise two questions. First, what is
the proper scope of the inquiry under these provisions? Second,
does the FCC use fair procedures in reviewing these
applications?
With respect to the substantive question, it seems clear
that these provisions authorize only an inquiry into the
circumstances surrounding the license transfer itself--not the
entire merger. In the recent merger between SBC Communication
and Ameritech, the FCC leveraged this authority into a wide
scale review of every aspect of these companies' businesses
resulting in their agreement to dozens of conditions on their
merger. These conditions were largely directed toward forcing
the companies to open their markets to local competitors. Such
conditions may or may not otherwise be good policy--the
question here is whether they are authorized under the license
transfer review authority. As our colleague, Representative
John Dingell, put it: ``If the Commission is concerned that any
local exchange company is not acting in a manner consistent
with its obligations under [the market opening provisions of
the Act], the proper course of action is to commence an
enforcement proceeding to compel that company to do so. Any
such action taken by the Commission should be wholly
independent of the merger approval process which requires a
qualitatively different standard of review.'' Letter from Hon.
John Dingell to Hon. William Kennard dated April 15, 1999 at 1.
The FCC's procedural processes in these matters also raise
questions. In short, the FCC has no written rules governing
these proceedings. In a recent letter to Subcommittee Chairman
Gekas, Chairman Kennard referred to the Commission's rules
governing these proceedings, but did not provide any citations
to these rules. Letter from Hon. William Kennard to Hon.
GeorgeGekas dated October 15, 1999 at 1.
At our May 25, 1999 hearing before the Subcommittee, FCC
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth testified at length on this
point:
Nor does the Commission have any established
procedures for the handling of applications for license
transfers. Any particular application on any particular
day could be: adopted at a Commission meeting; voted by
the Commission on circulation: processed with or
without a formal hearing; processed with or without so-
called ``public fora''; handled with or without
additional private ``talks'' between the companies,
interested parties, Commission staff, and individual,
especially interested, members of the Commission;
granted with or without conditions; finalized after 90
days or 90 weeks, etc. The list goes on almost
indefinitely.
Section 1.1 of the Practice and Procedure subpart of
the Commission's rules, entitled ``Proceedings before
the Commission,'' does nothing to remedy the open-ended
nature of Commission processes. It states that ``[t]he
Commission may on its own motion or petition of any
interested party hold such proceedings as it may deem
necessary from time to time'' and ``[p]rocedures to be
followed by the Commission shall * * * be such as in
the opinion of the Commission will best serve the
purposes of such proceedings.'' 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1 This
rule, written by the Commission, establishes only that
the Commission can do essentially whatever it wants.
There is nothing constraining or useful about this
section.
May 25, 1999 Testimony of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth
at 4-5.
Again, the experience of SBC and Ameritech illustrates the
point. Their applications were filed in July 1998. They were
not approved until 15 months later. After the parties went
through a complete pleading cycle, Chairman Kennard sent the
parties a letter setting forth a whole new procedure for
working out his concerns about the merger. Shortly after he
sent that letter, Representative Dingell commented on that move
saying:
I am deeply troubled over the course you have chosen
to pursue regarding the pending applications * * *. I
strongly caution you against proceeding in this
fashion. It has no basis in law, and will eviscerate
the provisions of administrative law that Congress
enacted in order to guarantee all parties fairness of
treatment and due process.
* * * * *
Additionally, and just as important, by conditioning
the approval of the applications in the manner
suggested in your letter, the Commission would be
circumventing the fundamental principles of due process
and fairness guaranteed by the Administrative Procedure
Act (``APA''). The APA requires the Commission to
address the industry-wide issues, and formulate
industry-wide remedies, in the context of a rulemaking
proceeding. In this instance you appear to be embarked
on the dangerous and antithetical precedent of imposing
conditions uniquely on one company in an industry, and
to do so utilizing a procedure that you have invented
just for this occasion.
Letter from Hon. John Dingell to Hon. William Kennard dated
April 15, 1999 at 1, 3. As Representative Dingell rightly
points out, the FCC's failure to provide neutral procedural
rules implicates the Administrative Procedure Act, a matter
within the Committee's jurisdiction.
H.R. 2533 does not attempt to dictate the FCC's rules. It
simply requires the FCC to promulgate some rules relating to
license transfers and to follow them.
Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 2533 on
July 15, 1999 and it was referred to the Committee. On November
3, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 2533 and two
other telecommunications bills. The witnesses who appeared at
the hearing who testified about H.R. 2533 were: Honorable David
McIntosh, United States Representative, 2nd District of
Indiana; Honorable William Kennard, Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Roy Neel,
President, United States Telecom Association, Washington, D.C.;
Mr. Richard Weening, Executive Chairman, Cumulus Media Inc.,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Mr. Ronald Binz, President,
Competition Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
H.R. 2701, the ``Justice for MAS Applicants Act of 1999''
Summary.--Congress has authorized the FCC to award licenses
to use electromagnetic spectrum since the FCC's inception in
1934. See generally 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309. For many years, this
was done through a competitive application process. The FCC
would go through applications and try to determine which of the
applicants was best qualified to use the license.
In 1981, Congress first authorized the FCC to award
licenses to use spectrum through lotteries. Budget
Reconciliation Act for FY 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-35, Sec. 1242,
95 Stat. 357, 736-37. In 1993, Congress recognized the
potential that a system based on the market might allocate
spectrum more efficiently, and it gave the FCC discretionary
authority to conduct auctions of spectrum. Budget
Reconciliation Act for FY 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-66,
Sec. 6002(a), 107 Stat. 312, 387. In 1997, Congress went
further mandating that the FCC use auctions for spectrum that
was to be used for services that would have paying subscribers.
Budget Reconciliation Act for FY 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-33,
Sec. 3002, 111 Stat. 251.
Electromagnetic spectrum has numerous uses. All kinds of
applicants have tried to obtain licenses in various lottery and
auction proceedings over the last two decades. Many of them are
unhappy with the process for any number of reasons. Chairman
Hyde introduced H.R. 2701 to right one particular wrong that
occurred in one of these proceedings.
In 1989, the FCC allocated a certain portion of the
spectrum for multiple address system, or MAS, applications. 4
FCC Rcd 2012 (1989). MAS generally involves some form of system
in which there is one central point and a number of outlying
points which communicate back and forth. Common examples of
such systems would be credit card verification systems or alarm
monitoring systems.
In 1991, the FCC announced that it would open filing
windows for these applications during January and February
1992. 6 FCC Rcd 7242 (1991). Pursuant to the authority granted
in 1981, the FCC anticipated holding a lottery to distribute
these licenses. In response to its announcement, the FCC
received more than 50,000 applications from hundreds of
applicants. The number of applicants was in the neighborhood of
1500 to 2500. Obviously, many applicants filed numerous
applications. Each application required a $155 filing fee. In
addition, an applicant had to incur substantial legal and
engineering costs to prepare an application.
Apparently, the FCC then took no further action for a year
and a half until the passage of the FY 1994 Budget
Reconciliation Act in August 1993. As described above, that Act
gave the FCC discretionary authority to conduct auctions of
certain licenses. Rather than proceed with the lottery
proceeding it had initiated more than a year earlier and for
which it had collected filing fees, the FCC decided to conduct
a rulemaking to decide whether these applications should be
auctioned. 8 FCC Rcd 7635 (1993).
That rulemaking ended in 1994, and the FCC concluded that
it could proceed with a lottery for the MAS licenses because
they were not primarily for subscriber based services. 9 FCC
Rcd 2348 (1994). For three years, apparently nothing happened.
In 1997, the FCC reanalyzed the applications and realized that,
in fact, 95% of them were for subscriber based services. As a
result, it should auction the MAS licenses. 12 FCC Rcd 7973
(1997).
In the summer of 1997 while that rulemaking was pending,
the FY 1998 Budget Reconciliation Act passed prohibiting the
FCC from using lottery procedures for subscriber based
services. More than a year after that law passed, the FCC
finally concluded the rulemaking deciding that it could not now
award these licenses in a lottery. 13 FCC Rcd 17954 (1998). It
dismissed the MAS applications and refunded the original filing
fee.
This dry recitation of the facts does not adequately
address the human cost of this extraordinary delay on the MAS
applicants. Mr. Bob Ryan of Glen Ellyn, Illinois, was a MAS
applicant. Mr. Ryan saw the opportunity to supplement his
retirement income by applying for MAS licenses. Along with some
partners, he intended to use this spectrum to set up a business
that would perform credit card verifications through wireless
means, a cheaper method than the current wireline technology.
He would have set up this business in the 100 top markets
around the country. To enter the lottery, he paid a filing fee
of $155 per license, or $15,500. In addition, he incurred
approximately $12,000 in engineering and legal costs to prepare
the application.
The net result for Mr. Ryan of the lengthy process
described above is that the government held his $15,500 in
filing fees from February 1992 until November 1998, more than
80 months. He received no interest for the use of that money.
In addition, the additional $12,000 in costs that he incurred
is a complete loss through no fault of his. When the government
imposes this kind of loss on citizens through bureaucratic
delay, they are entitled to some form of redress. H.R. 2701
would allow Mr. Ryan and the other MAS applicants that redress.
Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 2701 on
August 4, 1999 and it was referred to the Committee. On
November 3, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 2701 and
two other telecommunications bills. The witnesses who appeared
at the hearing who testified about H.R. 2701 were: Honorable
William Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Robert Ryan, Multiple Address System
Applicant, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
H.R. 3138, the ``Free Market Antitrust Immunity Reform (FAIR) Act of
1999''
Summary.--To understand the discussion below, one must
first understand the terms applied to the various participants
in the ocean shipping industry. The businesses who own ships
and who sell the service of transporting cargo on those ships
are known as carriers. All of the major carriers operating in
and out of the United States now are foreign owned. The
businesses who want to have their goods transported in the
ships are known as shippers. The shippers range in size from
large retail operations like J.C. Penney or Wal-Mart to the
smallest of businesses.
Carriers generally sell cargo space on their ships in
relatively large units, and larger units generally receive
lower rates. As a result, smaller shippers use several methods
to consolidate their cargo into larger shipments so that they
can obtain lower rates. One of the methods that smaller
shippers use is to ship through a non-vessel operating common
carrier (known as an ``NVOCC'' or simply an ``NVO'').
NVOs contract with carriers for large volumes of space, and
then they fill that space by consolidating numerous small
shipments into one large shipment and thereby obtaining a lower
rate. NVOs are generally independent from the shippers who use
their services. They vary in size although they tend to be
relatively small businesses. NVOs compete with carriers for
business from shippers. However, at the same time, NVOs depend
on carriers for cargo space on ships so that the NVO can
fulfill its contracts with shippers.
Another method that small shippers use is known as a
shippers' association. A shippers' association performs
essentially the same function as an NVO, but it is generally
operated cooperatively by the shippers who use it rather than
as an independent business.
Some shippers use businesses known as freight forwarders or
customs brokers. These businesses simply help the shipper with
the paperwork involved in import and export shipping. However,
they do not help the shipper obtain a lower rate as NVOs and
shippers' associations do.
All of these businesses conduct this activity through
ports, which are more formallyknown as marine terminal
operators. Most ports that are open to the public are owned by local
governments. Some local governments operate the ports themselves, and
some have a private contractor operate it. Many businesses also have
their own private marine terminal operations, but these operations are
generally for the use of that business alone and are not open to the
general public.
Another interest group in this debate are independent
truckers. The truckers deliver cargo between ports and inland
points. They believe that they are at a disadvantage when
negotiating with the carriers because the carriers use their
antitrust immunity to present a united front while each trucker
must negotiate independently.
A number of statutes govern the ocean shipping industry.
Their details are far too complex and arcane to cover
comprehensively here. The discussion below gives a thumbnail
sketch of the history of the Shipping Act with a particular
focus on the antitrust issues involved.
Chronic overcapacity has plagued the ocean shipping
industry since its inception in the mid-1800s. This
overcapacity arises for several reasons. Building an ocean
liner is an expensive proposition. Liners tend to last a long
time, and their owners cannot easily convert them to some other
use in times of low demand. Thus, once a ship is built, it
tends to remain part of the total available capacity for many
years.
In addition, many governments have exacerbated the problem
by subsidizing their own liners. This subsidization has
occurred in some cases through government ownership of the
liners or in other cases through payments or other favorable
policies for private owners. Governments subsidize liners
because of national pride, the need not to depend on other
countries for transportation in a time of war, and the need to
convert ships to military use in time of war. This
subsidization has further contributed to the overcapacity
problem.
At the outset, overcapacity led to rate wars and vigorous
competition among carriers. As early as 1875, carriers began to
form conferences to set rates jointly and avoid the rate wars.
From that time until the time of World War I, the United States
did not regulate these conferences.
In the early 1910s, Congress began to investigate these
arrangements. Ultimately, Congress concluded that the
conference system served the public interest by providing
stability to international commerce. Accordingly, it passed the
Shipping Act of 1916 (``the 1916 Act''). Shipping Act of 1916,
ch. 451, 39 Stat. 728 (1916) (Those parts of the 1916 Act that
have not been subsequently repealed are codified at 46 U.S.C.
App. Sec. 801 et seq.).
The 1916 Act gave the conference antitrust immunity to set
rates jointly. It also gave similar antitrust immunity to the
ports. In exchange, however, the 1916 Act established the
United States Shipping Board, a predecessor of today's Federal
Maritime Commission, to regulate the industry. The Board had to
approve the rates set by the conferences before they could take
effect. The 1916 Act also placed a common carrier obligation on
the carriers requiring them to carry the cargo of shippers on
nondiscriminatory terms overseen by the Board.
In cases under the 1916 Act, the Supreme Court gave broad
deference to the jurisdiction of the Board and its successors
holding that the carriers and their conferences could not be
sued under the antitrust laws even when they failed to file
their agreements with the agency. Far East Conference v. United
States, 342 U.S. 570 (1952); United States Navigation Co. v.
Cunard Steamship Co., 284 U.S. 474 (1932).
In 1961, Congress substantially amended the 1916 Act. Among
other things, it created the Federal Maritime Commission that
we have today. See Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 75 Stat.
840 (1961). In a separate act, Congress made important
substantive changes to the 1916 Act. Act of October 3, 1961,
Pub. L. No. 87-346, 75 Stat. 762 (``the 1961 Amendments'').
Most importantly, the 1961 Amendments required the FMC to
disapprove any conference agreement that it found to be
contrary to the public interest. The 1961 Amendments also
instituted a mandatory public tariff filing system.
The FMC subsequently decided that the public interest test
required it to disapprove agreements that were contrary to the
policies of the antitrust laws, and the Supreme Court began to
narrow the antitrust protection of the conferences. Federal
Maritime Commission v. Aktiebol Svenska Amerika Linien, 390
U.S. 238 (1968); Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference,
383 U.S. 213 (1966). Carriers believed that this new policy
substantially eroded their antitrust immunity and thereby
undermined the purposes of the 1916 Act. They also felt that
the FMC's consideration of antitrust policies delayed its
consideration of the agreements for too long.
In 1984, Congress took another crack at the industry
passing a complete overhaul of the 1916 Act known as the
Shipping Act of 1984 (``the 1984 Act''). Shipping Act of 1984,
Pub. L. No. 98-237, 98 Stat. 67 (codified at 46 U.S.C. App.
Sec. 1701 et seq.). The 1984 Act maintained the basic tradeoff
of the 1916 Act--i.e. antitrust immunity for joint ratesetting
in return for common carrier obligations and heavy regulation.
The major innovation of the 1984 Act was to allow carriers
to attempt to weaken the unity of conferences by entering into
contracts with individual shippers at rates discounted from the
conference rates. It also allowed them to enter into service
contracts. Service contracts are contracts in which the shipper
gets a discounted rate in return for guaranteeing that it will
ship a minimum amount of cargo with a particular carrier.
However, if a carrier entered into such service contracts, it
had to offer them to all similarly situated shippers and they
had to be made public.
Apart from those changes, the 1984 Act made several other
major changes. It further strengthened the antitrust immunity
by providing that there could not be any antitrust relief under
the Clayton Act for conduct that violated the provisions of the
Act. For the first time, it recognized the existence of NVOs
and shippers' associations, and gave them rights under the
regulatory scheme. Finally, the 1984 Act set up an Advisory
Commission to begin a study of its provisions after it was
effective for five and a half years.
Since the passage of the 1984 Act, the traditional
conferences have declined. To some extent, they have been
replaced by broader groups of carriers commonly known as
``discussionagreements.'' These broader groups are not
officially recognized in either the statute or the FMC regulations, but
some believe that they are included within the statutory term
``cooperative working agreements.'' At any rate, they have included
traditional conference carriers as well as traditional independents.
They are supposed to be voluntary bodies without joint ratemaking
authority, but some industry observers believe that, as a practical
matter, they do set rates jointly.
This Committee played a substantial role in the passage of
the 1984 Act. See generally H. Rept. No. 98-53, Part 2 (1983).
Several Members of the Committee served as conferees in the
Conference Committee.
The Advisory Commission from the 1984 Act filed its report
in April 1992. Although it did not come to a consensus, it did
document a number of concerns by the various participants in
the industry. These concerns ultimately led to the passage of
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. Ocean Shipping Reform
Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-258, 112 Stat. 1902 (``the 1998
Act'').
The major innovation of the 1998 Act is allow carriers to
enter into service contracts with individual shippers on a
confidential basis. In addition, the carriers are no longer
required to provide the same rates to other similarly situated
shippers. The 1998 Act does not afford the same rights to NVOs.
NVOs may enter into confidential service with carriers when
they buy space, but they must still make their contracts with
their shippers public through a public tariff filing system. In
addition, the 1998 Act allowed the carriers to jointly
negotiate rates for inland transportation.
In 1998, this Committee did not have as large a role as it
did in 1984. The leadership desired to move the Senate version
of the bill to the floor quickly and without amendment. Because
of that leadership desire, the Committee did not request a
referral of the bill, but it did make known its intention to
hold oversight hearings in the 106th Congress. The changes in
the law made by the 1998 Act took effect on May 1, 1999, and
the Committee held its first oversight hearing on May 5, 1999.
Against this backdrop, another important development was
the investigation of the conditions in the transpacific trade
in 1998. The peak shipping season in this trade runs from
approximately June through November. During the 1998 season,
the Asian economic crisis changed the normal conditions of the
market. As usual, there was overcapacity in the trade running
from the United States to Asia. However, there was a shortage
of space in the trade running from Asia to the United States.
By September, the FMC had received numerous complaints
about the practices that carriers were using to exploit this
shortage situation. The gist of the complaints was that the
carriers had abandoned their common carrier obligations.
Instead, they were simply auctioning their space to the highest
bidder and favoring the biggest shippers. On September 21,
1998, the Commission ordered a fact finding investigation of
the charges, and its designated Commissioner Delmond Won to
conduct it. ``Fact-Finding Investigation No. 23--Ocean Common
Carrier Practices in Transpacific Trades,'' 63 Fed. Reg. 51356
(September 25, 1998).
Commissioner Won made his report to the Commission on
January 13, 1999, and the Commission released a summary of it
on March 9, 1999. The summary and the report find that the
charges that led to it were generally true--i.e., that the
carriers did abandon their common carrier obligations and
exploit the shortage. It should be noted that this report
represents only the findings of Commissioner Won acting as the
Investigative Officer and not necessarily the views of the FMC
as a whole.
On April 20, 1999, the Commission assigned its Bureau of
Enforcement to continue the investigation begun by Commissioner
Won. See 64 Fed. Reg. 19359. On October 18, 1999, the Bureau of
Enforcement recommended that the investigation be discontinued,
and on December 29, 1999, the Commission voted to do so. The
Commission did impose some punishments on carriers as a result
of the investigation. However, they were relatively minor.
Because of concerns about these practices, Chairman Hyde
introduced H.R. 3138. Chairman Hyde believes that OSRA has
moved the shipping industry towards a freer market. Things are
better than they were.
On the other hand, that is no excuse not to make them even
better. Chairman Hyde believes that there simply is no
justification for continuing antitrust immunity for the
carriers, who are largely foreign-owned, to raise prices that
Americans must pay. Notwithstanding the lengthy history of the
exemption set forth above, the exemption makes no sense in
today's world. An easy way to think about it is to imagine that
we were trying to pass this exemption as new law today. It
would be difficult to find many Members to vote for it. In
addition, there are increasing signs that at least some of our
major partners are moving in the same direction.
Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 3138 on
October 25, 1999, and it was referred to the Committee. On
March 22, 2000, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 3138 at
which the following witnesses appeared: Honorable Harold Creel,
Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C.;
Honorable Delmond Won, Commissioner, Federal Maritime
Commission, Washington, D.C.; Honorable John Nannes, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Alan Baer,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ocean World Lines, Inc.;
New York, New York, on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Play in
Ocean Shipping; Mr. Bob Coleman, President, TLR-Total Logistics
Resource, Inc.; Portland, Oregon, on behalf of the Pacific
Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders
Associations, the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders
Association of America, and the New York/New Jersey Foreign
Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association; Mr. Bill MacDonald,
President, KMJ International, Inc., Edmonds, Washington, on
behalf of the Pacific Northwest Asia Shippers' Association; Mr.
George Cashman, Port Division Director, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Boston, Massachusetts; Ms. Janet
McDavid, Partner, Hogan & Hartson, L.P., Washington, D.C., on
behalf of the Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar
Association; Mr. John Clancey, Chairman of the Board, Maersk
Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina; Mr. Timothy Rhein, Chairman,
American President Lines, Ltd., Oakland California; Mr. Hugh
Welsh, Deputy General Counsel, The Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey, New York, New York, on behalf of the American
Association of Port Authorities; Mr. Frank Pecquex, Executive
Secretary Treasurer, Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO,
Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Daniel Smith, Senior Consultant, Mercer
Management Consulting, Inc., El Cerrito, California.
H.R. 4194, the ``Small Business Merger Fee Reduction Act of 2000''
Summary.--Section 7 of the Clayton Act, first passed in
1914, governs the antitrust review of mergers and acquisitions.
It prohibits mergers or acquisitions the effect of which ``may
be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a
monopoly.'' 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18. The Department of Justice, the
Federal Trade Commission, or a private party may bring an
action to enjoin a merger which violates Sec. 7.
However, once a merger is consummated, it is difficult to
unscramble it. Moreover, as a practical matter, very few
private parties can afford to bring a private lawsuit to
restrain an anticompetitive merger or acquisition, In 1976,
Congress responded to these two problems by passing the Hart-
Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 18A (Sec. 7A of the Clayton Act). The H-S-R Act ensures
that the antitrust enforcement agencies can review mergers for
antitrust problems before they are consummated.
Under current law, a merger or asset acquisition must meet
two tests to require an H-S-R filing. First, one of the
companies involved must have total annual net sales or total
assets of $100 million and the other must have $10 million.
This is known as the ``size of company'' test. Second, the
asset or company being acquired must be worth $15 million. This
is known as the ``size of asset'' test.
When a new filing comes in, the agencies decide through a
process of comity which agency will review the filing. Filings
are not reviewed by both agencies. Generally speaking, this
process of comity divides mergers up by industry. For example,
the oil industry has traditionally been in the FTC's area of
expertise, and the airline industry has been within the DOJ's
area of expertise.
When first enacted, the H-S-R Act did not require a filing
fee. In 1989, the deficit loomed large, and Congress was
searching for additional funds. As a result, Congress enacted a
filing fee system for H-S-R filings. See Sec. 605 of Title VI
of Public Law 101-162 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 18A note). That system
has been amended since that time, and the current filing fee
for review of all mergers or acquisitions under H-S-R is
$45,000. The Division and the Bureau divide the money taken in
through these filing fees equally, and it cannot be spent for
any other purpose. However, these agencies may not spend it
unless it is appropriated to them. Traditionally, they have not
received the full amount and some is held back each year and
appropriated the following year. These fees now fund the entire
budget of both agencies.
Some critics have suggested that these fees are merely a
tax on mergers. Whatever the merits of that argument, these
fees do allow the agencies to be self-funding. The Committee is
not enthusiastic about funding these vital agencies through
these fees. However, as a practical matter, the fee structure
is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
Some reforms are in order, and they are likely to be
achieved this year. Aside from the broader philosophical point
about funding the agencies through fees, there are two basic
complaints about H-S-R as it exists today: that the agencies'
discovery requests are overly burdensome and that the filing
thresholds are too low. The agencies announced reforms to the
discovery requests in early 2000. These administrative changes
are good faith efforts at reform and should be given a chance
to work before any legislative changes are made. Generally
speaking the business community views these changes as positive
steps, but there is some concern as to whether they will be
sufficiently institutionalized.
With respect to filing thresholds and fees, the vast
majority of transactions that are filed are cleared within 20
days. Only about 3% receive the searching examination involved
in a second request for documents. Moreover, the filing
thresholds have not been adjusted since the original enactment
in 1976. In real terms, smaller and smaller transactions
require filings because of the steady creep of inflation. For
that reason, a general consensus has developed that we need to
raise the filing and fee thresholds.
President Clinton has recommended that Congress raise the
fee threshold, but not the filing threshold, in this budget
submission for FY 2001. The President's budget request raises
the fee threshold from a $15 million ``size of asset'' to a $35
million ``size of asset.'' Under his proposal, the fee would
remain $45,000 for transactions involving an asset worth $35-
$100 million. For transactions involving an asset worth $100-
$200 million, the fee would rise to $100,000. For transactions
involving an asset worth more than $200 million, the fee would
rise to $200,000. His proposal does not raise the filing
threshold at all. Thus, for transactions involving an asset
worth $15-$35 million, there would be no fee, but they would
still have to file. The Committee on Appropriations included
this language within the Commerce, Justice, State, and the
Judiciary appropriations bill that it reported this spring.
H.R. 4194 as introduced differs slightly from the
President's proposal. It would raise the ``size of asset'' test
to $50 million. It would also eliminate the ``size of company''
test altogether. Thus, the only test for filing would be
whether the asset was $50 million or greater. Its fee structure
is similar to the President's proposal, and it yields
approximately the same amount of money. Under H.R. 4194, for
transactions involving an asset worth $50-$100 million, the fee
would remain $45,000. For transactions involving an asset worth
$100-$200 million, the fee would rise to $100,000. For
transactions involving an asset worth more than $200 million,
the fee would rise to $225,000.
On July 11, 2000, the Committee passed H.R. 4194 by voice
vote with a consensus substitute. As reported, H.R. 4194 would
raise the ``size of asset'' test to $50 million. It would also
eliminate the ``size of company'' test altogether for mergers
in which the asset is worth more than $200 million. Its fee
structure is similar to the President's proposal, and it yields
approximately the same amount of money. Under H.R. 4194, for
transactions involving an asset worth $50-$100 million, the fee
would remain $45,000. For transactions involving an asset worth
$100-$500 million, the fee would rise to $125,000. For
transactions involving an asset worth more than $500 million,
the fee would rise to $250,000. The Appropriations Committee
has agreed to include the reported version of H.R. 4194 in the
conference report on this year'sCommerce-Justice-State
appropriations bill with the fee on the top tier raised to $280,000.
Legislative History.--Representative Rogan introduced H.R.
4194 on April 5, 2000, and it was referred to the Committee. On
July 11, 2000, the Committee ordered H.R. 4194 reported by
voice vote with a substitute amendment. Subsequent to that
markup, the Committee on Appropriations agreed to include the
text of H.R. 4194 as reported by the Committee with minor
modifications within the Commerce, Justice, State, and the
Judiciary appropriations conference report. The Committee on
Appropriations included this language as section 630 of H.R.
5548, a bill that was incorporated by reference in the
conference report on H.R. 4942, the Commerce-Justice-State
appropriations bill for FY 2001, and it became law as part of
that package during December, 2000.
H.R. 4321, the ``Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2000''
Summary.--Agricultural processing businesses directly
affect the livelihoods of agricultural producers and farmers
because these businesses buy the producers' and farmers'
products in the first instance. These industries are fairly
highly concentrated. For example, according to some estimates,
the four largest meat packing companies control almost 80% of
the market for packing beef. The recent merger of Cargill, Inc.
and Continental Grain Company has also focused attention on
concentration in the grain processing industry.
Agricultural producers and farmers complain that this
concentration gives the processors too much market power
thereby allowing them to pay lower prices to producers and
farmers. The producers and farmers argue that their share of
the food dollar has been dropping precipitously while the
packers and processors gain an ever larger share. Because of
these low prices, producers and farmers, particularly smaller
operators, complain that they cannot stay in business. They
argue for more vigorous antitrust enforcement and also for more
vigorous enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
Processors argue that their businesses are now necessarily
global. They argue that recent mergers are essential to cutting
costs so that they can compete with foreigners. They argue that
low prices for these commodities arise not because of
concentration, but because of oversupply. They also argue that
producers are increasingly concentrated with larger operators
taking an ever larger market share. They acknowledge that this
tends to disadvantage smaller operators, but they argue that
this is not a result of concentration of the processors. They
believe the solution lies in producers responding to the market
signals of low prices rather than in government action.
Several agencies have responsibility for this area and
several statutes bear on the agricultural concentration issue.
Both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission
enforce the antitrust laws. With respect to large mergers or
acquisitions, one or the other of the agencies will review the
transaction under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 18A. Through a process of comity, the agencies have
traditionally divided these reviews and other enforcement
issues by industry with the Justice Department specializing in
certain industries and the Federal Trade Commission
specializing in others. The Justice Department has
traditionally reviewed agricultural mergers. On the other hand,
the Federal Trade Commission has traditionally dealt with
grocery store issues.
The Agriculture Department does not have any jurisdiction
to enforce the antitrust laws. However, it does have
jurisdiction to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act and the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, both of which are
discussed below.
At least two of the antitrust laws are relevant to the
issues here. With respect to concentration in meat packing,
grain processing, or grocery stores, Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 18, prohibits mergers or acquisitions that
substantially lessen competition in a particular line of
commerce. As noted above, either the Justice Department or the
Federal Trade Commission will review a large transaction under
the H-S-R Act. If they determine that there are competitive
problems, they are most often resolved with the merging
companies voluntarily agreeing to divest various assets.
However, in relatively rare instances, the agencies may bring a
lawsuit to block a transaction. Ultimately, a court decides if
the transaction violates Sec. 7. An agency's decision not to
bring a lawsuit does not constitute ``approval'' of the merger
nor does it confer antitrust immunity on the transaction.
Rather, it is simply an indication that the government will not
bring an enforcement action. Private parties may sue to block a
transaction irrespective of what the government agency does.
Several agricultural laws have some bearing on these
issues. First, the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C.
Sec. 181 et seq., generally empowers the Secretary of
Agriculture to prevent unfair practices by meat packers and
stockyard dealers. The Secretary may impose civil money
penalties for violations of the Act, and packers may be
criminally prosecuted for violations of the Secretary's orders
under the Act.
Second, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7
U.S.C. Sec. 499a et seq., generally empowers the Secretary of
Agriculture to license and regulate dealers and brokers in
perishable agricultural commodities. The Secretary may impose
civil money penalties for violations of the Act.
Two other agricultural statutes deserve passing reference.
The Capper-Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 291-92, and the
Cooperative Marketing Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 455, specifically
authorize joint marketing efforts by produce growers. They
provide limited antitrust protection for these arrangements.
H.R. 4321 has three items that are directed at
concentration in agriculture. First, it adds language to the
antitrust laws and the agriculture laws to clarify that the
words ``commerce'' and ``competition'' include not only trade
or commerce among sellers, but also among wholesale purchasers.
Many believe that such commerce is already included within
those terms. However, some agricultural producers and farmers
believe that antitrust places too much emphasis on the harm to
consumers from antitrust violations. They believe that
antitrust does not place enough emphasis on the harm to small
sellers, like them, who must sell to a concentrated group of
large buyers whom they believe may be violating antitrust laws.
This amendment seeks to redirect attention toward that harm.
Second, H.R. 4321 sets up a study commission that would
study agricultural antitrust and concentration issues for a
year and report back to the President and the Congress. Third,
it establishes an office of special counsel for agriculture in
the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. In that
connection, it should be noted that in January 2000, the
Antitrust Division established such a post administratively.
Although this post does not have a specific statutory
authorization, it is intended to perform the same function as
that proposed by the bill.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act provides that ``any person * *
* who is injured in his business or property'' by an antitrust
violation may bring suit to claim damages. The statute does not
specifically address how far down a distribution chain this
right to sue goes. For example, in the recent vitamin price
fixing case, the conspiring vitamin manufacturers sold the
vitamins mainly to food companies like cereal manufacturers.
Those cereal manufacturers overpaid for the vitamins and then
presumably passed the cost of these overpayments on to
consumers. Thus, as far as the statute goes, it is unclear
whether only the cereal manufacturers could sue or whether the
consumers might also be able to sue. The Supreme Court decided
in 1977 that only the first purchaser--the cereal manufacturer
in this example--could sue. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431
U.S. 720 (1977).
Some felt that this decision was a reasonable limit on the
reach of the antitrust laws and helped to hold down the number
of lawsuits with extremely complex proof problems. Others felt
that it was unfair to prevent overcharged consumers form
recovering despite their position in the chain of distribution.
This decision led to a lot of legislative ferment during the
late 1970s and 1980s. Several bills to overturn the result of
Illinois Brick made progress in Congress, but none ever became
law. Also, some states have effectively overturned the result
of Illinois Brick for purposes of their state antitrust laws.
During the 1990s, the issue has been relatively quiet. H.R.
4321 would overturn the result of Illinois Brick for purposes
of federal law and allow those further down the distribution
chain to sue.
H.R. 4321 also contains a similar approach on merger filing
fees as that in H.R. 4194 described above, but it does not
change the filing thresholds. Under H.R. 4321, for transactions
involving an asset worth $15-$100 million, the fee would drop
to $25,000. For transactions involving an asset worth $100-$250
million, the fee would rise to $50,000. For transactions
involving an asset worth $250 million-$1 billion, the fee would
rise to $100,000. For transactions involving an asset worth
more than $1 billion, the fee would rise to $150,000.
H.R. 4321 makes two other minor changes to H-S-R. First, it
gives a short extension to the government to examine documents
filed under a second request. A similar change was included in
H.R. 4194 as reported by the Committee. Second, under current
law, filings with the FTC or the DOJ are exempt from Freedom of
Information Act disclosure. Representative Minge's bill applies
that exemption to similar filings with state attorneys general.
In some cases, the parties voluntarily allow an attorney
general from a concerned state to review their H-S-R filing.
Under current law, a person or a company convicted of a
criminal antitrust violation under Sec. Sec. 1-3 of the Sherman
Act may be fined the greater of $10 million or twice the gross
gain or loss caused by the criminal violation. See 15 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1-3; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3571. The Justice Department has
supported increasing the Sherman Act limit from $10 million to
$100 million. The double gain or loss provision can often yield
fines of greater than $10 million, e.g., the recent vitamin
price fixing case. However, in many circumstances, proving the
gross gain or loss can be quite difficult. Thus, erasing the
Sherman Act limit would afford greater flexibility in punishing
these crimes.
Legislative History.--Representative Minge introduced H.R.
4321 on April 13, 2000, and it was referred to the Committee.
On September 12, 2000, the Committee held a hearing on H.R.
4321 at which the following witnesses appeared: Honorable David
Minger, United States Representative, 2nd District of
Minnesota; Honorable Howard Metzenbaum, Chairman, Consumer
Federation of America, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Bert Foer,
President, American Antitrust Institute, Washington, D.C.; and
Mr. Leland Swenson, President, National Farmers Union,
Washington, D.C.
liability issues
The Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act--H.R. 775 (Public Law
106-37)
As the millennium neared, the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer
problem posed a critical challenge to our economy. Tremendous
investments were being made to fix Y2K problems, with United
States companies expected to spend more than $50 billion.
However, those efforts were being hampered by the fear of
potential lawsuits, which was keeping some businesses from
effectively engaging in Y2K remediation efforts. It was also
anticipated that future litigation over Y2K failures could clog
our courts and impose a large economic burden on our society.
The Year 2000 computer technology problem
The Y2K technology problem started as an innocuous short
term solution to the oppressively high cost of computer memory
in the 1950's and 1960's. Programmers represented four-digit
years with only two digits. For instance, 1968 would be
represented as 68, with the number 19 (indicating years in the
1900s) being implicitly understood. This worked smoothly until
users started to input dates occurring after December 31, 1999.
Computers started running into problems when required to
calculate a number based on the difference in two dates, such
as the interest due on a mortgage loan. Computers continued to
assume that the prefix 19 was implied in any date, so they
would incorrectly read 00 (input for 2000) or 01 (input for
2001) as 1900 or 1901. Consequently, computers could not
correctly calculate the difference between years in the 20th
and 21st centuries.
Another Y2K problem occurs in the storage of data. Many
kinds of data are organized and processed by date, such as
driver's license records and credit card accounts. Computers
have had problems processing credit cards that have expiration
dates after December 31, 1999, because computers read the cards
as having expired almost a century ago.
Although programmers and managers knew in the 1950's and
1960's that they had builtsoftware with latent defects in it,
no one thought that software written then would survive to the year
2000. Compounding that problem, newer software had to interface and
share data with older software. Although the new software could have
handled dates internally in four-digit formats and swapped data in two-
digit formats with the older software, to do so added complexity and
hence added cost to new software. The net result was that the two-digit
standard for representing years continued much longer than anyone would
have guessed.
The need for a proactive approach to Y2K-related litigation
In 1999, some technical analysts were predicting that
widespread failures in systems across the country, including
power outages, stalled assembly lines, and halted international
transactions could result in a major nationwide or even
worldwide, recession. Others contended that the efforts already
underway or completed at that time would ensure a nearly
disruption-free transition into 2000. History has shown that
only minor problems occurred as we range in the new millennium,
but at the time of the Committee hearings in 1999, the
projected cost of Y2K litigation was as high as $1 trillion.
The transaction costs associated with these potential lawsuits
were also projected to be unprecedented: in August 1998, at the
American Bar Association annual convention, a panel of experts
predicted that the legal costs associated with Y2K would exceed
that of asbestos, breast implants, tobacco, and Superfund
litigation combined. That is more that three times the total
annual estimated cost of all civil litigation in the United
States.
In fact, eight months before the year 2000 began, over 50
Y2K lawsuits had already been filed. The Committee was told
that the threat of litigation had resulted in a climate of fear
and reluctance by many companies to acknowledge the potential
problems which may be caused by their products. This atmosphere
was counterproductive to the cooperative efforts necessary to
ensure a seamless transition from 1999 to 2000, and was
becoming disruptive to the stability of the nation's interstate
commerce. The potential for litigation to overwhelm the
nation's judicial system, and to cause severe damage to the
nation's economy required incentives for proactive solutions to
the problems before they could occur, and a system for prompt
resolution of those failure which do occur.
The magnitude of this problem demanded solutions which
would reduce litigation whenever possible without limiting the
rights of aggrieved parties. One way was to provide clear legal
rules and then encourage parties to find solutions to fix the
problem without resorting to the courts. If potential litigants
know how the courts will allocate responsibility for Y2K
compliance, many disputes will settle rather than being
litigated to an inevitable conclusion. Clear rules would also
reduce the potential for frivolous lawsuits which might be
filed when non-avoidable Y2K problems occur, thereby clearing
the courts for the legitimate cases which deserve adjudication.
Clear rules would also increase the likelihood that the entity
who bears responsibility for Y2K compliance will work quickly
to fix the problem and reduce damages.
H.R. 775, the ``Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility
Act''
In response to these issues, Congress enacted the Year 2000
Readiness and Responsibility Act to create a legal framework by
which Y2K-related disputes would be resolved. It was
specifically designed to help consumers by creating incentives
for businesses to address the Y2K computing crisis, thereby
avoiding Y2K problems and eliminating the need for litigation.
It also established clear, uniform rules for determining the
rights and responsibilities of contracting parties in Y2K
disputes. In addition, the Act gives companies as long as 90
days to fix any problems before a lawsuit can be brought,
limits punitive damages for firms with fewer than 50 employees,
generally holds companies liable only for their share of blame
for any Y2K damage, and requires that class action suits
involving 100 or more plaintiffs and $10 million or more in
claims be tried in federal, instead of state, courts.
Legislative History.--H.R. 775 was introduced by
Congressman Davis on February 23, 1999; it ultimately garnered
98 cosponsors. The full committee held a hearing on H.R. 775 on
April 13, 1999. On April 29 and May 4, 1999, it was considered
by the full committee and ordered reported to the House, as
amended, by a recorded vote of 15 ayes to 14 nays. The report
was filed on May 7, 1999. House Report 106-131, part 1. The
House passed the bill on May 12, 1999 by a vote of 236 ayes to
190 nays, after defeating a motion to recommit by a vote of 184
ayes to 246 nays. The Senate version of the bill (S. 96) was
approved by that body on June 15, 1999. On June 24, 1999, the
House appointed Congressmen Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte,
Conyers and Lofgren as conferees on the bill, with Congressmen
Bliley, Oxley and Dingell appointed as conferees for section 18
of the Senate amendment. Also on June 24, 1999, the House
agreed to instruct the conferees by vote of 426 ayes to 0 nays.
A conference report was filed on June 29, 1999 (House Report
106-212), and on July 1, 1999, the House agreed to the
conference vote by a vote of 404 ayes to 24 nays. Also on July
1, 1999, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote
of 81 ayes to 18 nays. On July 20, 1999, H.R. 775 was signed by
the President (Public Law 106-37).
The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 2000--H.R. 1283
Summary.--H.R. 1283 establishes a comprehensive asbestos
compensation program pertaining to asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits. The purpose of H.R. 1283 is to provide all
asbestos victims with efficient and fair compensation by
ensuring that claimants suffering from an asbestos-related
impairment will be given priority over other asbestos related
claims.
The heart of the bill's administrative compensation program
is a non-adversarial determination of medical eligibility by an
Office of Asbestos Compensation (OAC), established within the
United States Department of Justice. Claimants that are
determined to be medically eligible may assert their claim by
proceeding to state or federal court at anytime, or electing
non-adversarial settlement offers or an administrative
adjudication. In addition, a determination of medical
eligibility creates a presumption that the claimant has an
asbestos related illness, this presumption may only be rebutted
by ``clear and convincing'' evidence.
H.R. 1283 also contains a comprehensive set of rules
pertaining to asbestos litigation. These rules eliminate
practices that may diminish an individual's claim and hold
major asbestos manufacturers and distributors to a higher
standard of liability. In addition, a legal assistanceprogram
would assure that asbestos victims receive representation for a
reasonable fee, which would be determined by Administrator of the
Office of Asbestos Compensation.
Legislative History.--H.R. 1283 was introduced by the
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Henry J. Hyde, on
March 25, 1999, and ultimately garnered 75 cosponsors. H.R.
1283 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary where it
was held at the Full Committee. Accordingly, on July 1st, 1999,
the Committee held an extensive hearing on H.R. 1283. The
hearing consisted of ten witnesses on two panels. Witnesses on
the first panel included Professor Christopher F. Edley Jr. of
Harvard University School of Law; Louis W. Sullivan, President
of the Morehouse School of Medicine and former Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services; Richard H. Middleton,
President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America;
Samuel J. Heyman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
GAF Corporation; Dr. Christine Oliver, Associate Physician at
Massachusetts General Hospital; and Dr. Gary Epler, Associate
Physician at Brigham & Women's Hospital. The second panel
included Maura J. Abeln Smith, Senior Vice President and
General Counsel of Owens Corning; Thomas J. Donohue, President
of the United States Chamber of Commerce; Johnathan Hiatt,
General Counsel of the AFL-CIO; and Conrad L. Mallett Jr.,
former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. On March
9th, 15th, and 16th, 2000 the Committee met in open session to
consider H.R. 1283. On March 16th, 2000, H.R. 1283 was ordered
favorably reported with a single amendment in the nature of a
substitute. On July 24th, 2000 H.R. 1283 was reported to the
Full House, House Report 106-782, and placed on the Union
Calendar.
The Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999--H.R. 1875
Summary.--H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action
Jurisdiction Act of 1999, expands federal diversity
jurisdiction to permit most interstate class actions to be
brought in or removed to federal court.
The class action device is a necessary and important part
of our legal system. It promotes efficiency by allowing
plaintiffs with similar claims to adjudicate their cases in one
proceeding; it also leads to the adjudication of claims where
there are small harms to a large number of people, which would
otherwise go unaddressed because the cost to individuals of
suing would far exceed any possible benefit to the individual.
However, in recent years class actions have been used with an
increasing frequency and in ways that do not promote the
interests they were intended to serve.
Class action certification rules
Class actions were initially created in state courts of law
and equity, and in 1849 became statutory with the advent of the
Field Code, which several states adopted. In 1938, a federal
class action rule was first enacted in the form of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23 was substantially amended in
1966, and granted courts more flexibility in certifying class
actions. The Field Code, the original federal Rule 23 and
amended federal Rule 23 remain the three models for present-day
state class action rules: 36 states have adopted amended
federal Rule 23; seven still use rules modeled on the original
federal Rule 23; and four still use Field Code-based class
rules. Three states still permit class actions at common law
and have no formal class rules.
As a result of the adoption of different class action
certification standards in the various states, the same class
might be certifiable in one state and not another, or
certifiable in state court but not in federal court. This
creates the potential for abuse of the class action device,
particularly when the case involves parties from multiple
states and/or requires the application of the laws of many
states. For example, some state courts routinely certify
classes before the defendant is even served with a complaint
and given a chance to defend itself. Other state courts employ
very lax class certification criteria, rendering virtually any
controversy subject to class action treatment. There are
instances where a state court, in order to certify a class, has
determined that the law of that state applies to all claims,
including those of purported class members who live in other
jurisdictions. This has the effect of making the law of that
state applicable nationwide.
The existence of state courts which broadly apply class
certification rules encourages plaintiffs to forum shop for the
court which is most likely to certify a purported class. In
many instances, the fact that a class is certified will
determine the outcome of the case. Because the cases are
brought on behalf of thousands (and sometimes millions) of
claimants, the potential exposure for a defendant is enormous.
Plaintiffs' counsel can use this potential exposure to coerce
settlements that offer minimal benefits to the class members,
but which result in hefty attorneys' fees.
Another problem created by the ability of state courts to
certify class actions which adjudicate the rights of citizens
of many states is that often times more than one case involving
the same class is certified at the same time. In the federal
court system, those cases involving common questions of fact
may be transferred to one district for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. 1407. When
these class actions are pending in state courts, however, there
is no corresponding mechanism for cogently adjudicating the
competing suits. Instead, a settlement or judgment in any of
the cases makes the other class actions moot. This creates an
incentive for each class counsel to obtain a quick settlement
of the case, and opportunity for the defendant to play the
various class counsel against each other and drive the
settlement value down. Again, the loser is the putative class
member whose claim is extinguished by the settlement, at the
expense of counsel seeking to be the one entitled to recovery
of fees.
H.R. 1875 is intended to prevent these abuses by allowing
large interstate class action cases to be heard in federal
court. It would expand the statutory diversity jurisdiction of
the federal courts to allow class action cases involving
minimal diversity--that is, when any plaintiff and any
defendant are citizens of different states--to be brought in or
removed to federal court.
Federal diversity jurisdiction
Article III of the Constitution empowers Congress to
establish federal jurisdiction over diversity cases--cases
``between citizens of different States.'' The grant of
diversity jurisdiction was premised on concerns that state
courts might discriminate against out of state defendants.
Since 1806, with some exceptions, the federal courts have
followed the rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch)
267 (1806), which states that federal jurisdiction lies only
where all plaintiffs are citizens of states different than all
defendants. This is known as the ``complete diversity'' rule.
In a class action, only the citizenship of the named plaintiffs
is considered for determining diversity, which means that
federal diversity jurisdiction will not exist if the named
plaintiff is a citizen of thesame state as the defendant,
regardless of the citizenship of the rest of the class. See Snyder v.
Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969). And, since the early days of the country,
Congress has imposed a monetary threshold--now $75,000--for federal
diversity claims. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). However, the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied in a class action only if all of the class
members are seeking damages in excess of the statutory minimum. See
Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973).
These jurisdictional statutes were originally enacted years
ago, well before the modern class action arose, and they lead
to perverse results. For example, under current law a citizen
of one state may bring in federal court a simple $75,001 slip-
and-fall claim against a party from another state. But if a
class of 25 million product owners living in all 50 states
brings claims collectively worth $15 billion against the
manufacturer, the lawsuit usually must be heard in state court.
The current statutes also allow attorneys to game the system to
keep class actions out of federal court. Attorneys often name
irrelevant parties to their class actions in an effort to
``destroy diversity''--that is, to keep the case from
qualifying for federal diversity jurisdiction. Further, counsel
make other statements about the case to keep the defendant from
removing the case to federal court (e.g., ``plaintiffs seek
only a very small amount of money in this case''). After one
year, however, the attorneys recant those statements, since at
that point, current statutes bar removal of the case to federal
court.
The act
H.R. 1875 would amend the diversity jurisdiction and
removal statutes applicable to class actions to allow federal
jurisdiction where there is a substantial risk of
discrimination against out of state defendants. It amends 28
U.S.C. 1332 to grant original jurisdiction in the federal
courts to hear interstate class actions where any member of the
proposed class is a citizen of a state different from any
defendant. An interstate class action would not include:
(1) Intrastate cases--cases in which a ``substantial
majority'' of the class members and defendants are
citizens of the same state and the claims will be
governed primarily by that state's law.
(2) Limited scope cases--cases involving fewer than
100 class members or where the aggregate amount in
controversy is less than $1 million.
(3) State action cases--cases where the primary
defendants are states or state officials, or other
governmental entities against whom the district court
may be foreclosed from ordering relief.
If a case is filed in state court where the federal court
has original jurisdiction under the amended section 1332, H.R.
1875 would allow its removal using the existing procedures
contained in Chapter 89 of Title 28, with three new features:
(1) Unnamed class members (plaintiffs) may remove to
federal court class actions in which their claims are
being asserted within 30 days after formal notice.
Under current rules only the defendants are allowed to
remove. See 28 U.S.C. 1446.
(2) Removal of class actions to federal court would
be available to (a) any defendant without the consent
of all defendants or (b) any plaintiff class member
without the consent of all members. Current removal
rules--which apply only to defendants--require the
consent of all defendants.
(3) Section 1446 of Title 28 requires that a notice
of removal be filed within 30 days of the receipt by
the defendant of a copy of the pleading which gives
notice of grounds for removal. However, that section
bars the removal of cases to federal court after one
year, even if the basis for removal does not occur
until after that time. H.R. 1875 would eliminate the
bar to removal of class actions after one year, and
would apply the same removal notice rules to
plaintiffs.
Under H.R. 1875, if a removed class action is found not to
meet the requirements for proceeding on a class basis, the
federal court would dismiss the action without prejudice.
Plaintiffs would then be permitted to refile their claims in
state court, presumably in a form amended either to fall within
one of the types of cases not considered interstate class
actions, or to be maintainable as a class action under federal
Rule 23. The statute of limitations on individual class
members' claims in such a dismissed class action would not run
during the period the action was pending in federal court.
Legislative History.--H.R. 1875 was introduced by
Congressmen Bob Goodlatte, Rick Boucher, and 30 co-sponsors on
May 19, 1999. The full committee held a hearing on the bill on
July 21, 1999; the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual
Property had held a hearing on a similar bill introduced in the
105th Congress--H.R. 3789--on June 18, 1998. Following two days
of markup on July 27 and August 3, 1999, the full committee
ordered the bill reported to the House, as amended, by a vote
of 15 ayes to 12 nays. House Report 106-320, filed September
14, 1999. By a vote of 222 ayes to 207 nays, the House of
Representatives passed H.R. 1875 on September 23, 1999.
Companion legislation--S. 353--was reported from the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary on September 26, 2000 (Senate Report
106-420), but it was not considered by the Senate.
The Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999--H.R.
2005
Summary.--H.R. 2005, introduced by Congressman Steve
Chabot, is premised on the notion that a product which is used
safely for a substantial period of time is not likely to be
defective at the time of manufacture, sale, or delivery. Thus
any injury it causes after some reasonably long period of time
is likely to have been due to either misuse or improper
maintenance by someone other than the manufacturer. However,
the passage of time increases a manufacturer's difficulty in
disproving the existence of a defect at the time of
manufacture. Although manufacturers often win cases based on
injuries from old products, the litigation costs of defending
these cases--where witnesses have died or disappeared, memories
have faded, and evidence has been lost--may be enormous and can
divert resources from job creation, research and development.
H.R. 2005 addressed this problem by creating a uniform
federal statute of repose for cases involving injuries caused
by durable goods. This statute of repose would bar a cause of
action against the manufacturer of such a product after 18
years from the date the product was placed in thestream of
commerce, regardless of when the injury occurred.
President Clinton recognized the value of a statute of
repose when he signed the General Aviation Revitalization Act
of 1994 (GARA), which provides an 18-year statute of repose for
small general aviation aircraft. As a result of GARA, domestic
aircraft manufacturers, which previously were failing and
losing market share to foreign competitors, have been
revitalized. Since the enactment of GARA, over 25,000 jobs have
been created in the general aviation industry, and the piston-
driven planes now rolling off the production line are the
safest ever. Investment in research and development by general
aviation companies has grown by more than 150 percent, leading
to a host of new general aviation products.
As least 20 states have enacted products liability statutes
of repose, ranging from 6 years to 15 years. Statutes of repose
(or the equivalent) exist in the following states: Arkansas
(``anticipated life'' of product); Colorado (7 years for new
equipment, presumption that product is not defective after 10
years); Connecticut (10 years if covered by worker
compensation, otherwise after ``useful safe life of the
product''); Florida (12 years); Georgia (10 years); Idaho
(``useful safe life'' of product); Illinois (12 years from date
of first sale, or 10 years from date of sale to first user,
whichever is shorter); Indiana (10 years); Iowa (15 years);
Kansas (``useful safe life'' of product); Kentucky (presumption
that product not defective if harm occurred more than 5 years
after sale of product to first consumer or more than 8 years
after date of manufacture); Michigan (if product in use for 10
years, plaintiff must prove prima facie case without benefit of
any presumption); Minnesota (``useful life'' of product);
Nebraska (10 years); North Carolina (6 years); North Dakota (10
years from date of first sale, or 11 years from date of
manufacture); Oregon (8 years); Tennessee (10 years); Texas (15
years for non-agricultural manufacturing equipment); Washington
(``useful safe life'' of product). However, for the many
manufacturers whose products are found in virtually every
state, protection through existing state statutes of repose is
uneven. Furthermore, the European Community, Japan, and
Australia each has a 10-year statute of repose for all
products. The absence of a nationwide uniform standard in the
United States has placed American manufacturers at a
significant disadvantage relative to their foreign
manufacturers.
H.R. 2005 is very narrow in scope. It covers only cases
involving a ``durable good,'' which is defined as one which
either has a normal life expectancy of 3 or more years or is
subject to depreciation under the IRS code, and is either used
in a trade or business, held for the production of income, or
sold or donated to an entity for the production of goods, etc.
Where the injury involves death or personal injury, the reach
of the statute of repose would be limited to cases where the
claimant has received or is eligible to receive workers
compensation. Furthermore, in a claim for death or personal
injury, the statute of repose would not apply if the injury
involves a toxic harm.
H.R. 2005 would not apply to motor vehicles, vessels,
aircraft or trains that are used primarily to transport
passengers for hire. Neither would it affect the limitations
period established under GARA (which is 18 years). It would
supercede any existing state statute of repose governing
durable goods, thereby increasing the period of time within
which an injured party could sue in the 20 states where shorter
statutes of repose currently exist.
Procedural History.--H.R. 2005 was introduced by
Congressman Steve Chabot on June 7, 1999. The full committee
held a hearing on July 21, 1999, and on September 22, 1999,
ordered the bill favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of
16 ayes to 14 nays. House Report 106-410, Part 1 was filed on
October 21, 1999. On February 2, 2000, H.R. 2005 was passed by
the House of Representatives by a vote of 222 ayes to 194 nays.
The bill was not considered by the Senate.
The Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999--H.R. 2366, and the
Rental Fairness Act of 1999, H.R. 1954
Summary.--H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform
Act of 1999, contained four discrete reforms to address
problems that the Committee had found to exist in the current
civil justice system. The first two--limitations on punitive
damage awards and the imposition of a fair share limitation on
non-economic damages--would apply only to small business
defendants. The third would eliminate the liability of products
sellers in products liability cases where they were not the
manufacturer and where the manufacturer is subject to suit.
Finally, the bill would eliminate the doctrine of vicarious
liability, which currently allows persons in the business of
renting or leasing a product to be liable for the conduct of
others simply because they own the product that is involved in
causing injury. A similar version of this final provision was
also contained in H.R. 1954, the Rental Fairness Act of 1999.
Small businesses with twenty-five or fewer full-time
workers employ nearly 60% of the American workforce, yet over
60% of these small business owners make an annual salary of
less than $50,000. One lawsuit--frivolous or not--could put a
small business out of business. There is evidence that
particularly the smallest of the nation's small businesses
operate in fear that they will be named defendant in a lawsuit,
be found minimally responsible for the claimant's harm, and be
financially crushed under the weight of all the damages as a
result of the application of joint liability. In many cases,
small businesses settle out of court for significant award
amounts, even if the claim is unwarranted, because of the fear
of exposure to unlimited punitive damages. According to a
Gallup survey, one out of five of every small businesses
decides not to hire more employees, expand its business,
introduce a new product, or improve an existing product out of
fear of litigation.
Title I of H.R. 2366 was designed to mitigate the negative
and disproportionate impact that certain current liability
rules have on small businesses--defined as those which employ
25 persons or less. However, the protections of the title would
not apply to cases involving the misconduct of a defendant
which constitutes a crime of violence, an act of international
terrorism, or a hate crime; which involves a sexual offence or
a violation of a civil rights law; which results in damages
described in the Oil Pollution Act or CERCLA (Superfund); or
where the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol
at the time of the injury.
Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are intended to be
quasi-criminal in nature. They are not designed to compensate
victims, but are awarded in civil suits to punish for
intentional harm to others or for acting in wanton disregard
with respect to the safety of others. In addition to punishing
wrongdoers, they are intended to deter such anti-social conduct
in the future.
Title I imposed two distinct requirements on the imposition
of punitive damages awards against a small business. First, it
required a plaintiff to establish ``by clear and convincing
evidencethat conduct carried out by that defendant through
willful misconduct or with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the
rights or safety of others was the proximate cause of the harm that is
the subject of the action.'' Second, it limited the award of punitive
damages against a small business defendant to three times the total
amount awarded for economic and noneconomic losses, or $250,000,
whichever is lesser.
Title I also prohibited the imposition of joint and several
liability on a small business defendant. Under the traditional
rule of joint and several liability, where more than one
defendant is found liable in a case, each defendant found
liable may be held responsible for paying 100% of the damages
awarded. While the plaintiff cannot recover more than once, it
can choose the defendant from whom to seek recovery. A
defendant who pays more than its proportionate share of the
damages can in turn seek contribution from other defendants or
can sue another defendant for indemnification of its costs.
Thus, in an automobile accident case where the other driver and
the auto manufacturer are co-defendants, if a jury finds the
other driver 75% responsible for the accident and the
manufacturer 25% responsible, the plaintiff may recover 100% of
its damages from the manufacturer (which may be considered a
``deep pocket''). In turn, the manufacturer is left to seek
contribution from the other driver (or its insurance company)
for 75%.
By enabling a plaintiff to recover immediately all its
damages from the ``deep pocket'' defendant, joint and several
liability makes it more likely that the plaintiff will obtain
full recovery in the event that one defendant does not have the
assets to pay part of the judgment. The result, however, may be
that a defendant who is minimally responsible for an injury,
perhaps only 1% responsible, may be held liable for virtually
all compensation damages--both economic and non-economic. Also,
very often those more responsible for the harm are not even
parties to the action. They may have settled with the plaintiff
out of court, they may be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court,
or they may simply be lacking in sufficient assets to pay the
award (i.e. bankrupt).
The Small Business Liability Reform Act would have
eliminated joint and several liability of small business
defendants for non-economic damages (pain and suffering), but
would have retained it for economic damages (such as medical
expenses). This would partially relieve the situation where a
small business defendant is held liable for damages far in
excess of its actual responsibility. Consequently, any small
business defendant found liable would be liable for pain and
suffering only in proportion to its percentage of
responsibility for the plaintiff's injury and no more. Under
this rule, the liability of defendants who do not fall within
the definition of a small business would continue to be
governed with the existing state liability rule.
Title II of H.R. 2366 was aimed at restoring legal fairness
to product sellers and reducing costs to consumers. In a
majority of the states, product sellers are liable for harms
caused by a product as if they were the manufacturer.
Ultimately, product sellers are held liable in less than five
percent of product liability actions; nevertheless, they are
drawn into the overwhelming majority of product liability
cases. This is because thirty-one states treat product sellers
as if they manufactured the product--they are made liable for a
manufacturer's mistakes. The seller, however, rarely pays the
judgment because it is able to show in over ninety-five percent
of the cases where any liability is present that the
manufacturer is the partly who actually caused, and is
responsible for, the harm. Based on this showing, the seller
gets contribution of indemnity from the manufacturer, and the
manufacturer ultimately pays the damages.
The current state of the law generates substantial,
unnecessary legal costs. Many product sellers are small
wholesalers and retailers. The provision contained in Title II
of H.R. 2366 would have prevented wasted time and effort for
these small businesses and also, wasted expenses on attorneys.
These costs are currently passed on to the consumer in the form
of unnecessary higher prices for products and services. Thus,
the provision would also help consumers by cutting the hidden
``litigation tax.'' It would be much more efficient for the
claimant to sue the manufacturer directly and to sue the
product seller only if it has done something wrong.
The Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999 would have
remedied this situation. Under the bill, product sellers would
no longer be subject to strict liability; they would be liable
only for their own negligence or fault, breach of their own
warranty, or intentional wrongdoing. Thus, the legislation
would have eliminated product sellers being needlessly brought
into product liability lawsuits.
To protect consumers, the bill contained two key exceptions
to the general rule: (1) where a manufacturer cannot be brought
into court in the state; or, (2) if a manufacturer lacks the
funds to pay a judgment. In those circumstances, the product
seller would have to bear responsibility for the manufacturer's
conduct. There is a sound social policy behind this provision--
it will encourage product sellers to deal with responsible
(often domestic) manufacturers who do business in the state and
have assets.
Companies that rent or lease products, such as car and
truck rental firms, are currently subject in ten states and the
District of Columbia to liability for the tortious acts of
their renters and lessees, even though the rental company is
not negligent and there is no defect in the product. In these
states, by imposition of this theory of vicarious liability,
the rental company is held liable for the injuries and damages
caused by the negligence of its customers simply because it
owns the product and has given permission for its use by the
customer.
Title II of H.R. 2366 provided that a person engaged in the
business of renting or leasing a product may not be liable to a
claimant for the tortious act of another, solely because that
person owns the product that caused the injury. The bill would
have eliminated the theory of vicarious liability under those
circumstances.
Legislative History.--H.R. 2366 was introduced by
Congressman Jim Rogan on June 25, 1999. The full committee held
a hearing on the bill on September 29, 1999. It was considered
by the full committee on October 19, 1999, November 2, 1999,
and February 1, 2000, and was ordered reported, as amended, by
voice vote. House Report 106-494, Part 1, filed February 7,
2000. On February 16, 2000, the H.R. 2366 passed the House of
Representatives with additional amendments, by a vote of 221
ayes and 193 nays. The bill was not considered by the Senate.
H.R. 1954, a bill containing matters also included in H.R.
2366, was discharged from further consideration by the
Committee on the Judiciary on September 15, 2000 but was not
considered by the House.
Matters Held at Full Committee
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999--H.R. 417
Summary.--On January 19, 1999, Representatives Christopher
Shays and Martin Meehan introduced H.R. 417, the ``Bipartisan
Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999.'' Among other things, H.R.
417 would rewrite campaign finance laws to increase individual
``hard money'' contributions, regulates independent
expenditures by express advocacy groups, bans political party
soft money, regulates the expenditures of non-party soft money,
regulates issue advocacy, and enhances the power of the Federal
Election Commission.
Legislative History.--On January 19, 1999, Representatives
Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan introduced H.R. 417, the
``Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999,'' and was
referred to the Committee. On August 5, 1999, the Committee
discharged the bill without taking any action. The bill passed
the House on September 14, 1999, by a vote of 252-177.
H.R. 808 and H.R. 2922, bills extending the period of time for which
chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted
During the 106th Congress, there were various bills
introduced to extend chapter 12, a specialized form of
bankruptcy relief available to a ``family farmer with regular
annual income'' as defined in the Bankruptcy Code. H.R. 808 was
introduced on February 23, 1999 by Representative Nick Smith
(R-MI) (for himself, Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law Chairman George W. Gekas (R-PA), and
Representatives David Minge (D-MN), Ronnie Shows (D-MS), Bill
Barrett (R-NE), James Leach (R-IA), J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK),
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), and John McHugh (R-NY)) to extend
chapter 12 for three additional months.
Chapter 12 permits eligible family farmers, under the
supervision of a bankruptcy trustee, to reorganize their debts
pursuant to a repayment plan. The special attributes of chapter
12 make it better suited to meet the particularized needs of
family farmers in financial distress than other forms of
bankruptcy relief, such as chapter 11 and chapter 13.
This form of bankruptcy relief was enacted on a temporary
seven-year basis as part of the Bankruptcy Judges, United
States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 in
response to the farm financial crisis of the 1980's. Chapter 12
was subsequently extended on August 6, 1993 to September 30,
1998. During the 105th Congress, it was further extended until
April 1, 1999 as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.
In light of the imminent April 1, 1999 sunset date for
chapter 12, H.R. 808 was held at the full Committee for markup.
On March 2, 1999, the Committee met in open session and ordered
favorably reported the bill with amendment by a voice vote (H.
Rpt. 106-45, filed March 9, 1999). As amended, the bill
extended chapter 12 to October 1, 1999. On March 11, 1999, the
House passed H.R. 808 under suspension of the rules by a vote
of 418 to 1. On March 24, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 808
without amendment by unanimous consent. The bill was
subsequently signed into law on March 30, 1999 (Public Law 106-
5).
H.R. 2922, a bill to further extend chapter 12 was
introduced on September 23, 1999 by George W. Gekas, Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (for
himself and Representative Nick Smith (R-MI)). The bill would
have extended chapter 12 for six additional months until April
1, 2000. There was no further action on this bill as it was
superseded by H.R. 2942, a subsequently introduced bill. For
the status of H.R. 2942 and other bills extending chapter 12,
consult the section in this report pertaining to the activities
of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
H.R. 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000
Background
I. Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Statutes
Civil asset forfeiture is based on a legal fiction from
medieval times that an inanimate object could itself be
``guilty'' of wrongdoing and forfeitable by the king,
regardless of whether the object's owner was blameworthy in any
way. Today, there are scores of federal forfeiture statutes.
The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
made civil forfeiture a weapon in the war against drugs. The
Act provides for the forfeiture of:
[a]ll controlled substances which have been
manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in
violation of this subchapter * * * [a]ll raw materials,
products, and equipment of any kind which are used, or
intended for use, in manufacturing * * * delivering,
importing, or exporting any controlled substance[s] * *
* in violation of this subchapter * * * [a]ll property
which is used, or intended for use, as a container for
[such controlled substances, raw materials, products or
equipment] * * * [a]ll conveyances, including aircraft,
vehicles or vessels, which are used, or intended for
use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the
transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or
concealment [of such controlled substances, raw
materials, products or equipment].
In 1978, the Act was amended to provide for civil
forfeiture of:
[a]ll moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or
other things of value furnished or intended to be
furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled
substance in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds
traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys,
negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended
to be used to facilitate any violation of this
subchapter. * * *''
In 1984, the Act was amended to provide for the forfeiture
of:
[a]ll real property * * * which is used, or intended to
be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to
facilitate the commission of, a violation of this
subchapter punishable by more than one year's
imprisonment. * * *
Before the enactment of H.R. 1658, the government was
required to make an initial showingof probable cause that
property was subject to forfeiture if a property owner went to federal
court to challenge the seizure of property under a federal civil
forfeiture law. The property owner then had to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the property was not subject to
forfeiture. The government could meet its burden without having
obtained a criminal conviction or even having charged the owner with a
crime since it is the property itself that has done the misdeed. Since
the government didn't need the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required
for a criminal conviction, even the acquittal of the owner did not bar
forfeiture of the property allegedly used in a crime. This contracts
with criminal forfeiture, which can only follow upon the property
owner's conviction of the underlying offense.
II. The Success--and Abuse--of Forfeiture
The monies realized from federal forfeitures go to the
Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund and the
Department of the Treasury's Forfeiture Fund. The money is used
for forfeiture-related expenses and various law enforcement
purposes. Federal forfeiture has proven to be a great monetary
success. The amount deposited in Justice's Assets Forfeiture
Fund (from both civil and criminal forfeitures) increased from
$27 million in fiscal year 1985 to $556 million in 1993 and
then decreased to $449 million in 1998.
The purposes of federal forfeiture were set out by Stefan
Cassella, Assistant Chief, Asset Forfeiture and Money
Laundering Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, in testimony before the Judiciary Committee:
Asset forfeiture has become one of the most powerful
and important tools that federal law enforcement can
employ against all manner of criminals and criminal
organizations--from drug dealers to terrorists to white
collar criminals who prey on the vulnerable for
financial gain. * * *
Forfeiture is * * * used to abate nuisances and to
take the instrumentalities of crime out of circulation.
If drug dealers are using a ``crack house'' to sell
drugs to children as they pass by on the way to school,
the building is a danger to the health and safety of
the neighborhood. Under the forfeiture laws, we can
shut it down. If a boat or truck is being used to
smuggle illegal aliens across the border, we can
forfeit the vessel or vehicle to prevent its being used
time and again for the same purpose. The same is true
for an airplane used to fly cocaine from Peru into
Southern California, or a printing press used to mint
phony $100 bills.
The government also uses forfeiture to take the
profit out of crime, and to return property to victims.
No one has any right to retain the money gained from
bribery, extortion, illegal gambling, or drug dealing.
With the forfeiture laws, we can separate the criminal
from his profits--and any property traceable to it--
thus removing the incentive others may have to commit
similar crimes tomorrow. And if the crime is one that
has victims--like carjacking or fraud--we can use the
forfeiture laws to recover the property and restore it
to the owners far more effectively than the restitution
statutes permit.
Finally, forfeiture undeniably provides both a
deterrent against crime and a measure of punishment for
the criminal. Many criminals fear the loss of their
vacation homes, fancy cars, businesses and bloated bank
accounts far more than the prospect of a jail sentence.
These goals are all laudable and civil asset forfeiture has
indeed become a valuable weapon in the war on crime and illicit
drugs. However, a number of years ago, concerns began to be
raised about abuses of civil forfeiture laws. Newspaper and
television exposes appeared alleging that apparently innocent
property owners unfortunate enough to match drug courier
``profiles'' through such acts as carrying large amounts of
cash or by purchasing airline tickets with cash were having
their property taken by federal and local law enforcement
officers with nothing that could be called due process.
Federal courts began to echo these concerns. The Second
Circuit stated that ``[w]e continue to be enormously troubled
by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of
the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process
that is buried in those statutes.'' United States v. All Assets
of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F.2d 896, 905 (2nd Cir.
1992). The Seventh Circuit issued a decision containing a
stinging rebuke of the federal government's use of civil
forfeiture. In United States v. $506,231 in U.S. Currency, 125
F.3d 442, 454 (7th Cir. 1997), the court found the need to
remind a U.S. Attorney that ``the government may not seize
money, even half a million dollars, based on its bare
assumption that most people do not have huge sums of money
lying about, and if they do, they must be involved in narcotics
trafficking or some other sinister activity.'' The court also
found the need to say that ``[w]e are certainly not the first
court to be `enormously troubled by the government's increasing
and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes
and the disregard for due process that is buried in those
statutes.' '' And Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has
stated that, ``[i]mproperly used, forfeiture could become more
like a roulette wheel employed to raise revenue from innocent
but hapless owners whose property is unforeseeably misused, or
a tool wielded to punish those who associate with criminals,
than a component of a system of justice.'' Bennis v. Michigan,
516 U.S. 442, 456 (1996) (Thomas, J., concurring).
Civil forfeiture statutes must contain safeguards against
abuse and give property owners innocent of any wrongdoing the
means to recover their property and make themselves whole after
wrongful government seizures. These are the goals that H.R.
1658 was designed to meet.
The act
H.R. 1658 amends the rules governing all civil forfeitures
under federal law except those contained in the Tariff Act of
1930, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and a number of other
statutes. It contains eight principal reforms:
Burden of Proof.--Before enactment of H.R. 1658,
when a property owner went to federal court to challenge a
seizure of property, all the government needed to do was to
make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is
subject to civil forfeiture. The property owner then had to
establish that the property was ``innocent'', or not subject to
forfeiture. The probable cause the government needed to show is
the lowest standard of proof in the criminal law. It is the
same standard required to obtain a search warrant and can be
established by evidence with a low indicia of reliability such
as hearsay.
One federal judge stated that:
[T]he current allocation of burdens and standards of
proof requires that the [owner] prove a negative, that
the property was not used in order to facilitate
illegal activity, while the government must prove
almost nothing. This creates a great risk of erroneous,
irreversible deprivation. * * * The government, under
the current approach, need not produce any admissible
evidence and may deprive citizens of property based on
the rankest of hearsay and the flimsiest evidence. This
result clearly does not reflect the value of private
property in our society, and makes the risk of an
erroneous deprivation intolerable.
United States v. $12,390, 956 F.2d 801, 811 (8th Cir. 1992)
(Beam, J., dissenting).
The Act would require the government to prove by the
customary civil suit standard--preponderance of the evidence--
that property is subject to forfeiture.
Facilitating Property.--The Act provides that if
the government's theory of forfeiture is that property was used
to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime or was
involved in the commission of a crime (which often occurs with
homes, bank accounts and conveyances such as cars and
airplanes), the government must show that there was a
substantial connection between the property and the crime. It
is intended that this test require that facilitating property
have a connection to the underlying crime significantly greater
than just ``incidental or fortuitous.'' In one area in
particular, courts have been much to liberal in finding
facilitation. An especially high standard should have to be met
before a person or family is dispossed of their home. A primary
residence should be accorded far greater protection than mere
personal property.
Release of Property Pending Final Disposition of a
Case.--Even should a property owner prevail in a civil
forfeiture proceeding, irreparable damage may have been done to
the owner's interests. For instance, if property is used as a
business, its lack of availability for the time necessary to
win a victory in court could have forced its owner into
bankruptcy. If the property is a car, the owner might not have
been able to commute to work until it was won back. If the
property is a house, the owner may have been left temporarily
homeless.
The Act provides that property can be released by a federal
court pending final disposition of a case if continued
possession by the government would cause the property owner
substantial hardship (such as preventing the functioning of a
business or leaving an individual homeless) and the likely
hardship outweighs the risk that the property will be
destroyed, damaged, lost, concealed or transferred if returned
to the owner. The court may place conditions on the release of
the property necessary to ensure its availability for
forfeiture should the government eventually prevail.
Attorney's Fees for Prevailing Property Owners and
the Appointment of Counsel.--Before enactment of H.R. 1658,
property owners who successfully challenge the seizure of their
property almost never were awarded attorney's fees. In
addition, indigents had no Sixth Amendment right to appointed
counsel in civil forfeiture cases since imprisonment was not
threatened. The Act provides that property owners who
substantially prevail in civil forfeiture proceedings will
receive reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, it allows a
court to provide counsel for indigents who are represented by
appointed counsel in related criminal cases.
Elimination of Cost Bond.--Before enactment of
H.R. 1658, a property owner wanting to contest a civil
forfeiture in federal court had to provide a bond of the lesser
of $5,000 or 10% of the value of the property seized (but not
less than $250). The bond was unconstitutional in cases
involving indigents, because it would deprive such claimants of
hearings simply because of their inability to pay. However,
even in cases not involving indigents, the bond should not be
required as it serves as a deterrent to the challenge of
meritless forfeitures. The Act would eliminate this
requirement. The Act does provide that it a court finds that a
claimant's assertion of an interest in property was frivolous,
the court may impose a civil fine.
Innocent Owner Defense.--A meaningful innocent
owner defense is required by fundamental fairness. The act sets
out a uniform innocent owner defense for all federal civil
forfeitures. For an owner to be ``innocent'', the owner must
either (1) not have known of the illegal conduct giving rise to
the forfeiture of his or her property, or (2) upon learning of
the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, must have done what
reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to
terminate the illegal use by others.
To do what can reasonably be expected, the owner is not
required to take steps that the owner reasonably believes would
be likely to subject him or her to physical danger. An owner
can show that he or she has done what can be reasonably
expected if he or she (1) has given timely notice to the police
and (2) has in a timely fashion revoked or made a good faith
attempt to revoke permission to use the property from those
engaging in the illegal conduct, or has taken reasonable action
in consultation with a law enforcement agent to discourage the
illegal use. Thus, a safer harbor is created for an owner who
notifies police and revokes or attempts to revoke (to the
extent permitted by law) permission to use the property by
those who are using it in the course of criminal activity. The
owner's obligations end there--property owners should not have
to assume the role of police officers in stopping crime.
Remedy for Property Damaged While in Government
Custody.--The federal government is exempted from liability
under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damage to property caused
during its handling or storage by federal law enforcement
officers. Property can be damaged by searches, lack of care,
inadequate storage, and other factors. The Act would allow
property owners to sue the government for compensation for
damage unless forfeiture is successful.
Uniform Definition of Proceeds.--The Act provides
that in cases involving illegal goods or services, unlawful
activities and telemarketing and health care fraud schemes,
forfeitable proceeds are property obtained directly or
indirectly as the result of the commission of theoffense giving
rise to forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, and is not
limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense. In cases
involving lawful goods or services that are sold or provided in an
illegal manner, forfeitable proceeds are money acquired through the
illegal transactions less the direct costs incurred in providing the
goods or services.
The Act also contains measures designed to enhance the
effectiveness of civil and criminal forfeiture statutes,
including:
Availability of Criminal Forfeiture and Proceeds
Forfeiture.--The Act provides that wherever federal law allows
for civil forfeiture of property involved in a specific crime,
criminal forfeiture will also be available. It also provides
that the proceeds of specified money laundering predicate
offenses will be subject to civil forfeiture.
Statute of Limitations.--Under current law, the
federal government must bring a civil forfeiture action within
five years after the date of the alleged crime involving the
property. The Act provides that the statute of limitations is
the later of this date or two years after the time when the
involvement of the property in the alleged crime is discovered.
Fugitive Disentitlement.--The Act provides that a
court may in a civil forfeiture action dismiss a claim brought
by a property owner if the property owner is a fugitive from
the United States.
Enforcement of Foreign Forfeiture Judgments.--The
Act sets up a procedure whereby federal courts can enforce
forfeiture judgments of foreign nations in conformity with
international agreements.
Access to Records in Bank Secrecy Jurisdictions.--
The Act provides that if a property owner who has filed a claim
in a civil forfeiture case refuses to provide the government
with access to potentially material financial records in a
foreign country, the court can impose sanctions, up to and
including dismissal of the owner's claim.
Civil Restraining Orders.--The Act provides that a
federal court can issue a civil restraining order, require a
performance bond, appoint a conservator, or take other actions
to preserve the availability of property for forfeiture where
there is a substantial probability the government will prevail
in the forfeiture and failure to enter the order will result in
the property being destroyed or otherwise made unavailable for
forfeiture.
Procedural history
On May 4, 1999, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde
introduced H.R. 1658. The bill as introduced was composed of
reforms of federal civil asset forfeiture law. Its reforms
differed from those in the bill as enacted in a number of ways.
The bill as introduced required the federal government to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that property was subject to
forfeiture. It did not award attorney's fees to prevailing
property owners but did allow a judge to appoint counsel for
indigents. It did not address the standard for forfeiture of
facilitating property or the definition of forfeitable
proceeds.
On June 15, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 1658
reported by a vote of 27-3. On June 18, 1999, the Judiciary
Committee reported H.R. 1658 to the House (H. Rept. 106-192).
On June 24, 1999, the House passed the House Rules Committee
resolution (H. Res. 216) by a voice vote. On June 24, 1999, the
House passed H.R. 1658 as amended by a vote of 375-48. A
substitute offered by Representative Asa Hutchinson was
defeated by a vote of 155-268. On March 23, 2000, the Senate
Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 1658 favorably reported with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. On March 27, 2000,
the Senate passed H.R. 1658 by unanimous consent. On April 11,
2000, the House passed H.R. 1658 as amended by the Senate under
suspension of the rules by a voice vote. On April 25, 2000, the
President signed H.R. 1658 into law (Public Law 106-185).
H.R. 1659--National Police Training Commission Act of 1999
On May 12, 1999, the Full Committee held a hearing on H.R.
1659, the ``National Police Training Commission Act of 1999.''
The focus of the hearing was the establishment of a federal
commission that would study and produce a report on police
training, recruitment and hiring and oversight issues and to
authorize funding for four metropolitan police departments--
District of Columbia, City of New York, and cities of Chicago
and Los Angeles--to engage in training relating to the use of
force which will be the subject of the study.
Significant controversy has surrounded the use of force by
law enforcement at the local, state and national levels. ``Use
of force'' issues can arise during a variety of police/
community contacts: use of weapons (guns, night sticks and
other objects); use of physical force to restrain; use of non-
lethal force (i.e. pepper spray and like technologies); verbal
communication; tactical and defensive tactical strategies;
arrests, searches and handcuffing; and vehicle use. All of
these tactics are integral and necessary to an effective
policing strategy and to ensuring the protection of the police
and the community. In implementing these strategies
ineffectively or inappropriately, both police and members of
the public have needlessly lost their lives. Further, members
of various police departments across the country have been
indicted and convicted on manslaughter and murder charges after
using their weapons. In some cases, it appears that the police
officers' ongoing training with their weapons is inadequate. In
some major police departments, weapons training is less over a
full career than one year of weapons training received by
agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Police/community relations are central to the public
safety, impacting on the cooperation of the community members
with the police and in turn the success rate the police may
have in curbing and preventing crime. These relations include
having police officers of varying races and ethnic diversity
who are knowledgeable about and sensitized to members of
diverse communities. Without effective police/community
relations, the policing function and the safety of our
communities are at risk. One retired police officer, who
himself had experienced verbal assault charges while on the
job, started a program called ``Verbal Judo'' in which he
instructs police officers in effective verbal communication
and, particularly, in confrontational situations. Also, African
American police officers in New York have taken it upon
themselves to go out into the community to acquaint community
members and youth with the requirements of policing and
effective means of interacting with the police so as to avoid
unnecessary confrontations. In addition, the U.S. Civil
RightsCommission has recommended that police officers undergo mediation
training to more effectively resolve conflicts they encounter.
Accordingly, police/community relations have a direct impact on use of
force issues.
In New York, immigrant Amadou Diallo was the target of 41
bullets shot by four police officers in New York City. This
incident refocused the nation's attention on the use of force
by law enforcement. While some members of the New York
community claim that it was a racial incident--four white
police officers fired at a black immigrant, others have
concluded that race is not at the heart of the incident but,
rather, the training of the particular police officers. The
particulars of the incident raised a number of questions in the
minds of many Americans: How is it that four officers shot at
one unarmed man? Why is it that 41 bullets were discharged?
What factors contributed to the public reaction to the incident
and the ensuing outcry?
Although individual incidents of excessive use of force can
be addressed through the criminal and civil court systems, this
avenue of redress does not provide overarching, long term
solutions. In addition, the court system has a significant
delay in addressing these matters and does not produce
solutions designed to remedy the root causes of the excessive
or inappropriate use of force. Focusing on the training,
hiring, recruitment, oversight and discipline of officers,
however, can address the underlying causes.
H.R. 1659, the Police Training Commission Act of 1999, is
designed to be one of the solutions to the occurrences of
excessive and inappropriate uses of force, to recruiting and
hiring issues that may be related thereto, and to oversight and
discipline of officers who engage in inappropriate or excessive
use of force. The bill has two components. The first component
consists of a grant of seed money to some of the nation's
largest and more diverse police departments for the purposes of
training, hiring and recruiting, and oversight. The second
component provides a congressional oversight mechanism; that
is, a Commission to study these departments' use of the grant
monies and the effectiveness of the training programs and
policing strategies, the hiring and recruiting practices and
policies, and oversight policies and practices. The bill calls
for the Commission to then report its findings to Congress and
to make recommendations concerning the continued involvement of
the federal government in these areas--both in terms of
oversight as well as funding.
The selection of the police departments was not based on
determinations that they had particular excessive use of force
issues. Rather, in recognition that all police departments
around the country have and are experiencing use of force
issues, the bill identifies four of the larger more diverse
police departments to receive grant monies--the District of
Columbia, city of New York and the cities of Chicago and Los
Angeles. Most of these departments have embraced the bill, have
been and will continue to be engaged in improved initial and
ongoing training for police officers, and have agreed to make
their training and policing programs and hiring, recruiting and
oversight policies and practices available to the Commission
for study.
It is expected that because these larger departments
experience a wide range of contacts between police and
citizens, their activities will provide better insight into a
wider range of effective training programs in the use of force
areas identified in the bill. In turn, this diversity will
offer greater assistance to Congress and police departments for
future consideration of effective training programs and
policing strategies, hiring, recruiting, and oversight policies
and practices.
The Commission is to be a bipartisan Commission comprised
of knowledgeable professionals with policing, sociological,
organizational and other relevant law enforcement experience.
Four Commission members will be selected by the Speaker of the
House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader
and the Senate Minority Leader. Those four members will then
select the fifth member and together they will determine the
Chairman of the Commission. The Commission will have the
ability to call upon appropriate experts and knowledgeable
persons and resources both inside and outside of government in
performing its oversight study. At the conclusion of the
Commission, a report will be forwarded to Congress detailing
the findings of the study and its recommendations as to further
Congressional involvement and funding of these programs.
Legislative History.--The Full Committee held a hearing on
H.R. 1659 on May 12, 1999. The witnesses were: Congressman Jose
Serrano (New York), Congressman Gregory W. Meeks (New York),
Congressman James T. Walsh (New York), Deputy Chief Julius
Davis, Human Resources, Los Angeles Police Department, Chief
Edward A. Flynn, Police Executive Research Forum, Chairman of
the Legislative Committee and Chief of Arlington County Police
Department, Assistant Chief Terrance W. Gainer, District of
Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, Clarence N. Wood,
President, Human Relations Foundation, Chicago, Illinois,
Martin L. Pfeifer, Trustee, National Fraternal Order of Police,
Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police Memorial Committee,
Sergeant District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department
Callie L. Baird, Administrator In Charge, Office of
Professional Standards, Chicago Police Dept. Charles B.
Roberts, Assistant Deputy Superintendent, Training Division,
Chicago Police Department. The Committee amended the bill and
ordered it favorably reported to the House on May 19, 1999. H.
Rept. 106-190 was filed on June 18, 1999.
Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999--H.R. 1858
On May 19, 1999, Representative Bliley introduced H.R.
1858, the ``Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of
1999.'' The legislation was referred sequentially to the
Committee on the Judiciary on September 30, 1999. Although the
bill was held at the Full Committee for the purpose of floor
consideration and was discharged without action, the
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property held hearings
on the issue of database protection. Those hearings and the
legislative history of H.R. 354 are detailed in the
Subcommittee section later in this report.
A bill to prohibit a state from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax
on nonresidents--H.R. 2014
H.R. 2014 provides that states must tax residents and
nonresidents in a substantially equal manner. It was intended
to codify the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in
Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656 (1974). That standard is
a ``rule of substantial equality of treatment for the citizens
of the taxing state and the non-resident taxpayers.'' The case
law, and the bill, are based on the Privileges and Immunities
Clause of the United States Constitution (article IV, section
2), which provides that ``citizens of each state shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several states.''
The legislation was introduced on June 7, 1999 by Mr.
Franks, after the state of New York passed a law exempting New
York state residents from New York City's commuter tax. On June
23, 1999, the full committee ordered the bill reported by a
vote of 17 ayes to 7 nays. House Report 106-203. At the time of
committee consideration, there were several lawsuits pending
which challenged the tax's constitutionality. Because that
litigation resulted in an invalidation of the statute, no
further action was taken on the bill.
A bill to exempt certain reports from automatic elimination--H.R. 3111
(S. 1769)
The committee ordered reported favorably the bill H.R.
3111, a bill to exempt certain reports from automatic
elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, as amended. The Federal
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 provided that all
periodic reports provided to Congress will sunset on December
21, 1999, unless reauthorized by Congress. The intent of the
act was to spur Congress to reexamine all the periodic reports
it receives and eliminate the obsolete reports. After careful
review, the Committee in conjunction with the Senate determined
that about 56 reports, out of thousands of reports subject to
sunset, are necessary for the committee to perform its
legislative and oversight duties. Examples include the U.S.
Department of Justice's annual report on crime statistics and
the Immigration and Naturalization Service's annual statistical
report. The text of the bill was included in S. 1769, relating
to reporting requirements under section 2519 of title 18,
United States Code. For further information about S. 1769, see
the discussion in the Subcommittee on Crime's section of this
report. S. 1769 became law on May 2, 2000, as Public Law 106-
197.
The Student Athlete Protection Act--H.R. 3575
Summary.--H.R. 3575 would establish a gambling on Olympic,
college, and high school athletic events, or gambling on any
competition in which a college, or high school athlete is
competing. This ban is a response to recommendation 3.7 of the
National Gambling Impact Study Commission's (NGISC) Final
Report, issued in June 1999. The NGISC was established on June
3, 1996 by Public Law 104-169. Recommendation 3.7 states ``that
the betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events be banned
altogether.'' Under current law, the Professional and Amateur
Sports Protection Act (PASPA), signed by President Bush in
1992, gambling on these events is only permitted in Nevada,
H.R. 3575 would amend PASPA and close this loophole.
Legislative History.--H.R. 3575 was introduced on February
3rd, 2000 by Representatives Lindsey Graham (SC), Tim Roemer
(IN), David McIntosh (IN), and James Greenwood (PA), was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ultimately
garnered 81 cosponsors. The full Judiciary Committee held one
day of hearings on H.R. 3575 on June 13th, 2000. Testimony was
received from 12 witnesses, representing colleges and
universities, the National Collegiate Athletic Association,
collegiate athletic coaches, the President and Chief Executive
officer of the American Gaming Association, Chairman of the
Nevada Gaming Commission, a board member of the Nevada Gaming
Control Board, and members of Congress. Additional material was
submitted by a Nevada Regent, Professional Sports
Organizations, an expert doctor, and the committee is in
receipt of the National Gaming Impact Study Commission's Final
Report. On September 13th, 2000, the Committee met in open
session and ordered H.R. 3575 favorably reported without
amendment by a vote of 19 ayes, 9 nays, and 1 present. On
September 27th, 2000, H.R. 3575 was reported to the Full House,
House Report 106-903, and placed on the Union Calendar.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act--H.R. 3660 and S. 1692
On February 15, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Charles T.
Canady introduced the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of
2000'' (H.R. 3660), a bill that would ban the partial-birth
abortion procedure. A partial-birth abortion is any abortion in
which an intact living fetus is partially delivered until some
portion of the fetus is outside the body of the mother before
the fetus is killed and the delivery completed. An abortionist
who violates the ban would be subject to fines or a maximum of
two years imprisonment, or both. H.R. 3660 also establishes a
civil cause of action for damages against an abortionist who
violates the ban. The cause of action can be maintained by the
father of the child or, if the mother is under 18, the maternal
grandparents.
H.R. 3660 is similar to legislation first introduced during
the 104th Congress to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure.
That legislation passed the House by a vote of 286 to 129, and
the Senate by a vote of 54 to 44. Following a veto by President
Clinton on April 10, 1996, a two-thirds majority of the House
voted to override the veto, but the vote in the Senate fell
short of the two-thirds needed to override the veto.
Legislation banning the partial-birth abortion procedure
was introduced again in the 105th Congress. The House passed
the bill on March 20, 1997, by a vote of 295-136, and the
Senate passed the bill on May 20, 1997, by a vote of 64 to 36.
The President vetoed the legislation on October 10, 1997,
however, and although the House readily overrode the veto, the
Senate again fell just short of the necessary votes for an
override. Prior to passage, the language of the legislation was
modified slightly from the previous version in order to ensure
that the bill would not chill the performance of conventional
abortion procedures, thereby gaining the endorsement of the
American Medical Association.
H.R. 3660 is quite similar to the bill that passed the
House and Senate during the 105th Congress. The language of the
bill has been modified slightly from the previous version in
order to alleviate concerns raised in response to various court
decisions striking down State partial-birth abortion bans on
the grounds that the bans also reached conventional late-term
abortion procedures. Specifically, the previous version of the
bill defined a partial-birth abortion as ``an abortion in which
the person performing the abortion partially-vaginally delivers
a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing
delivery.'' Many of the State partial-birth abortion bans
include similar language, and some courts have construed that
language to also encompass the conventional late term abortion
procedure known as ``dilation and evacuation.'' During the
dilation and evacuation procedure, the cervix is dilated and
the fetus is dismembered and removed through the use of
surgical instruments, and according to some abortionists, the
dismemberment sometimes occurs after a part of the fetus has
been pulled through the cervix.
H.R. 3600 is drafted to ensure that the dilation and
evacuation procedure is not covered by the ban. Under H.R.
3660, ``partial-birth abortion'' is defined as ``an abortion in
which the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally--(A) vaginally delivers some portion of anintact
living fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the
mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person
knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially outside the body
of the mother; and (B) performs the overt act that kills the fetus
while the intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the
mother.''
H.R. 3660 passed in the House on April 5, 2000, without
amendment, by a vote of 287 to 141. Following passage of H.R.
3660, the House took up the Senate version of the ban (S.
1692), which had passed in the Senate on October 21, 1999 by a
vote of 63 to 34. Because opponents of the partial-birth
abortion ban in the Senate had succeeded in amending S. 1692 to
include several amendments, the House struck the text of S.
1692, inserted the text of H.R. 3660, insisted on its
amendment, and requested a conference with the Senate. No
further action was taken on the measure.
H.R. 4205, a bill authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes
H.R. 4205, a bill authorizing appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, was
introduced by representative Floyd Spence (R-SC) on April 6,
2000. The bill, as amended, passed the House on May 18, 2000.
Thereafter, the Senate substituted the text of S. 2549 for that
of H.R. 4205 and passed the bill as amended.
Chairman Hyde, Representative Canady and Ranking Member
Conyers of the Committee on the Judiciary were appointed to the
conference on H.R. 4205 with respect to certain provisions
within the Committee's jurisdiction. While the introduced
version of this bill did not include any provisions relating to
bankruptcy law, the Senate amendment added several provisions
pertaining to the dischargeability of certain debts under the
Bankruptcy Code. These provisions, however, were not among
those for which the Judiciary Committee conferees were
appointed.
The conference report on H.R. 4205 contained several
sections dealing with the dischargeability in bankruptcy of
certain obligations relating to service in the military. These
included section 624 (enlistment bonuses), section 628 (special
pay and accession bonuses for pharmacy officers), section 633
(special pay obligations relating to retention incentives for
members in the armed services who qualified in a critical
military skill), and section 922 (financial assistance for
certain educational purposes). The Judiciary Committee
conferees were also appointed for consideration of provisions
relating to the organization and management of the Civil Air
Patrol, employment and compensation provisions for employees of
temporary organizations, payment of military retired pay to
Federal judges, settlement of claims for payments for unused
accrued leave and retired pay, additional benefits for illness
and injury in performance of funeral honors duty, and
Department of Energy workers' compensation. The Judiciary
Committee conferees took no action with respect to these
provisions as they generally comported with others presently
codified in title 10 of the United States Code. After passage
by both bodies, the conference report was signed into law on
October 30, 2000 (Public Law 106-398).
H.R. 4845, The Federal Property Campaign Fundraising Reform Act of 2000
Summary.--Over the past several years, the House Committee
on the Judiciary has been closely following the actions of the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') relating to the campaign
finance investigation and the decisions not to seek the
appointment of an independent counsel in that or related
matters. The Committee reviewed thousands of pages of documents
relating to the Campaign Finance Task Force (``CFTC'')
investigation and independent counsel issues. Among the
thousands of pages reviewed by the Committee are many that
address issues about campaign fundraising on federal property.
This review led to the inevitable conclusion that the statute
prohibiting campaign fundraising of federal property needed to
be amended.
Under current law, the Federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 607, prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving
campaign contributions within the meaning of the Federal
Election Campaign Act (i.e. hard money--contributions intended
to influence a federal election) in any room or building
occupied in the discharge of official duties. According to the
DOJ, the current ban does not apply to soft money (i.e.
contributions that are not regulated by the Federal Election
Campaign Act (``FECA'')), contributions designed to influence
races for state and local office, or contributions intended to
influence ballot measures. Furthermore, the Department of
Justice has publicly stated how difficult it would be to
prosecute someone for soliciting campaign funds over a
telephone from federal property to a person on private
property. The ``Federal Property Campaign Fundraising Reform
Act of 2000'' was introduced on July 13, 2000 by Mr. Hyde and
18 cosponsors, in order to address all of these issues.
Specifically, this legislation:
Prohibits the solicitation of hard and soft
money in, to, or from federal property;
Bans campaign solicitations made on federal
property by any means (including the telephone); and
Bans solicitations made on federal property
for funds that are meant to influence state and local
elections and ballot measures such as initiatives and
referenda.
The intent of H.R. 4845 is to amend section 607 to embody
what was previously thought to be proscribed under current law.
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct described
their understanding of the law as follows:
The general rule on solicitation, briefly state, is
that members and staff may not solicit political
contributions in or from House offices, and this
general prohibition applies no matter how the
solicitation is made (in person, over the telephone, or
through the mail), and no matter the nature of the
contribution solicited (hard money, soft money, or
contributions for a state or localcampaign). Memorandum
For All Members, Officers and Employees from the House Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, relating to Rules and Standards of
Conduct Relating to Campaign Activity, 6, March 2, 2000 (emphasis in
original).
Legislative History.--On July 20, 2000, the full Committee
held a hearing on H.R. 4845 at which the following witness
appeared: Mr. John C. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, United States Department of
Justice.
Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000--H.R. 4888
On July 19, 2000, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
introduced the ``Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000'' (H.R.
4888), a bill that would make it unlawful for the federal
government or any state government to execute a woman while she
is pregnant. This legislation was designed to fulfil the United
States' obligations under the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. Article 6(5) of the Covenant provides, in
pertinent part, that a ``[s]entence of death * * * shall not be
carried out on pregnant women.'' The United States agreed to
this prohibition, and promised to ``take necessary steps * * *
to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary
to give effect to the rights recognized in the present
Covenant.'' On July 25, 2000, the Committee was discharged and
on a motion to suspend the rules, H.R. 4888 passed the House by
a vote of 417 to 0.
H. Con. Res. 124, sense of Congress relating to loyalty of Americans of
Asian ancestry/S. Con. Res. 53, condemning all prejudice
against individuals of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry in the
United States
On May 27, 1999, Representative David Wu introduced H. Con.
Res. 124, a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress
relating to recent allegations of espionage and illegal
campaign financing that may have brought into question the
loyalty and probity of Americans of Asian ancestry. This
resolution pronounced the sense of Congress to heighten
awareness and focus attention on guarding against stereotyping
and discriminating against Americans of Asian descent. The Full
Committee ordered the resolution to be favorably reported by
voice vote to the House on September 22, 1999. The Committee
was discharged from further consideration of the bill on
November 2, 1999. H. Con. Res. 124 passed the House on November
2, 1999.
On August 5, 1999, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S.
Con. Res. 53, a resolution that expresses the sense of Congress
that no Member of Congress or any other individual in the
United States should stereotype or generalize the actions of an
individual that an entire group of people; individuals of Asian
and Pacific Island ancestry in the United States are entitled
to all rights and privileges afforded to all individuals in the
United States; and the Attorney General, the Secretary of
Energy, and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission should, within their respective
jurisdictions, investigate all allegations of discrimination in
public or private workplaces and vigorously enforce the
security of U.S. national laboratories, without discriminating
against such individuals. The measure was referred to the
Senate Committee on Judiciary. On July 20, 1999, the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary ordered that the resolution be
favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and an amendment to the title and with an amended
preamble. On July 27, 2000, the Senate passed the amended
resolution by unanimous consent. On September 6, 2000, the
resolution was received in the House and referred the House
Judiciary committee. The measure was then held at Full
Committee.
H. Con. Res. 180--expressing the sense of the Congress that the
President should not have granted clemency to terrorists
Summary.--H. Con. Res. 180 expressed the sense of the
Congress that the President should not have granted clemency to
The Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN) terrorists. On
August 11, 1999, President Clinton granted clemency to 16 FALN
terrorists, contrary to the recommendations of numerous law
enforcement agencies and the families of the victims of the
FALN's reign of terror.
The FALN is a militant terrorist organization that claimed
responsibility for the bombings of approximately 130 civilian,
political, and military sites throughout the United States and
Puerto Rico in the 1970's and 1980's. During the FALN's violent
attempts at seeking independence for Puerto Rico, six people
died, and dozens of others were injured, including law
enforcement officials. In addition, millions of dollars of
property damage was caused by the FALN's violence.
Upon their capture, the 16 members of the FALN were tried
for numerous crimes, including seditious conspiracy, robbery,
weapons charges and other felonies. They were convicted and
sentenced to prison for terms up to 90 years. None of the
terrorists expressed remorse for their actions at their trial,
sentencing or while in prison. Once these 16 were imprisoned,
not a single act of terrorism occurred that was attributed to
the FALN.
When it became apparent that the President was
contemplating release of the terrorists, numerous law
enforcement agencies advised against granting clemency. The
FBI, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and two United States Attorneys
all reportedly recommended against granting leniency to them.
The Bureau of Prisons reportedly based its decision in part on
the existence tape-recorded telephone calls made by the
terrorist inmates that indicated that some of the 16 vowed to
resume their violent activities upon release from prison.
Families of the victims of the FALN's activities pleaded with
the President to keep the terrorists in prison and not grant
them clemency.
On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered the 16 FALN
members clemency and 14 of them were released back into the
community.
Legislative History.--Because of the United States' long-
standing counter-terrorism policy against conceding to
terrorists and bringing them to justice for their crimes, H.
Con. Res. 180 was introduced on September 8, 1999 by Mr.
Fossella for himself, along with Mr. Dreier, Mr. Hyde, Mr.
Bliley, Mr. Archer, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Bonilla, Mr.
Royce, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Stump, Mr. Watts of
Oklahoma, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Traficant, Mrs.
Kelly, Mr. Cox, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Upton, Mr. Istook, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Packard,, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Buyer,
Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Sweeney, Mr.
Knollenberg, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Weller,
Mr. Ewing, Mr. Largent, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Coburn, and Mr.
Shadegg. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and
held at full committee onSeptember 8, 1999. On September 8,
1999, the Committee on Rules reported and the House adopted H. Res.
281, the rule providing for a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.
Con. Res. 180 (H. Rept. 106-309). On September 9, 1999, the Committee
on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of H. Con.
Res. 180 which was as agreed to by the House under suspension of the
rules, by a vote of 311 yeas, 41 nays, and 72 ``present''. On September
13, 1999, it was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary on September 29, 1999.
Appointment of Managers to conduct the Impeachment Trial of President
William Jefferson Clinton--H. Res. 10
During the One Hundred and Fifth Congress, on December 19,
1998, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the
House of Representatives. On that same day, the House
appointed, pursuant to H. Res. 614, 13 managers to conduct the
impeachment trial in the Senate. On January 6, 1999, in
continuance of the authority conferred in H. Res. 614 of the
One Hundred Fifth Congress, the House of Representatives
reappointed, pursuant to H. Res. 10, Mr. Hyde of Illinois, Mr.
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Mr. McCollum of Florida, Mr. Gekas
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Buyer of Indiana,
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot of Ohio, Mr. Barr of
Georgia, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Cannon of Utah, Mr.
Rogan of California, and Mr. Graham of South Carolina managers
to conduct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson
Clinton, President of the United States.
Disavowing racism and bigotry--H. Res. 121
On March 17, 1999, Representative J.C. Watts introduced H.
Res. 121, a resolution affirming Congress' opposition to all
forms of racism and bigotry. H. Res. 121 was referred to the
House Committee on the Judiciary and subsequently discharged on
March 23, 1999 without Committee consideration. The resolution
was considered by the full House under suspension of the rules
on March 23, 1999 and it failed to attain the necessary two-
thirds majority, 254-152 (218 Republicans and 36 Democrats
voted yes; 1 Republican and 150 Democrats voted no), with 24
members voting present. H. Res. 121 declared that the House of
Representatives: (1) insists that individuals' rights are
nonnegotiable; (2) opposes those seeking to divide Americans on
the grounds of race, religion, or ethnic origin; (3) denounces
all who practice racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or
religious intolerance; and (4) calls on all American of good
will be reject hatred and bigotry.
Recognizing the service of police officers--H. Res. 165 and H. Res. 501
Representative Joel Hefley (R-CO) introduced H. Res. 165 to
express the sense of the House of Representative that all peace
officers slain in the line of duty should be honored and
recognized and to urge the President to issue a proclamation
calling on all citizen to honor and recognize such officers
with appropriate ceremonies. On May 11, 1999, the Committee on
the Judiciary was discharged from consideration of the
resolution, and House agreed to the resolution by a recorded
vote of 420 ayes to 0 nays.
Represenative Jim Ramstead (R-MN) introduced H. Res. 501 to
honor and recognize slain peace officers and the sacrifices and
risks taken daily to all police officers and to urge the
President to issue a proclamation calling on all citizens to
honor and recognize such officers with appropriate ceremonies.
On May 15, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged
from consideration of the resolution the House agreed to the
resolution by voice vote.
Recognizing the historical significance of the Supreme Court's
unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education--H. Res. 176
On May 18 1999, Representative Thompson introduced H. Res.
176 a resolution recognizing the historical significance of the
Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of
Education, repudiating segregation, and reaffirming the
fundamental belief that we are all ``one Nation under God,
indivisible''. The matter was referred to the House Committee
on the Judiciary, which was discharged from further
consideration that day. The resolution was then considered by
unanimous consent and passed the House on May 18, 1999.
S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999,
was introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) on April 28, 1999.
After its passage by the Senate on May 6, 1999, the House
substituted the text of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of
1999, for the text of S. 900, and passed the bill as amended.
Chairman Hyde, Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law Chairman Gekas, and Ranking Member Conyers
of the Committee on the Judiciary were appointed to the
conference on S. 900 with respect to certain provisions within
the Committee's jurisdiction, two of which pertained to
bankruptcy law. Section 136 of S. 900 established various
regulatory requirements for wholesale financial institutions,
including the creation of a new subchapter under chapter 7 of
the Bankruptcy Code to deal with their liquidation. Section 197
was intended to enhance the ``source of strength doctrine,''
which requires bank holding companies to provide financial
assistance to its bank subsidiaries in financial distress.
While the conference report on S. 900 did not include section
136, it did incorporate a modified version of section 197.
Included in S. 900 as section 730, this provision differed from
the House amendment in several respects. First, it clarified
that the transferred assets must be those of an affiliate or a
controlling shareholder of an insured depository institution.
The House amendment did not so specify. Second, section 730
provided that the transfer must be to or for the benefit of an
insured depository institution and that it must be made by an
affiliate or controlling shareholder of such insured depository
institution. The House amendment did not include such
clarifying language. Third, section 730 specified that no
person may bring a claim against a Federal banking agency for
monetary damages, or for other legal or equitable relief in
connection with such transfer. The House amendment only
referred to claims for monetary damages or for the return of
assets or other property. Fourth, section 730 eliminated the
House amendment's provision concerning its application to the
rights of certain entities. Further, section 730 added a
definition of the term ``claim.'' For purposes of this
provision, a claim was defined as a cause of action based on
Federal or State law providing for the avoidance of
preferential or fraudulent transfers or conveyances, or
providing for similar remedies. The definition,
however,explicitly excepted any claim based on actual intent to hinder,
delay or defraud pursuant to such fraudulent transfer or conveyance
law.
S. 900 also contained provisions that implicated the
Committee's antitrust jurisdiction. Under current law, bank
mergers are reviewed under special bank merger statutes, and
they do not go through the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review
process that covers most other mergers. Under S. 900, banks
will be able to get into other businesses which they have not
been able to do before.
The principle that S. 900 follows is that when mergers
occur, the bank part of that merger will be judged under the
current bank merger statutes, and no change is intended in that
process or in any of the agencies' respective jurisdictions.
The non-bank part of that merger will be subject to the normal
Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review by either the Justice
Department or the Federal Trade Commission.
This is, in all likelihood, the result that would have
obtained anyway. Hybrid transactions involving complex
corporate entities--some parts of which are in industries
subject to merger review by specialized regulatory agencies and
other parts of which are not--have occurred in the past. In
those cases, the various parts of the consolidation were
considered according to agency jurisdiction over their
respective parts, so that normal Hart-Scott-Rodino Act
requirements applied to those parts that did not fall within
the specialized agency's specific authority. See, e.g., 16
C.F.R. Sec. 802.6. These precedents would have probably
dictated the desired result here.
The clarification for the new financial holding company
structure contained in Sec. 133(c) is consistent with, and in
no way disturbs, those existing precedents. Even so, S. 900
makes a big change in our banking laws, and the Judiciary
conferees thought it would be most helpful to clarify this
point with respect to financial holding companies in the
statute. That clarification was achieved with the language in
Sec. 133(c) of the Conference Report. Similar language was a
part of the House bill.
As the shape of the new activities in which banks were
going to be permitted to engage through operating subsidiaries
became clear in conference, the conferees ideally would have
further revised the House language to make a similar
clarification regarding consolidations of non-banking entities
that are operating subsidiaries of merging banks. But the
operating subsidiary situation so closely parallels the
precedents mentioned above that a clarification for that
situation was probably unnecessary.
Of course, whatever aspect of a banking merger is not
subject to normal Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger review will be
subject to the alternative procedures set forth in the Bank
Merger Act and the Bank Holding Company Act, including the
automatic stay. So one way or another, there will be some
avenue for effective premerger review by the antitrust
enforcement agencies. These alternative procedures would be in
some ways more potentially disruptive to the merging banking
entities, particularly when the antitrust concern involves non-
banking entities. But it is our intent that the precedents will
be followed.
In short, under this bill and the precedents, no bank is
treated differently than it otherwise would be because it has
some other business within its corporate family. Likewise, no
other business is treated differently than it otherwise would
be because it has a bank within its corporate family.
The conference report also includes conforming language
found in Sec. 133(a) to clarify that the Federal Trade
Commission's authority in the non-banking sphere is preserved.
These provisions were advisable in light of the fact that the
FTC's enforcement authority specifically excludes banks and
savings associations, but does not and should not exclude the
non-banking entities that will be brought into the banking
picture as a result of the new law. S. 900 clarifies that the
existing exemption is limited to the bank or savings
association itself and that the FTC retains jurisdiction over
nonbank entities despite any corporate connections they may
have with banks or savings associations. This clarification
applies to the FTC's jurisdiction over non-banking firms under
the FTC Act, and accordingly under any statute that may provide
for enforcement under the Act like the consumer credit laws and
the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act.
For example, the FTC would continue to have jurisdiction over a
telemarketer of financial services, even if it is a subsidiary
or affiliate of a bank. The FTC's authority would not be
expanded or extended to any new statute that may not be
enforced under the FTC Act. These provisions were also included
in the House bill.
Again, no bank is treated differently than it otherwise
would be because it has some other business within its
corporate family. Likewise, no other business is treated
differently than it otherwise would be because it has a bank
within its corporate family.
After passage by both the House and the Senate, the
conference report on S. 900 was signed into law on November 12,
1999 (Public Law 106-102).
H.R. 1401 (S. 1059), a bill authorizing appropriations for fiscal year
2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes
Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 1401
(S. 1059), to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000
and 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year for the Armed Forces and for other purposes for
consideration of provisions relating to government access to
classified information on Department of Energy defense-related
computers, the conduct of security clearances, and restriction
on access to national laboratories by foreign visitors from
sensitive countries. S. 1059 became law on October 5, 1999 as
Public Law 106-65.
Oversight Activities
Pursuant to Rule X, clause 2(d), the Committee adopted an
oversight plan for the 106th Congress. The oversight plan
incorporated the matters which the Committee deemed, at the
beginning of the Congress, to be worthy of its attention. Some
of the matters contained in the oversight plan were addressed
in the context of legislative hearings. The following is a list
of the oversight hearings held by the full Committee. The
oversight activities of the subcommittees will be discussed
separately.
Full Committee Oversight Hearings
Antitrust Aspects of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998.
May 5, 1999. (Serial No. 30).
Youth Culture and Violence. May 13, 1999. (Serial No. 20).
Competitive Issues in Electricity Deregulation. July 28,
1999. (Serial No. 69).
Hate Crimes Violence. August 4, 1999. (Serial No. 74).
Competitive Issues in Agriculture and the Food Marketing
Industry. October 20, 1999. (Serial No. 67).
Solutions to Competitive Problems in the Oil Industry.
March 29, April 7, June 28, 2000. (Serial No. 127).
Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: The Bureau of Competition
of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice. April 12, 2000. (Serial No. 104).
State of Competition in the Airline Industry. June 14, 23,
2000. (Serial No. 126).
Investigation of Misconduct and Mismanagement at ICITAP,
OPDAT and the Criminal Division's Office of Administration.
September 21, 2000. (Serial No. 128).
Full Committee Oversight Activities
review of documents relating to the attorney general's decision not to
seek the appointment of an independent counsel in the campaign finance
matter
Over the past several years the House Committee on the
Judiciary has been closely following the actions of the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') relating tot he campaign
finance investigation and the decisions not to seek the
appointment of an independent counsel in that and related
matters. In fact, the Committee on March 12, 1997, and
September 3, 1997, requested that the Attorney General apply
for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate
this scandal. The Committee then held an oversight hearing on
October 15, 1997, at which the Attorney General testified about
the investigation and her decision not to seek the appointment
of an independent counsel. Concerned about reports about
management and operational problems encountered by the Campaign
Finance Task Force (``CFTF''), the Committee requested on
October 30, 1998, that the General Accounting Office (``GAO'')
review the operation of the Public Integrity Section and the
CFTC. The Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law held a hearing on March 2, 1999, regarding
the reauthorization of the Independent Counsel statute. The
Committee's Chief investigative Counsel reviewed the Freeh \1\
and La Bella \2\ memoranda, Chief of Public Integrity Section
Lee Radek's rebuttal \3\ to the La Bella memorandum, and La
Bella's response \4\ to Radek's rebuttal, at the Department of
Justice on February 8 and 9, 2000. After that review, the
Committee requested on February 24, 2000, that the GAO be
permitted to review the same memoranda; however, the DOJ never
responded to that reasonable request.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum from the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Louis J. Freeh, to the Attorney General, dated November
24, 1997 (``Freeh Memo'').
\2\ Interim Report for Janet Reno, Attorney General, and Louis J.
Freeh, Director, FBI regarding the campaign finance investigation,
prepared by Charles LaBella, Supervising Attorney, Campaign Financing
Task Force and James DeSarno, Assistant Director, FBI CAMPCON Task
Force (``LaBella Memo'') (July 16, 1998).
\3\ Memorandum from Lee J. Radek, Chief, Public Integrity Section
to James K. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
reviewing the LaBella and DeSarno Interim Report (August 5, 1998).
\4\ Addendum to Interim Report Interim Report for Janet Reno,
Attorney General, and Louis J. Freeh, Director, FBI, regarding the
campaign finance investigation, prepared by Charles LaBella,
Supervising Attorney, Campaign Financing Task Force and James DeSarno,
Assistant Director, FBI CAMPCON Task Force (``LaBella Memo'') (August
12, 1998).
\5\ Letter to the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General, from the
Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,
February 24, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the Committee's lingering concerns about the
decision not to seek the appointment of an independent counsel
in the campaign finance matter, the operation and management of
the Task Force, and the Department's interpretation of various
criminal laws implicated in this matter, the Committee
requested, along with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in
an April 5, 2000, letter, that the Attorney General produce
pertinent records.\6\ Subsequent to the delivery of the April
5, 2000, letter, the Subcommittee on the Constitution noticed a
meeting to authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for
April 13, 2000. At the request of Ranking Member John Conyers,
the Subcommittee postponed the meeting and instead met with
Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, Assistant Attorney General
for Legislative Affairs Robert Raben, and other DOJ officials
about the March 29 document request. At that meeting both
Chairmen Hyde and Canady stressed the seriousness and
importance of the matter and indicated that the Committee was
willing to litigate the matter and would seek review of the
Department's noncompliance in Federal Court under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1331 (general federal question jurisdiction). In an April
13, 2000, letter to Messers. Holder and Raben, Chairmen Hyde
and Canady wrote: ``Because your have assured us that the
Justice Department is acting in good faith, will seriously
consider our legal and institutional prerogatives, and will
search for and collect all documents responsive to our request
over the next two weeks, we have postponed consideration of the
subpoena until Wednesday, May 3, 2000.'' Over the course of the
following several weeks, majority and minority staff had
several meetings with DOJ representatives about the production
of pertinent documents. A final meeting with the principles was
scheduled for May 3, 2000, and the Subcommittee on the
Constitution postponed the issuance of the subpoena. At the May
3, 2000 meeting, a final agreement was worked out for the
production and receipt of responsive documents.\7\ The
Committee received the first installment of documents on May 8,
2000. Other committees of the Congress received the same
documents several weeks thereafter. On June 6, 2000, the House
Committee on Government Reform publicly released these at a
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Letter to the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General, from the
Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,
the Honorable Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
the Honorable Charles Canady, Chairman, House Committee on the
Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, and the Honorable Arlen
Specter, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Department
of Justice Oversight Investigation, Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts, April 5, 2000. The authors expressed their
concerns as follow:
As you know, over the past several years there has been
intense public and congressional concern regarding the
Department of Justice's handling of the campaign finance
investigation, including (1) whether the Department used
the independent counsel law to prevent law enforcement
officials from investigating high level ``covered''
persons, (2) whether decisions regarding the appointment of
an independent counsel and other key prosecutorial
decisions were made by taking the most exculpatory view of
all potentially damaging evidence, (3) whether such
decisions were made based on untested factual assumptions
that turned out to be false, (4) whether consistent and
principled judgments were made regarding important legal
issues, such as the legality of using federal property for
fundraising purposes, (5) whether the Department failed to
investigate credible allegations that might have implicated
high level government officials, such as Common Cause's
allegation of a conspiracy to violate campaign funding
laws, (6) whether the Department failed adequately to
consider the possibility that innumerable individual
examples of campaign fundraising violations or
improprieties reflected an overall scheme or pattern, (7)
why high level government officials were never asked key
questions about their knowledge regarding these violations
and improprieties, (8) why lawbreakers such as Charlie Trie
and John Huang were given plea agreements which were too
lenient, (9) why the recommendations and views of
distinguished and career law enforcement officials such as
FBI Director Freeh and Charles La Bella, your handpicked
prosecutor, were repeatedly overruled or ignored by senior
officials at the Department, and why these officials were
excluded from some aspects of the investigation and (10)
why there are still no answers to important questions such
as why Chinese government officials provided hundred of
thousands of dollars for contributions to an American
political campaign. These concerns have not been alleviated
by recent disclosures regarding the now famous Freeh and La
Bella memoranda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Letter to the Honorable Janet Reno from the Honorable Henry
Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, the Honorable Charles
Canady, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, the Honorable John
Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and
Melvin Watt, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution,
(enclosing the Protocol Agreement for Production of Document to the
House Committee on the Judiciary by the Department of Justice), May 3,
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
campaign finance task force
At the request of the Committee, the General Accounting
Office issued a May 2000 report titled: Campaign Finance Task
Force: Problems and Disagreements Initially Hampered Justice's
Investigation, GAO/GGD-00-101BR. The report addressed (1)
strained working relationships and trust concerns; (2)
disagreement over investigative approach; (3) management and
analysis of evidence problems; (4) management changes, staffing
fluctuations, and oversight; (5) CFTF prospective results and
costs; (6) limitations in the Federal Election Campaign Act
that may inhibit prosecutions.
the elian gonzalez matter
In November, 1999, Elian Gonzalez, a five year old Cuban
child, was rescued while drifting in the ocean off the coast of
Florida. A few days earlier, he had left Cuba in a boat with
his mother and several others. The boat subsequently capsized
and Elian's mother and most of the other passengers perished.
After his rescue, Elian was paroled by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service into the care of his great uncle, Lazaro
Gonzalez. After several months of legal action, Elian's father,
Juan Miguel Gonzalez, traveled to the United States from Cuba
to claim his son. On April 12, Attorney General Reno revoked
parole and ordered Lazaro Gonzalez to turn Elian over to her.
Lazaro Gonzalez refused, and in the early morning hours of
April 22, 2000, Federal authorities forcibly seized Elian
Gonzalez from the home of his great-uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, in
Miami, Florida and delivered him to his father in Maryland.
On April 22, 2000 Speaker Hastert asked Chairman Hyde to
exercise the Judiciary Committee's appropriate oversight
function and examine the Justice Department's tactics and
response to the Elian Gonzalez matter. In response to this
request, Chairman Hyde announced on April 24, 2000 that he had
directed House Judiciary Committee staff to ``begin a
preliminary inquiry into the tactics employed in the seizure of
Elian Gonzalez by federal authorities.''
The following is a summary of the oversight Committee staff
conducted of the Elian Gonzalez matter. Staff, majority and
minority, had two briefings from main Justice and INS officials
regarding the government's seizing of Elian Gonzalez from his
Miami relatives on April 22, 2000. On May 3, 2000, Committee
staff met with Bob Wallis, the INS District Director for
Florida and Jim Goldman, the head of INS investigations in
Florida. Brad Glassman from the Deputy Attorney General's
office was also at the meeting. The briefing focused on the
preparation and execution of the raid, as well as a detailed
discussion of the security threat in and around Lazaro
Gonzalez's home. Committee staff met again with Brad Glassman
on May 15, 2000 to discuss all aspects of the negotiations that
took place between the government and the Gonzalez families
from January through April, 2000. Staff also reviewed INS
documents that were provided to the Committee after a telephone
request. These documents included summaries of INS interviews
with Juan Miguel Gonzalez in Cuba and after action reports from
the six man Border Patrol Tactical Unit that entered Lazaro
Gonzalez's home and seized Elian on April 22, 2000. In
addition, staff read and analyzed the various court decisions
that were rendered in the case.
On July 27-28, 2000, committee staff, two from the majority
and two from the minority, traveled to Miami, Florida and
interviewed Miami businessmen and civic leaders Carlos De la
Cruz and Carlos Saladrigas. They also interviewed University of
Miami President Tad Foote and the two lead attorneys for Lazaro
Gonzalez, Kendal Coffey and Manny Diaz. These interviews
focused on each of the interviewees involvement in, and
assessment of, the negotiations that took place from Thursday
April 20 through Saturday April 22, 2000. These negotiations
directly involved Attorney General Reno and were aimed at
effectuating the reunification of Elian Gonzalez with his
father. On Wednesday October 11, 2000, committee staff, two
from the majority and three from the minority, interviewed via
telephone Aaron Podhurst--Miami attorney, friend of Janet Reno,
and the lead mediator and liaison with Attorney General Reno
during the April 20-22, 2000 negotiations. This concluded the
committee's oversight of the Elian Gonzalez matter. At this
point it was determined by the Chairman that no further action
by the Committee was required.
justice department prosecution of obscenity cases
In a June 10, 1998 memorandum from Deputy Attorney General
Eric Holder to all United States Attorneys, Mr. Holder
acknowledged the ``unprecedented growth'' in the distribution
of obscenity and used the memorandum to remind the U.S.
Attorney of the Department's policies and priorities in the
prosecution of federal obscenity cases. Mr. Holder stated that,
``the Federal role in prosecuting obscenity cases should be to
focus upon the major producers and interstate distributors of
obscenity of child pornography, while leaving to local
jurisdictions the responsibility of dealing with local
exhibitions and sales.'' Additionally, although he stated that
the focus should be on major distributors, Mr. Holder also
acknowledged the efficacy in prosecuting smaller distributors:
prosecutors of cases involving relatively small
distributors can have a deterrent effect and would
dispel any notion that obscenity distributors are
insulated from prosecution if their operations fail to
exceed a predetermined size of if they fragment their
business into small-scale operations. Therefore,
prosecution of such distributors also may be
appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
In light of this articulated policy of the Department of
Justice, the Republican members of the House Judiciary
Committee's Crime Subcommittee sent a letter to Attorney
General Reno onMarch 22, 1999 regarding prosecution of
obscenity and child pornography cases. In this letter, the members
requested Ms. Reno to provide the Subcommittee with the annual number
of cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under each of the
Federal obscenity statutes (title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1460 et seq.) and the
Federal child exploitation and pornography statutes (title 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2251 et seq.) during the past 10 years (beginning with 1988). The
Attorney General was also requested to specifically identify Internet
obscenity prosecutions brought pursuant to P.L. 104-104, Sec. 507 et
seq. Finally, the Subcommittee members asked for an explanation of the
Justice Department's policies and priorities with respect to the
prosecution of obscenity and child pornography. The Subcommittee
members received a reply letter dated June 11, 1999 from Jon P.
Jennings, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs. On
January 24, 2000, Committee staff sent a follow-up letter to the
Department requesting copies of all obscenity related indictments (18
U.S.C. Sec. 1460 et seq.) filed by the Department from 1997 through
1999. Robert Raben, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs,
responded to this letter on April 6, 2000. Furthermore, Committee staff
was briefed by officials from the Justice Department's Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section on May 24, 2000.
From the review of the statistics provided by Mr. Jennings
and copies of Justice Department indictments provided by Mr.
Raben, the Committee's majority staff determined that the
Clinton Justice Department has failed to prosecute either large
or small scale distributors of obscenity. Additionally, the
Department has not prosecuted a single distributor of obscenity
over the Internet under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1462 or 1465,
despite the fact that Mr. Holder declared that ``priority also
should be given to large-scale distributors of obscenity over
the Internet,'' and that ``investigation and prosecution of
Internet obscenity is particularly suitable for federal
resources.''
The Department has a widely supported policy of giving
priority to cases involving the use of children in ``producing
pornography and cases involving interstate or foreign shipment
of material depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit
conduct.'' However, the Department has utterly ignored its
stated policy of also enforcing the federal obscenity laws. The
Congress has provided the Department with adequate resources to
pursue obscenity prosecutions (including an earmarked $1
million appropriation in fiscal year 1999 solely for online
obscenity prosecutions) and the Child Exploitation and
Obscenity section of the Department of Justice has the
capabilities to successfully prosecute obscenity cases, as
evidenced by the determined and successful approach this
section took towards distributors of obscenity in the late
1980's and early 1900's.
It is clear from copies of indictments provided by the
Department to the Committee that the Department of Justice has
no policy to prosecute large or small producers or distributors
of obscenity. The Department should have a comprehensive
program which would vigorously prosecute obscenity cases
involving children, child pornography cases, and online
predator cases. Such a program should also include as a
necessary component the aggressive prosecution of large scale
producers and distributors of obscenity. Clearly the policy
makers in Congress have determined that obscenity is harmful
and even adults should be prohibited from producing, buying, or
selling obscene materials. That is why Congress has enacted
Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 71, sections 1460-1470.
These laws against obscenity were vigorously enforced during
the 1980's and early 1990's. They have been neglected, however,
over the last 6 years.
Review of federal bureau of prisons' management of inmate telephone
privileges in the wake of the FALN terrorist clemencies
In August, 1999, the Department of Justice's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) released a special report titled,
Criminal Calls: A Review of the Bureau of Prisons' Management
of Inmate Telephone Privileges. This report concluded that ``a
significant number of federal inmates use prison telephones to
commit serious crimes while incarcerated--including murder,
drug trafficking, and fraud.'' The inmates were permitted to
make seemingly unlimited amounts of telephone calls and they
were not adequately monitored. The review also concluded that
the Bureau of Prisons had been aware of this particular problem
for a long time, but had not taken sufficient steps to address
the issue.
At the same time, the House Judiciary Committee was closely
scrutinizing the President's offer of clemency to 16 terrorist
members of the FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation) on
August 11, 1999. The Committee was concerned that inmate
members of the FALN had expressed intentions to pursue their
objectives of Puerto Rican independence while vowing to resume
their violent activities upon their release from prison while
on tape-recorded prison telephone calls. On January 18, 2000,
Chairman Hyde wrote to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP), Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, asking why the BOP's
management of inmate telephone calls should not be completely
revamped to prevent inmates from committing serious crimes
using prison phones. Concerns were expressed that if the phones
had been adequately monitored and policed in this instance,
perhaps the prisoners' intentions to continue their violent
struggle for independence would have been brought to the
attention of the proper authorities prior to the President's
grant of clemency.
The Office of Inspector General recommended several changes
to the BOP's management of inmate telephone calls. The Bureau
of Prisons concurred with most of the recommendations and has
begun implementing many of the recommendations. The OIG will be
conducting a follow-up through site visits beginning in
December, 2000.
review of the office of professional responsibility
The House Committee on the Judiciary has been concerned
about the process for which federal prosecutors are held
accountable for allegations of ethical violations and
transparency issues over its investigations. After reviewing
numerous citizen and Members of Congress' complaints about the
Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility
(OPR), Committee staff met with OPR officials and conducted a
review of their procedures and public summaries of cases after
their adjudication by OPR. On October 14, 1999, Chairman Hyde
and Congressman Delahunt asked the General Accounting Office to
conduct a comprehensive review of OPR policies and processes
for holding Justice's attorneys accountable to ethical
standards. Specifically, GAO was asked to determine:
How OPR conducts inquiries into allegations
of misconduct;
To what extent OPR's workload and budgets
have changes, if any;
The possible range of disciplinary actions
and procedures if misconduct if found;
OPR's oversight relationship with similar
Justice components;
The degree in which OPR has implemented
prior GAO recommendations; and
How OPR monitors and implements the Hyde
Attorneys Fees Amendment and the Citizens Protection
Act.
The data evidencing the types of allegations
made in the cases whereby OPR made findings of
professional misconduct or poor judgment;
Information demonstrating whether or not OPR
monitors and records the disposition of any state bar
referrals, and if so, what OPR then does with the
information;
Data regarding resignations and retirements
which occur during or as a result of any inquiry or
investigation;
DOJ's policy with regard to monitoring cases
which are administratively closed due to it's tendency
in a court at the time it is filed with OPR;
DOJ's policy concerning documentation of an
OPR complaint and it's disposition in an attorney's
personnel file; and
Further information on the one case that OPR
closed without a finding of misconduct concerning the
Hyde Amendment.
GAO issued a report on some of these issues on August 14,
2000 and the GAO expects to be able to complete an addenda to
that report in January 2001.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \1\
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey BOB BARR, Georgia
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas \2\
----------
\1\ Stephen E. Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee effective
March 4, 1999.
\2\ Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas, was assigned to the subcommittee on March
24, 1999.
Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity
Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.......................... 331
Private legislation referred to the Subcommittee.................. 1
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.............. 17
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee.............. 0
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee. 0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee.... 0
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee...................... 8
Legislation pending before the full Committee..................... 2
Legislation reported to the House................................. 24
Legislation discharged from the Committee......................... 29
Legislation pending in the House.................................. 5
Legislation passed by the House................................... 48
Legislation pending in the Senate................................. 17
Legislation vetoed by the President............................... 0
Legislation enacted into Public Law............................... 17
Legislation on which hearings were held........................... 23
Days of hearing (legislative and oversight)....................... 31
Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee on Crime has jurisdiction over the Federal
Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole and
pardons, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons, law
enforcement assistance to State and local governments, and
other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and
relevant oversight.
Highlights of the Subcommittee's activities during the
106th Congress include:
Fighting the War on Drugs More Effectively
Oversight Hearing of the Drug Enforcement Administration
On July 29, 1999, the Crime Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA's
resources have been increased substantially in recent years, at
the same time that new challenges have arisen in our national
effort to combat illegal drugs. The witnesses included: Norman
J. Rabkin, Director, Administration of Justice Issue Area,
United States General Accounting Office; Donnie R. Marshall,
Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, United
States Department of Justice; William Berger, Chief of Police,
North Miami Beach, Florida, Peter Reuter, Professor, School of
Public Affairs, University of Maryland, and Robert Maginnis,
Senior Researcher, Family Research Counsel.
The Methamphetamine and Club Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000
In 1996, Congress passed the Comprehensive Methamphetamine
Control Act, the first legislative effort specifically directed
at controlling the proliferation of methamphetamine in America.
This important, bipartisan measure targeted the diversion of
the most commonly used precursor chemicals and imposed strict
reporting requirements on the sales of those chemicals.
Notwithstanding the effectiveness of the 1996 Act, laboratory
operators and drug traffickers continue to produce and traffic
significant quantities of methamphetamine. More can and should
be done to help law enforcement officials uncover, arrest, and
hold accountable those who produce methamphetamine. Drug
trafficking organizations operating out of Mexico and
California have virtually taken control of the production and
distribution of methamphetamine in the United States. Over the
past five years, an upsurge of methamphetamine trafficking and
abuse has swept across America, and clandestine methamphetamine
laboratories have been discovered in all 50 states.
The methamphetamine epidemic in America differs in kind
from the threat of other illegal drugs because methamphetamine
can be made from readily available and legal chemicals and
substances, and because it poses serious dangers to both human
life and to the environment. Additionally, these chemicals and
substances are utilized in a manufacturing process that is
unstable, volatile, and highly combustible. Even small amounts
of these chemicals, when mixedimproperly, can cause explosions
and fires. For every one pound of methamphetamine that is produced,
approximately five pounds of toxic and often lethal waste products may
be left behind at the laboratory site, or disposed of in rivers,
kitchen sinks, or sewage systems in an effort to conceal evidence of
illegal manufacturing. More distributing is that most of these
laboratories are situated in residences, motels, trailers, and vans,
and often times are operated in the presence of children. Contributing
to this danger are countless Internet web sites devoted specifically to
providing detailed instructions for producing methamphetamine.
In the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime held one
field oversight hearing and five (5) oversight forums on
methamphetamine production, trafficking, and use in Arkansas,
California, New Mexico, and Kansas. Testimony was received from
numerous witnesses, including former methamphetamine addicts,
family members of the victims of methamphetamine related
violence, law enforcement professionals, and prevention and
addiction treatment professionals.
The Subcommittee on Crime held a field hearing on Friday,
February 25, 2000 at the Jones Center for Families in
Springdale, Arkansas to examine the explosive growth in recent
years in the production, trafficking, and use of
methamphetamine in rural areas such as northwest Arkansas.
Testimony was heard from: Kelli Eales, McAlester, Oklahoma
(wife of an Oklahoma state trooper slain by a methamphetamine
dealer); George Cazenavette, Special Agent in Charge, Drug
Enforcement Administration, New Orleans Division Office,
Metairie, Louisiana; The Honorable Bill Hardin, Director,
Office of the State Drug Director, Arkansas State Police,
Little Rock, Arkansas; Blaine Hajok, Pharmacy Loss Prevention
Division, Walmart Stores Incorporated, Bentonville, Arkansas;
William Ashcraft, Director, Chemical Dependency Program,
Pinnacle Pointe Hospital, Little Rock, Arkansas; Mike Smith,
Supervisory Special Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Little Rock, Arkansas; Tim Keck, Chief, Rogers Police
Department, Rogers, Arkansas; Cindy McCoy, Fayetteville,
Arkansas; James Clark, Executive Director, Arkansas State Crime
Laboratory, Little Rock, Arkansas; Jean Sackman, Prevention
Resource Center, Harrison, Arkansas; and, Larry Counts,
Executive Director, Decision Point Incorporated, Springdale,
Arkansas.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),
the term ``club drugs'' includes LSD (acid), MDMA (Ecstasy),
GHB, GBL, Ketamine (Special-K), Kentanyl, Rohypnol, and
amphetamines. Primarily, they are used by teens and young
adults who frequent nightclubs, bars, and ``raves.'' Club drug
use appears to be increasing in many cities around the country.
Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, Detroit, Mimi, and Newark have
reported widespread use at raves and clubs. MDMA, called
``Adam,'' ``Ecstasy,'' or ``XTC,'' on the street, is a
synthetic, psychoactive drug with hallucinogenic and
amphetamine-like properties. Use of Ectasy has surged
dramatically in recent years, and it may well be on its way to
becoming an epidemic. Seizures by the United States Customs
Service have risen from less than 500,000 tablets during fiscal
year 1997, to 9.3 million tablets during fiscal year 2000. In
certain regions of the country, hospital emergency rooms have
seen a dramatic increase in patients suffering negative effects
of usage. Arrests of Ecstasy traffickers are on the rise, as
certain foreign organized crime groups have reportedly
developed sophisticated and effective distribution networks
both worldwide and within U.S. borders. The margin of profit is
significant; for a $100,000 investment in production of 200,000
tablets, $5 million may be realized.
In the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime held a
hearing on June 15, 2000 on ``The Threat Posed by the Illegal
Importation, Trafficking, and Use of `Ecstasy' and Other `Club'
Drugs.'' Testimony was heard from: Lewis Rice, Jr., Special
Agent in Charge, New York Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration; and, John Varrone, Acting Deputy Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Investigations, United States Customs
Service; David McDowell, MD, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry,
Columbia University and Director, Columbia University Substance
Treatment Research Service; Laurence DesRochers, MD, Staff
Emergency Physician, Community Hospital, Toms River, New
Jersey; Andrea Craparotta, Investigator, Middlesex County
Prosecutor's Office, New Brunswick, New Jersey; Eladio Paez,
Detective, Miami Police Department, Miami, Florida; and,
Phillip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and
Religious Studies, Pennsylvania State University.
On September 30, 2000, Representative Cannon (R-UT)
introduced H.R. 2987, the ``Methamphatemine and Club Drug Anti-
Proliferation Act of 2000.'' This legislation is aimed at
preventing the proliferation of methamphetamine and club drug
manufacturing, trafficking, use, and addition in America by
enhancing Federal, State, and local law enforcement resources,
increasing penalties on methamphetamine and club drug related
offenses, and authorizing prevention and treatment initiatives
providing law enforcement officials with tools and training to
more adequately address the methamphetamine epidemic. The bill
was referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and Commerce.
Subsequentley, the Subcommittee on Crime discharged H.R. 2987
and it was ordered reported favorably by the Committee on July
25, 2000, and the bill was reported on September 21, (H. Rept.
106-878, Part I). On September 21, 2000 the Committee on
Commerce discharged the bill and it was placed on the Union
Calendar. On September 22, 2000, an amendment containing
provisions substantially similar to the Committee passed
version of H.R. 2987 was offered to H.R. 4365, the ``Children's
Health Act of 2000'' during its consideration in the Senate.
The Senate subsequently approved H.R. 4365, as amended
containing that text, on that same date. The House approved the
bill without amendment on September 27, 2000 by a vote of 394
yeas to 25 nays. The president approved the bill on October 17,
2000 and it became Public Law 106-310.
On November 19, 1999, S. 486, the ``Methamphetamine Anti-
Proliferation Act of 1999,'' passed the Senate by unanimous
consent and was subsequently referred to the Committee on
Commerce on January 27, 2000 and the Subcommittee on Crime on
February 3, 2000. This legislation is a substantially similar
companion to H.R. 2987 as introduced, and no further action was
taken on it in the 106th Congress.
Drug Dealer Liability Act of 1999
On March 9, 1999, Representative Tom Latham (R-IA)
introduced H.R. 1042, the ``Drug Dealer Liability Act of
1999,'' to provide civil liability for illegal manufacturers
and distributors of controlled substances for harm caused. This
legislation was referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and
Commerce.
Both Committees were subsequently discharged from further
consideration of the bill and it was passed by the House on
October 10, 2000 by voice vote. No further action was taken on
the bill during the 106th Congress.
Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000
Crime is down in America in large part because we are
incarcerating more individuals who commit anti-social acts, and
keeping them there for longer periods of time. On September 27,
2000, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) introduced H.R. 5312,
the ``Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000,'' to
protect children from illegal drugs, drug trafficking, and the
violence associated with the drug trade by increasing the
prison sentences for Federal drug felonies involving or
affecting children. The bill increases the mandatory minimum
sentence from one year to three years for any person who uses
children (persons under the age of 18) to distribute drugs and
increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a second-time
offender from one year to five years. The mandatory minimum
sentence would be increased from one year to three years for
any person who distributes drugs to children and the mandatory
minimum sentence for a second-time offender from one year to
five years. For any person who distributes drugs in or near a
school or other protected location, including schools,
colleges, playgrounds, public housing facilities, youth
centers, public swimming pools, or video arcade facilities,
this legislation increases the mandatory minimum sentence from
year to three years and increases the mandatory minimum
sentence for a second-time offender from three years to five
years.
The bill was Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
and in addition to the Committee on Commerce. Both Committees
subsequently discharged the bill, and on October 17, 2000 the
House passed the House by voice vote. No further action was
taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.
Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Act of 2000
On May 18, 2000, Representative John Mica (R-FL) introduced
H.R. 4493, the ``Prosecution Drug Treatment Alternative or
Prison Act of 2000,'' to authorize a new funding program within
the Department of Justice, to be administered through the
Office of Justice Programs, for State and local prosecutors to
develop and implement drug treatment options for eligible
nonviolent offenders. It will enable prosecutors to establish
and oversee a drug treatment option for offenders with serious
drug abuse and addictions, with the full leverage of a sentence
of incarceration if they fail to complete the program and
comply with its stringent requirements. The authorization
funding level for this national program begins at $75 million,
with annual increases over the following four years.
On October 17, 2000 the House passed the bill by voice
vote. On December 6, 2000 it passed the Senate, as amended, by
unanimous consent. No further action was taken on the bill
during the 106th Congress.
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999
On July 29, 1999 Representative Thomas Bliley (R-VA)
introduced H.R. 2634, the ``Drug Addiction Treatment Act of
1999,'' to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to
registration requirements for practitioners who dispense
narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V for maintenance treatment or
detoxification treatment. This legislation was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the
Judiciary. On November 3, 1999 the Committee discharged
consideration of the bill and it was placed on the Union
Calendar. On July 18, 2000, Mr. Bliley moved to suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended, and it was passed by the
House by a vote of 412 yeas to 1 nay.
While no further action was taken on this bill in the 106th
Congress, an amendment containing provisions substantially
similar to the House passed version of H.R. 2634 was offered to
H.R. 4365, the ``Children's Health Act of 2000'' during its
consideration in the Senate. The Senate subsequently approved
H.R. 4365, as amended containing that text, on that same date.
The House approved the bill without amendment on September 27,
2000 by a vote of 394 yeas to 25 nays. The president approved
the bill on October 17, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-310.
Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act
H.R. 3164 was introduced by Representative Porter Goss (R-
FL) on October 28, 1999. H.R. 3164 provides authority for the
identification of and worldwide sanctions against foreign
narcotics traffickers whose activities threaten U.S. security,
foreign policy, or the economy.
On November 2, 1999, H.R. 3164 was agreed to under
suspension of the rules by the Yeas and Nays (385-26). No
further action on this bill was taken during the 106th
Congress.
Money laundering
Since the current money laundering laws were enacted in
1986, the criminal conduct that those laws were intended to
address has become increasingly international in scope.
Criminals who commit crimes abroad are using the United States
and its financial institutions as havens for laundered funds.
At the same time, criminals committing offenses in the United
States are using foreign banks and bank secrecy jurisdictions
to conceal the proceeds of their offenses.
In the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime sought to
address this truly international law enforcement problem. On
February 9, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the nature
and extent of domestic and international money laundering, its
role in the international drug trade, and methods of combating
the problem. The Subcommittee heard testimony from: Jim
Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S.
Department of Justice; Stefan D. Cassella, Assistant Chief,
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, U.S. Department
of Justice; John Varrone, Executive Director, Domestic
Operations East, Office of Investigations, U.S. Customs
Service; John Byrne, Senior Counsel and Compliance Manager,
American Bankers Association; Bill Bruton, Certified Fraud
Examiner, the Kroll Lindquist AveyCompany; Ian Comisky,
Esquire, Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley LLP; and David Smith, Esquire,
English & Smith.
On June 20, 2000, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL)
introduced H.R. 4695, the ``Money Laundering Act of 2000.''
H.R. 4695 updates the money laundering laws to enable law
enforcement to respond to the increasingly international nature
of money laundering. No action was taken on the bill during the
106th Congress.
Oversight forums
During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee held a series
of regional forums across the country to examine regional
trends in the production, trafficking, and use of
methamphetamine. In particular, the forums were designed to
determine how Congress might respond to the methamphetamine
crisis. State and local law enforcement officials, prevention
and treatment professionals, former methamphetamine addicts,
and others victimized by the methamphetamine epidemic appeared
before the Subcommittee. The oversight forums were held in five
cities: Redondo Beach, California; San Diego, California;
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Pasadena, California; and Salina,
Kansas.
Participants in the oversight forum in Redondo Beach,
California, on April 20, 2000, included: Kevin Hendershot,
Resident, Beacon House Association, San Pedro, California; Mark
Trouville, Associate Special Agent in Charge, Los Angeles Field
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Edward Manavian,
Executive Director, Los Angeles County Regional Criminal
Information Clearinghouse; John Allen Ramseyer, Deputy District
Attorney, Major Narcotics Division, City of Los Angeles; Andrew
Hutchcroft, Youth Outreach, Beacon House Association, San
Pedro, California; Richard Rawson, M.D., Associate Director,
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Integrated
Substance Abuse Programs, UCLA School of Medicine; The
Honorable Gregory Hill, Mayor, City of Redondo Beach,
California; Stephen R. Port, Chief of Police, Hawthorne,
California; James C. Christian, Director, Los Angeles
Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force;
and Bob Doyle, Undersheriff, Riverside County, California.
Participants in the oversight forum in San Diego,
California, on April 21, 2000, included: Wayne Eddington, El
Cajon, California; Gary Helson, Supervisory Special Agent, San
Diego Field Division, Drug Enforcement Agency; Tom Manning,
Deputy District Attorney, County of San Diego; Bob Ross, M.D.,
Director of Health and Human Services Agency, County of San
Diego; Bob Amador, Deputy District Project Director for the
Drug Endangered Children Program, San Diego, California;
Lieutenant Bob Kanaski, San Diego Police Department; Richard W.
Robinson, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Public
Safety, County of San Diego; and Michael Sise, M.D., Director
of Trauma, Mercy Hospital, San Diego.
Participants in the oversight forum held in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, on April 24, 2000, included: Sue Rowland and Niki
Tungate, Albuquerque, New Mexico; William Hansen, Assistant
Special Agent in Charge for New Mexico, Drug Enforcement
Administration; Captain Ruben Davalos, Albuquerque Police
Department, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Stan Whitaker, Special
Commissioner for Domestic Violence, New Mexico District Court;
and Dr. Bobby Sykes, Director, Relevancy Inc., Albuquerque, New
Mexico; Peter Golden, Sheriff, Torrance County, New Mexico; Mr.
Gil Gallegos, Coordinator, Region 1 HIDTA, Deputy Chief
(retired) Albuquerque Police Department, National President,
Fraternal Order of Police; Jim Stokes, Counselor, Bi Treatment
Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Ms. Kim Covey, Seattle,
Washington.
Participants in the oversight forum in Pasadena,
California, on July 6, 2000, included: Loraine Brown, Special
Agent in Charge, United States Customs Service, Los Angeles
Field Office; Michelle Leonhart, Special Agent in Charge,
United States Drug Enforcement Administration, Los Angeles
Field Office; Jack Friedman, Impact Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Center, Pasadena, California; Jerry Hunter, California Bureau
of Narcotics Enforcement, Los Angeles Regional Office; Sgt.
Chris Jurado, Special Investigation Section, Pasadena Police
Department; Sgt. Tony Hollins, Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department; and The Honorable Chip Martin, Judge, Los Angeles
Superior Court.
Participants in the oversight forum in Salina, Kansas, held
on August 8, 2000, included: Bruce Sawlley (former convicted
and incarcerated methamphetamine addict), Coral Spring,
Florida; Joseph J. Corcoran, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration, St. Louis Division, St. Louis,
Missouri; Kirk Thompson, Assistant Director, Special Operations
Division, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas; Dean
Akings, Chief of Police, Great Bend Police Department, Great
Bend, Kansas; and Pamela McCoy, M.D., Assistant Clinical
Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Kansas Medical
Center, Kansas City, Kansas; Roxann Dupre, Salina, Kansas; Tom
Stanton, Assistant County Attorney, Saline County Attorney's
Office, Salina, Kansas; Dwain Worley, Chemist and Forensic
Scientist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas; Leon
Shearrer, Sheriff, Pawnee County, Larned, Kansas; and Kelly
Ralston, Special Agent in Charge, Great Bend Office, Kansas
Bureau of Investigation, Great Bend, Kansas.
Hillory J. Farias Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
H.R. 2130 was introduced by Representative Fred Upton (R-
MI) on June 10, 1999. H.R. 2130 is an act to amend the
Controlled Substances Act to direct the emergency scheduling of
gamma hydroxybutyric acid, to provide for a national awareness
campaign, and for other purposes.
On October 8, 1999, the Committee discharged from further
consideration of the bill. On October 12, 1999, H.R. 2130 was
agreed to under suspension of the rules by the Yeas and Nays
(423-1). On November 11, 1999, the bill was laid before the
Senate by unanimous consent, and the Senate struck all after
the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S. 1561
amended. The House agreed to the Senate amendments under
suspension of the rules on January 31, 2000, by the Yeas and
Nays (339-2). H.R. 2130 was signed into law by the President on
February 18, 2000 and became Public Law 106-172.
Protecting Our Children
Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act
H.R. 764, the ``Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement
Act,'' was introduced by Representative Deborah Pryce (R-OH).
The bill amended provisions of existing law collectively known
as the Byrne Grant Program that authorize the Federal
government to award both block grants and discretionary grants
to States for crime-related purposes. Under this program, funds
can be used to obtain personnel, equipment, training, technical
assistance, and information systems to improve criminal justice
systems. The Bryne Grant statute specifies 26 permissible uses
for these funds. H.R. 764 amended the Byrne Grant Program to
add an additional permissible use for these federal funds,
namely ``to enforce child abuse and neglect laws and programs
design to prevent child abuse and neglect.''
The bill also amended the Victims of Crime Act of 1984,
which created the Crime Victims Fund, which is financed from
the collection of criminal fines, penalty assessments, and
forfeited appearance bonds of persons convicted of crimes
against the United States. In FY 1998, $363 million was
deposited into this fund for distribution in FY 1999. The Fund
grants money to States to compensate crime victims directly,
and it provides other grants to States which are then
distributed to public and nonprofit agencies that provide
direct services to victims of crime. Under current law the
first $10 million deposited in the fund each year are to be
expended by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for
grants relating to child abuse prevention and treatment. Of the
remaining funds, 48.5 percent are to be used for grants to
State crime victim compensation programs, 48.5 percent are to
be used for victim assistance programs, and 3 percent are to be
used for grants for demonstration projects and training in
technical assistance services to eligible crime assistance
programs.
H.R. 764 increased the ``earmark'' for child abuse and
domestic assistance programs from $10 million to $20 million.
Doubling this ``earmark'' will, therefore, result in a $10
million reduction in the funds that would otherwise be
available for the grants to the victims compensation programs
and the victim assistance programs.
On September 17, 1999, the Subcommittee was discharged H.R.
764 from further consideration. On September 28, 1999, the full
Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the House, and
the bill was reported on October 1, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-360).
The House passed the bill on October 5, 1999 by a recorded vote
of 425 yeas to 2 nays. On November 11, 1999, the Senate passed
the bill by unanimous consent with an amendment. On February 1,
2000, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by a recorded
vote of 410 yeas to 2 nays. The President approved the bill on
March 10, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-177.
The Amber Plan
On October 2, 2000, Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM)
introduced H. Res. 605, expressing the sense of the House that
communities should implement the so-called ``Amber Plan'' to
expedite the recovery of abducted children. Congress has played
a significant roll in the national effort to protect children
by providing grant money to the States to fight crime committed
against children and by passing new Federal laws to prosecute
criminals who victimize them. Yet, most of the work to prevent
these crimes and punish those who commit them occurs at the
local level.
H. Res. 605 brings national attention to an effective
program working at the local level called the ``Amber Plan.''
This program, begun in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area,
helps save the lives of children who have been kidnaped. The
Amber Plan was created in 1996 in memory of nine-year-old Amber
Hagerman, who was tragically kidnaped and murdered in
Arlington, Texas. Because of its success in Dallas-Fort Worth,
it has been replicated in communities across the country.
The Amber Plan works by utilizing the national Emergency
Alert System. When a child is reported abducted, the
abduction--including a description of the alleged perpetrator--
is immediately broadcast on local radio and television stations
using the Emergency Alert System. These alerts get the word to
everyone who might recognize the child, or the abductor, and
then call the police. Since its inception, the Amber Plan has
led to the safe recovery of at least nine children nationwide.
H. Res. 605 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
on October 2, 2000, and to the Subcommittee on Crime on October
6, 2000. The Committee did not take formal action on the bill.
On October 24, 2000, the House passed the resolution by voice
vote.
Aimee's Law
H.R. 894, ``Aimee's Law,'' was introduced by Representative
Matt Salmon (R-AZ) on March 2, 1999. It is similar to a bill he
introduced during the 105th Congress (H.R. 4258), on which the
Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on September 17, 1998.
H.R. 894 would provide that whenever someone convicted of
murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense is released from
prison and commits another of those offenses in a different
state, the state from which the offender was released will lose
a portion of the Federal law enforcement assistance funds to
which it would be otherwise entitled, which will be given to
the state in which the second offense was committee. The amount
to be transferred is the cost of the incarceration,
prosecution, and apprehension by the second state. The Attorney
General is to administer the transfer by deducting the
appropriate amount from the annual amount that would have been
paid to the state under the several Federal law enforcement
funding programs that make annual distributions. In the event
the person had committed similar crimes in more than one state,
the costs of the state convicting he person last would be
apportioned among all of the states that convicted the offender
previously.
As introduced, the bill would also award up to $100,000 to
the victim or their family of persons injured by offenders who
commit these crimes. These funds would also be paid by the
state or states in which the offender previously committed one
of the offenses that trigger the statute.
A provision similar to H.R. 894 was passed was part of H.R.
3244, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of
2000. The provision in the bill differed from H.R.894 as
introduced in that it did not provide for any payment by a state to the
victim or the victim's family. The amendment also contained a safe
harbor provision that would exempt some states for liability under the
bill. States would not lose any of their Federal law enforcement funds
under the bill if the average term of imprisonment for murder, rape, or
a dangerous sexual offense in that state was more than 10% above the
nation average for those crimes, or if the offender had served at least
85% of the sentence imposed on them.
The House passed the bill by voice vote on July 11, 2000.
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th
Congress, however H.R. 3244 was approved by the President on
October 28, 2000 and became Public Law 106-386.
National Youth Crime Prevention Demonstration Act
H.R. 102 was introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-
MI). H.R. 102 would provide grants to grassroots organizations
in certain cities to develop youth intervention models.
The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
and in addition to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. On May 14, 1999, the Subcommittee was discharged
from further consideration on the bill H.R. 102. On May 20,
1999, the Committee held a mark-up session on the bill. No
further action was taken on H.R. 102 during the 106th Congress.
Matthew's Law
H.R. 4045, ``Matthew's Law'' was introduced by
Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham (R-CA). H.R. 4045
would direct the Sentencing Commission to amend the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines to increase the penalty range for every
Federal crime in the event that the crime involves violence
against a person under 13 by five levels. The bill also
authorizes the FBI to assist state and local authorities in any
case involving a homicide of a person under the age of 13.
It is similar to a provision passed by the House as an
amendment to H.R. 1501 by a recorded vote of 401 yeas to 27
nays. No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th
Congress.
Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act
H.R. 1989 and H.R. 4047, each entitled the ``Two Strikes
and You're Out Child Protection Act'' were introduced by
Representative Mark Green (R-WI). They are similar to a
provision passed as an amendment to H.R. 1501 by a voice vote.
The bills would mandate that any person convicted of a
``Federal sex offense'' be imprisoned for life if they have
previously been convicted of a similar offense under either
Federal or state law. The court would have no discretion in
sentencing the offender to any other term of imprisonment. H.R.
1989 defines Federal sex offense to include offenses involving
sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, child pornography,
coercion and enticement of a minor for sexual purposes, and the
interstate transportation of minors for sexual purposes. H.R.
4047 defines Federal sex offense in a similar way, but without
including the pornography or coercion and enticement crimes,
and then only if the offense involves a crime against a person
under the age of 16.
The House passed the bill by voice vote on July 25, 2000.
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th
Congress.
Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens Act
H.R. 4147, the ``Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens Act,''
was introduced by Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO). It is
similar to a provision offered by Representative Charles Canady
(R-FL) and passed as an amendment to H.R. 1501 by a voice vote.
The amendment can be found at section 105 of the bill, as
passed by the House.
Under current law, it is a crime to knowingly transmit
obscene material through the mails or otherwise in interstate
commerce. In 1998, Congress passed H.R. 3494 (Public Law 105-
314), the ``Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act,''
a bill I introduced. This act contained a provision that
created a new crime of ``transferring obscene matter to
minors'' which made it illegal to transfer obscene matter to a
person under the age of 16. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1470. This crime
carries a more severe punishment than the other obscenity
provisions.
In the form passed by the House, the bill would have made
it a crime to transfer obscene matter to a person under the age
of 18. When the bill was considered in the Senate, however, the
Senate Judiciary Committee amended this provision to lower the
age to 16. The lower age then was retained in the bill when it
passed the full Senate and when the Senate amendments were
adopted by the house. H.R. 4147 would amend section 1470 to
apply the higher punishment to persons who transfer obscene
materials to any person under the age of 18.
The House passed the bill on October 2, 2000 by a recorded
vote of 397 yeas to 2 nays. No further action was taken on the
bill during the 106th Congress.
On May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 894, H.R. 4045, H.R. 4047, and H.R.
4147. The following witnesses testified: Representative Randy
Cunningham (R-CA); Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
(R-WI); Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ); and Representative
Thomas G. Tancredo (R-CO); The Honorable Mike Lawlor, State
Representative, Connecticut; Marc Klaas, Sausalito, California;
Gail Willard, Brookhaven, Pennsylvania; Janet M. LaRue, Esq.,
Senior Director of Legal Studies, Family Research Council,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Fred Goldman, Scottsdale, Arizona;
Franklin Zimring, Professor of Law, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, California; and Jeffrey Haugaard, Professor
of Human Development and Family Studies, Cornell University,
New York.
Illegal Pornography Prosecution Act of 2000
H.R. 4710 was introduced by Representative Steve Largent
(R-OK) on June 21, 2000. H.R. 4710 would authorize
appropriations to the Department of Justice for FY 2001 to be
used by theCriminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section, for the hiring and training of staff, travel, and other
necessary expenses to prosecute obscenity cases.
On July 25, 2000, Representative Steve Chabot (R-OH) moved
to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4710, which was agreed to by
the Yeas and Nays (412-4). No further action was taken on H.R.
4710 during the 106th Congress.
Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 1999
H.R. 3484, the ``Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 1999''
was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) together
with Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT). The bill amended Federal law to
authorize the use of wiretaps in investigations of three sex
crimes, principally involving children, for which the use of
that tool was not previously authorized.
Under current law, law enforcement agencies may only see
court authority to use a wiretap in investigations of a limited
number of crimes. The crimes as to which a wiretap may be used
to investigate, commonly called ``wiretap predicates,'' are set
forth in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2516. In every case, law enforcement
authorities must seek a court order authorizing the use of the
wiretap. Some crimes involving the sexual exploitation of
children are already wiretap predicates, but several are not.
Given the dramatic increase in the use of the Internet by
persons intent on luring children into sexual activities, law
enforcement agencies have been turning their attention to this
aspect of these crimes. Fortunately, acts that involve the
enticing of children to meet with these predators, are
themselves crimes under Federal law. The benefit of making
these acts crimes has been that the government does not have to
wait until a child is actually abused before acting. Catching
and punishing predators who are enticing children, stops them
before they can inflict greater harm on the child.
All of the crimes that involve sex predators attempting to
entice children into engaging in sex with them are not wiretap
predicates. Many of these crimes begin on the Internet--where
predators engage children in conversations in ``chat rooms'' or
send pornography to them to lower their natural defenses to the
advances of adults. Through these acts, they entice the child
to travel to meet them, or offer to travel themselves to meet
the child, in hopes of engaging in sexual activities with them.
If law enforcement officials cannot investigate these crimes
using a wiretap, they are put at a disadvantage in trying to
apprehend these predators before they physically harm their
victims.
H.R. 3484 would have added three crimes as new wiretap
predicates. The crimes added by the bill are: 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2252A, which deals with selling, receiving, or shipping
child pornography; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2422(1)(c), which deals with
coercion and enticement to engage in prostitution or other
illegal sexual activity; and 18 U.S.C. 2423, which relates to
the transportation of minors to engage in prostitution or other
illegal sexual activity.
On July 13, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R.
3484. The following person testified; Representative Nancy L.
Johnson (R-CT); David R. Knowlton, Deputy Assistant Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Investigation
Division; and John Varrone, Acting Assistant Commissioner,
Office of Investigations, United States Customs Service; David
B. Kopel, Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden,
Colorado.
On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 3484 reported favorably to the full Committee. On
September 20, the full Committee ordered the bill reported
favorably to the House, and the bill was reported on October 2
(H. Rept. 106-920). The House passed the bill on October 3 by a
voice vote. No further action was taken on the bill during the
106th Congress.
Jeremy and Julia's Law
H.R. 469, ``Jeremy and Julia's Law'' was introduced by
Representative Rick Lazio (R-NY). The bill would have created a
new Federal crime involving false statements made by child care
providers or reckless conduct by those providers. The bill
would have enacted a new section 1822 to chapter 89 of title 18
of the United States Code (which relates to crimes involving
specific profession or occupations) in order to make it a crime
for any child day care provider, or employee of such a
provider, to knowingly make a false representation regarding
the provider or the care given by that provider to a parent or
guardian considering the placement of a child in the care of
that provider or to a law enforcement officer, if the child's
safety or health is thereby placed at substantial risk. The
maximum punishment under the statute is imprisonment for up to
one year. The statute would also make it a crime for a child
day care provider to recklessly cause serious bodily injury to
a child. The maximum punishment for that crime would be three
years imprisonment. The bill defined the term ``child day care
provider'' to mean any person or entity that provides child day
care in a place other than the home of the child or children
for whom the care is provided. The bill only applied to
providers who act in or affect interstate commerce.
Forty-five states license and regulate day care providers.
Most of these statutes require providers to employ a minimum
number of care givers, depending on the number of children
being cared for. Many states also require that providers
undergo some state sponsored or approved training before the
provider may obtain the required state license. Of the states
that require day care providers to be licensed, 29 establish a
misdemeanor penalty for violations of their regulatory
requirements. All 50 states outlaw recklessly causing a child's
death and 40 states have a reckless endangerment statute that
proscribes recklessly causing physical injury to another
person.
There is no current Federal criminal statute that
specifically punishes misconduct by day care providers. Two
current statutes might be used to address the conduct to which
the bill is aimed. The mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1341, 1343) make it a crime to use the mails or a
means of interstate commerce to transmit a communication that
is part of a scheme or artifice to defraud, or intended to
obtain money by false pretenses. And 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 makes
it a crime to make any materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or misrepresentation in connection with
any matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch. In
that case however, absent some Federal statute that governed
day care providers in some way, there might be a question as to
whether a provider's representations as to her qualifications,
the conditions of the care she provides, or actions with
respect to an injured child would fall within the jurisdiction
of some Executive Branch agency.
The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 469 on October 4,
2000. The following witnesses testified at the hearing: Michael
Horowitz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Justice; Mark Fiedelholtz, Plantation Florida; Joe Haas and
Tina Haas, Albany, New York. No further action was taken on the
bill during the 106th Congress.
Secure Our Schools Act
On March 28, 2000, Representative Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
introduced H.R. 4108, the ``Secure Our Schools Act.'' H.R. 4108
would amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the appropriation of $60
million for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003 in grants to
State and local governments and Indian tribes to improve
security at Schools. Up to 50% of the costs of security
enhancement programs would be paid by the Federal Government
through such grants, and money would be distributed directly to
qualifying States, units of local government, and Indian
tribes. Grants could be used for the placement and use of metal
detectors, locks, lighting, and other deterrent measures,
security assessments, security training of personnel and
students, coordination with local law enforcement, and any
other measure that the Attorney General determines may provide
a significant improvement in security.
Over the past few years, public concern over school safety
has grown tremendously, fueled in part by tragic shootings at
Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and Westside
Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The shootings in these
and other schools across the nation have demonstrated the
continued need to improve school safety. Safe and secure
schools facilitate teaching and learning, while violence, or
the threat of violence, divert attention and valuable resources
away from the educational mission. The safety of children in
the nation's schools is a community and national concern, and
as such, schools alone should not be solely responsible for
providing funding for security measures. H.R. 4108 would give
State and local governments an incentive to improve school
security by providing matching grants.
On May 19, 2000, the Subcommittee was discharged from
further consideration on the bill H.R. 4108. On May 24, the
full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the
House, and the bill was reported on July 10 (H. Rept. 106-718).
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th
Congress.
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding child abuse and neglect
H. Con. Res. 93 was introduced by Representative Deborah
Pryce (R-OH) on April 27, 1999. H. Con. Res. 93 expresses the
sense of Congress that the faith community, nonprofit
organizations, State and local officials involved in prevention
of child abuse and neglect, and volunteers throughout the
United States should recommit themselves and mobilize their
resources to assist children in danger of abuse or neglect.
Furthermore, it states that Federal resources should be
marshaled in a manner that maximizes their impact on the
prevention of child abuse and neglect, and that State and local
officials should be provided with increased flexibility to use
Federal law enforcement resources to prevent child abuse and
neglect if appropriate. Finally, H. Con. Res. 93 states that
child protection services agencies, law enforcement agencies,
and the judicial system should coordinate efforts to the
maximum extent possible to prevent child abuse and neglect.
On April 29, 1999, the Committee, and in addition, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce was discharged from
further consideration of the bill. The bill was considered by
unanimous consent and was agreed to by voice vote on April 29,
1999. No further action was taken on this bill during the 106th
Congress.
enhancing protections for vulnerable persons
The Violence Against Women Act
In response to growing rates of crimes committed against
women, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act as Title
IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994. ``VAWA'' as it is called, created new criminal
enforcement authority and enhanced penalties to combat sexual
assault and domestic violence in federal court. It also
authorized several multi-million dollar grant programs to fight
violence against women by providing funds to state and local
law enforcement agencies, as well as for education, prevention,
and outreach programs.
On March 24, 1999 Representative Connie Morella (R-MD)
introduced H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000.
This legislation, referred to the Committees on Judiciary,
Education and Workforce, and Commerce, reauthorizes and makes
key improvements in programs created by the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994. Those programs include: Law Enforcement and
Prosecution Grants to Combat Violence Against Women; National
Domestic Violence Hotline; Battered Women's Shelter and
Services; Grants for Community Initiatives; Education and
Training for Judges and Court Personnel; Grants to Encourage
Arrest Polices; Rural Domestic Violence And Child Abuse
Enforcement; National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction;
Federal Victims' Counselors; Education and Prevention Grants to
Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless, and Street Youth;
Victims of Child Abuse; and, Rape Prevention Education.
The Subcommittee on Crime held one hearing on H.R. 1248 on
Wednesday, September 29, 1999. Testimony was received from
Bonnie J. Campbell, Director, United States Department of
Justice Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice;
Juley Fulcher, Public Policy Director, National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence; Carole Alexander, Executive
Director, House of Ruth; and Patrick Fagan, Heritage
Foundation.
On May 4, 2000 the Subcommittee on Crime met in open
session and ordered the bill favorable reported. On June 21,
2000, the full Committee met in open session on this matter,
and on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, ordered the bill reported
favorably. The bill as amended also included several new
programs, including Civil Legal Assistance for Victims; Safe
Havens for Children Pilot Program; Protections Against Violence
and Abuse for Women with Disabilities;Standards, Practice, and
Training for Sexual Assault Examinations, and provided for the
appointment of a Domestic Violence Task Force to report back to
Congress on any overlapping or duplication of federal agency efforts
addressing domestic violence.
On September 26, 2000 the Committees on Education and the
Workforce and Commerce discharged the bill and it was placed on
the Union Calendar. It was considered, as amended, under
suspension of the rules and passed by the House by a recorded
vote of 415 yeas to 3 nays. No further action was taken on the
bill during the 106th Congress, however a provision
substantially similar to this bill was included in the
conference report on H.R. 3244, the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000, which was approved by the
President on October 28, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-386.
VAWA programs have aided the prosecution of domestic
violence, sexual assault and child abuse cases across the
country, and have increased victim services like domestic
violence shelters for women and the National Domestic Violence
Hotline. Yet despite the dramatic drop in most categories of
crime across the country over the past several years, violent
crime committed against women is still a serious problem.
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
H.R. 3244, the ``Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000'', was introduced by Representative
Chris Smith (R-NJ). The bill was referred to the Committee on
International Relations, and also to several other committees,
including the Judiciary Committee. The bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. The full Committee
reported the bill favorably on April 4, 2000.
The bill, as enacted, contains several criminal provisions.
These provisions include: a new crime involving the forced
labor of person; a new crime involving trafficking in a person
who is the victim of involuntary servitude, peonage, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or forced labor; a new crime involving
sex trafficking of children or of person by force, fraud, or
coercion; a new crime involving unlawful conduct with respect
to documents in furtherance of involuntary servitude, peonage,
slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor.
During the conference committee meetings between the House
and Senate to resolve differences in the bill, a number of
crime provisions that were considered by the Subcommittee were
added to this bill that are similar to other bills described
elsewhere in this report. They include: H.R. 894 ``Aimee's
Law;'' H.R. 1248 ``Violence Against Women Act of 2000;'' H.R.
3485, ``Aid to Victims of Terrorism.''
Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999
On May 19, 1999, Representative Sue Kelly (R-NY) introduced
H.R. 1869, the ``Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act
of 1999.'' H.R. 1869 amends the Federal anti-stalking law, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 2261A, making several significant changes or
additions to current law. First, it expands Federal
jurisdiction over stalking to reach stalkers who use the mail
or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce to stalk
their victims. Second, H.R. 1869 requires that a Federal court,
when sentencing a defendant convicted of stalking, issue a
protection order designed to protect the victim from further
stalking. Third, H.R. 1869 permits a Federal court to order the
detention of an alleged stalking defendant pending trial in
order to assure the safety of the community or the defendant's
appearance at trial.
The Subcommittee on Crime held a one day legislative
hearing on H.R. 1869 on September 29, 1999. Testifying on the
bill was Robert Fein, U.S. Secret Service; David Beatty,
National Center for Victims of Crime; and Jayne A. Hitchcock.
On October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and ordered
H.R. 1869 reported favorably to the full Committee. On November
2, 1999, the full Committee ordered the bill reported
favorably, as amended (H. Rept. 106-455) to the House, and the
bill was reported on November 5, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-455). On
November 10, 1999, the House passed H.R. 1869, as amended,
under suspension of the rules. A provision similar to H.R. 1869
was included in the conference report to H.R. 3244, the
``Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,''
which passed the House on October 6, 2000. H.R. 4344 was signed
into law by the President on October 28, 2000 and it became
Public Law 105-386.
Kristen's Act
On August 5, 1999, Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC)
introduced H.R. 2780, ``Kristen's Act.'' Each year about one
million people are reported missing in the United States, and
about 42% of them are adults. The many Federal, State and local
law enforcement agencies across the country dutifully enter
these missing person reports in the FBI's national missing
persons database, and most of them are quickly found--within a
day or two. Still, many children and adults are not found right
away, and that is one reason why Congress created the Center
for Missing and Exploited Children. The Center acts as a
clearinghouse for missing child cases and provides much needed
support to families whose children are missing. The Center has
helped locate thousands of missing children and reunite them
with their families. But there is no such clearinghouse for
missing adults.
Once the names of these missing adults are inputted into
the FBI's National Crime Information Center computer, there is
little else the families can do but wait and hope that their
loved ones will be found. Kristen's Act establishes the first
national clearinghouse for missing adults. It authorizes grants
to states to (1) assist law enforcement and families in
locating missing adults; (2) create a national database for the
purpose of tracking missing adults who are determined by law
enforcement to be endangered due to age, mental capacity, or
the circumstances of their disappearance; (3) maintain
statistics on missing adults; (4) provide information resources
and referrals to families of missing adults; and (5) assist in
public notification and victim advocacy of this issue.
The Committee took no formal action on H.R. 2780. The House
passed the bill on October 19, 2000 under suspension of the
rules by voice vote. On October 26, the Senate passed the bill
by unanimous consent. The President approved the bill on
November 9 and it became Public Law 106-468.
Jennifer's Law
Representative Rick Lazio (R-NY) introduced H.R. 1915,
Jennifer's Law. The bill authorized the appropriation of
$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 to be
awarded to states to use the funds to establish or expand
programs developed to improve the reporting of unidentified
persons to the government.
On June 7, 1999, the Committee was discharged from further
consideration of the bill. On that day, the House passed by the
bill by a recorded vote of 370 yeas, to 4 nays. No further
action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.
Victims of Rape Health Protection Act
On October 14, 1999 Representative Curt Weldon (R-FL)
introduced the ``Victims of Rape Health Protection Act'' to
reduce by ten percent the funds available to a State under the
drug control grant program unless that State demonstrates that
its laws or regulations with respect to a defendant against
whom a rape charge is brought require that: (1) the defendant
be tested for HIV if the nature of the crime would have placed
the victim at risk of HIV and the victim requests such a test;
(2) the defendant be so tested within 48 hours after the
information or indictment is presented and that the test
results be made immediately available to the victim; (3) the
defendant undergo any appropriate follow-up tests and that
those test results be made immediately available to the victim;
and (4) if results indicate that the defendant has HIV, such
fact may be considered in the judicial proceedings conducted
for the crime.
Drugs have now been developed which can prevent the
transmission of the HIV virus after exposure to someone who
carries the virus. The drugs are effective in preventing
transmission approximately 80% of the time, however they must
be administered with 2 to 24 hours after exposure and have
extremely unpleasant side effects. Knowing the HIV status of
the alleged perpetrator will enable the victim to make a more
informed decision as to whether to undergo this course of
treatment.
The Subcommittee on Crime and the Committee subsequently
discharged H.R. 3088 and on October 2, 2000 it was considered
under suspension of the rules and passed by a vote of 380 yeas
to 19 nays. No further action was taken on this legislation in
the 106th Congress.
Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act
Older Americans are among the most rapidly growing segments
of our society. The nation's elderly are too frequently the
victims of violent crime, property crime, and consumer and
telemarketing fraud, and they are often targeted and retargeted
in a range of fraudulent schemes. The TRIAD program, originally
sponsored by the National Sheriffs' Association, International
Association of Chiefs of Police, and the American Association
of Retired Persons unites sheriffs, police chiefs, senior
volunteers, elder care providers, families, and seniors to
reduce the criminal victimization of the elderly. Congress
should continue to support TRIAD and similar community
partnerships that improve the safety and quality of life for
millions of senior citizens.
There are few other community-based efforts that forge
partnerships to coordinate criminal justice and social service
resources to improve the safety and security of the elderly.
According to the National Consumers League, telemarketing fraud
costs consumers nearly $40,000,000,000 each year. Senior
citizens are often the target of telemarketing fraud.
Fraudulent telemarketers compile the names of consumers who are
potentially vulnerable to telemarketing fraud into the so-
called ``mooch lists.'' It is estimated that 56 percent of the
names on such ``mooch lists'' are individuals age 50 or older.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Trade
Commission have provided resources to assist private-sector
organizations to operate outreach programs to warn senior
citizens whose names appear on confiscated ``mooch lists.''
S. 3164, the ``Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act''
authorizes appropriations to the Attorney General for fiscal
years 2001 through 2005 for programs for the National
Association of TRAID (a program originally sponsored by the
National Sheriffs' Association, International Association of
Chiefs of Police, and the American Association of Retired
Persons to unite Sheriffs, police chiefs, senior volunteers,
elder care providers, families, and seniors to reduce the
criminal victimization of the elderly). S. 3164 directs the
Comptroller General of the Untied States to submit to Congress
a report on the effectiveness of the TRAID program. It also
requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting
through the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services
for Aging, to provide to the Attorney General of each State and
to publicly disseminate in each State, including to area
agencies on aging, information designed to educate senior
citizens and raise awareness about the dangers of fraud,
including telemarketing and sweepstakes fraud. Directs the
Secretary to give priority, in disseminating information, to
areas with high incidents of fraud against senior citizens.
Additionally, S. 3164 directs the Attorney general to: (1)
conduct a study to assist in developing new strategies to
prevent and otherwise reduce the incidence of crimes against
seniors; and (2) include as part of each National Crime
Victimization Survey statistics related to crimes targeting or
disproportionately affecting seniors, crime risk factors for
seniors, and specific characteristics of the victims of crimes
who are seniors. Finally S. 3164 expresses the sense of the
Congress that State and local governments should fully
incorporate fraud avoidance information and programs into
programs that provide assistance to the aging.
S. 3164 was introduced by Senator Bayh on October 5, 2000,
and it passed the Senate by unanimous consent on October 24,
2000. On October 27, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee
on crime. On October 30, 2000, the Committee was discharged
from further consideration of S. 3164, and on that day the
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules. On
November 22, 2000, the President signed the bill and it became
Public Law 106-534.
improving law enforcement through enhanced technology
The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
In the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (Public Law 103-322) Congress authorized the FBI to create
a national index of DNA samples taken from convictedoffenders,
crime scenes and victims of crime, and unidentified human remains. In
response to this authority, the FBI established the Combined DNA Index
System (CODIS), which the FBI had been developing as a pilot program
since the early 1990s. CODIS allows State and local forensics
laboratories to exchange and compare DNA profiles electronically in an
attempt to link evidence from crime scenes for which there are no
suspects to DNA samples of convicted offenders on file in the system.
Today, CODIS is installed in over 90 laboratories in 41 states and the
District of Columbia. There are approximately 445,000 offender samples
and 31,000 crime scene samples classified and stored in CODIS.
All 50 states have enacted statutes requiring convicted
offenders to provide DNA samples for analysis and entry into
the CODIS system. The crimes which trigger the requirement to
provide a sample vary from state to state. Samples from Federal
offenders are not included in CODIS (unless they previously
committed a state offense for which a sample was taken) because
the language of the 1994 act only authorized the creation of
the CODIS system, and not the taking of samples from persons
convicted of Federal crimes, crimes under the District of
Columbia Code, or offenses under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). In a 1998 report of Congress the FBI requested
that Congress enact statutory authority to allow the taking of
DNA samples from persons committing Federal crimes of violence,
robbery, and burglary, or similar crimes in the District of
Columbia or while in the military, and authorizing them to be
included in CODIS.
The development of DNA identification technology is one of
the most important advances in criminal identification methods
in decades. As a direct result of the proven ability of DNA
evidence to solve crime, many of the 120 public forensic
laboratories operating across country have developed
significant testing backlogs that have yet to be cleared. These
backlogs have been exacerbated in recent years as new
developments in DNA analysis technology has required that many
samples, especially those taken from convicted offenders and
cataloged in the CODIS database, be reanalyzed using new
technology.
In a report issued by the Justice Department's Bureau of
Justice Statistics (Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice, Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998
(February 2000)), as of December 1997, approximately 69% of
publicly operated forensic crime labs across the country had at
least 6,800 unprocessed DNA cases and an additional 287,000
unprocessed convicted offender DNA samples. The public labs
reporting a backlog include the FBI's crime lab in Washington.
In 1997, for example, these labs received about 21,000 cases
involving DNA evidence for analysis and processed about 14,000
of those cases. In that same year, 116,000 convicted offender
samples were submitted for analysis, an increase from 72,000 in
1996. Of these totals, only 45,000 were analyzed in 1997 and
37,000 in 1996.
As a result of these backlogs, killers, rapists, and other
dangerous offenders who might be successfully identified
through DNA matching remain at large to engage in further
crimes against the public. And promptly identifying the actual
perpetrator of a crime through DNA matching clears all other
persons who might wrongfully be suspected, accused, or
convicted of the crime. Where this cannot bed done because of
an inability to analyze and index convicted offender or crime
scene samples in a timely manner, the risks to the innocent
increase accordingly.
H.R. 4640, the ``DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000'' was
introduced by Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL). The bill
establishes a $170 million grant program whereby the Federal
government may make grants to states to enable them to conduct
DNA analyses of biological samples taken from offenders who are
required to provide such a sample and samples taken from crime
scenes and from victims of crime. The bill authorizes funding
for analysis of convicted offender samples analysis of $15
million a year for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003. The
bill also authorizes $25 million in fiscal year 2001, $50
million in fiscal year 2002, and $25 million in each of fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 for the analysis of crime scene
sample and the building of capacity to conduct analysis in the
future. Addressing the crime scene sample backlog is
intrinsically more expensive because of the higher cost of
analyzing crime scene samples. States wishing to receive
funding under the program created by the bill are required to
make application to the Attorney General through the Office of
Justice Programs. To qualify for funding, a state must develop
a plan to eliminate its backlog of samples awaiting DNA
analysis.
The bill also authorizes DNA samples to be collected and
included into CODIS from offenders convicted of certain Federal
offenses, crimes under the District of Columbia Code, and
offenses under the UCMJ. The Federal and military offenses
triggering the sample requirement are specified in the bill and
consist principally of serious violent crimes and crimes
involving sex offenses. The bill authorizes the District of
Columbia government to determine which crimes under the
District of Columbia code will trigger this requirement. The
bill also requires that samples of offenders whose convictions
are reversed be removed from CODIS.
H.R. 4640 is similar to three other bills which have been
introduced in the 106th Congress: H.R. 2810, the ``Violent
Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999'' introduced by
Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI); H.R. 3087, the ``DNA
Backlog Elimination Act,'' introduced by Representative Anthony
Weiner (D-NY); and H.R. 3375, the ``Convicted Offender DNA
Index System Support Act,'' introduced by Representative
Benjamin Gilman (R-NY). The sponsors of those bills are
original co-sponsors of H.R. 4640.
All three of these bills were the subject of a hearing in
the Subcommittee on Crime on March 23, 2000. The following
witnesses testified: Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY);
Representative Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY); Representative Patrick
J. Kennedy (D-RI); Dwight E. Adams, Deputy Assistant Director,
Laboratory Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Washington, D.C.; David G. Boyd, Director, Office of Science
and Technology, National Institute of Justice; United States
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Michael G. Sheppo,
Bureau Chief, Division of Forensic Science Command, Illinois
State Police, Springfield, Illinois; David Coffman, Crime
Laboratory Analyst Supervisor, Investigation and Forensics
Program Area, Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
Tallahassee, Florida; Paul B. Ferrara, Director, Division of
Forensic Science, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services, Richmond, VA; Barry Steinhardt,
Esq., Associate Director, American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, D.C.; Jane Siegel Greene, Esq., executive Director,
the Innocence Project, New York, New York.
On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 4640 reportedfavorably to the full Committee. On
July 26, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the
House, and the bill was reported on September 26 (H. Rept. 106-900).
The House passed the bill on October 2 by voice vote. The Senate passed
the bill with an amendment by unanimous consent on December 6, 2000. On
December 7, the House agreed to the senate amendment by unanimous
consent. On December 19, 2000, the President approved the bill and it
became Public Law 106-546.
Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act
S. 3045, the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science
Improvement Act of 2000, was introduced by Senator Jeff
Sessions (R-AL) as a tribute to the late Senator Paul Coverdell
(R-GA). Senator Coverdell had introduced similar legislation
earlier this Congress but did not live to see it acted upon. S.
3045 is similar to a bill, H.R. 2340, introduced in the House
by Representative Sandford Bishop (D-GA) on which the House
took no action.
The bill expands the list of permitted uses of the Federal
Byrne Grants program to allow states to use those funds to
improving the quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic
science services, including DNA, blood, and ballistics tests.
The act requires States to develop a plan outlining the manner
in which the grants will be used to improve forensic science
services provided by State and local crime labs and limits
administrative expenditures to 10% of the grant amount. And the
act adds a reporting requirement so that the backlog reduction
can be documented and tracked. We need to know how these grants
are impacting backlogs in each State.
The bill also included two provisions unrelated to forensic
science grants. One clarifies a provision of the Civil Asset
Forfeiture Act (codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 983 (a)(2)(C)(ii))
which was passed into law during the 106th Congress. the other
provision expresses a sense of the Congress regarding the use
of DNA samples in cases involving the imposition of the death
penalty.
On October 26, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by
unanimous consent. In the house, the bill was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Crime. On
December 7, 2000, the Committee was discharged from further
consideration of the bill and passed the bill by unanimous
consent. On December 21, 2000, the President approved the bill
and it became Public Law 106-561.
Computer Crime Enforcement
On December 15, 2000, the Committee was discharged from
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2816, a bill introduced
by Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ). On that day the House
passed the bill by unanimous consent with an amendment. Also on
that day, the Senate passed the bill, as amended by the House,
by unanimous consent. The President approved the bill on
December 28, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-572.
The bill authorizes the appropriation of $100 million over
four fiscal years to be awarded by the Department of Justice to
each State to be used to: (1) assist State and local law
enforcement agencies in enforcing State and local criminal laws
relating to computer crime and in educating the public to
prevent and identify computer crime; (2) educate and train
State and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors to
conduct investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and
prosecutions of computer crime; (3) assist State and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors in acquiring computer and
other equipment to conduct investigations and forensic analysis
of evidence of computer crimes; and (4) facilitate and promote
the sharing of Federal law enforcement expertise and
information about the investigation, analysis, and prosecution
of computer crimes with State and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors, including the use of multi-
jurisdictional task forces.
Innocence Protection Act
H.R. 4167 was introduced by Representative William Delahunt
(D-MA) together with Representative Ray LaHood (R-IL). H.R.
4167 contains three major titles: (I) exonerating the innocent
through post-conviction review, (II) ensuring competent legal
services in capital cases, and (III) compensating the unjustly
condemned.
Title I of the bill would establish a procedure whereby
offenders convicted in Federal court (of any crime) could
obtain a post-conviction DNA analysis of biological evidence
found in connection with their case. The bill would only permit
these tests when the offender alleges that the material in
question was not tested in connection with the offender's trial
or that the material could be re-tested using improved DNA
analysis techniques which would provide a reasonable likelihood
of more accurate or probative results. If the result of the
test on the evidence is ``favorable'' to the offenders, the
bill would also require the court to order a hearing and
fashion appropriate relief. The bill also requires the
government to preserve all biological material related to a
case for as long as the offender remains in custody. The bill
does allow the government to seek court permission to destroy
such evidence but, in that case the defendant first must be
given an opportunity to test the material to be destroyed.
The bill also requires all states to permit similar post-
conviction testing procedures in state cases. The bill relies
on the 14th amendment to impose this mandate on the states. The
bill also would condition certain Federal funding to states on
their adoption of similar procedures. One of the Federal crime
funding programs so conditioned is the Bryne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which distributes
hundreds of millions of dollars each year to state and local
governments.
Title II of the bill would further condition Federal
funding under the Byrne program on a state's adoption of
procedures in death penalty cases that are designed to
``establish[] and maintain[] an effective system for providing
competent legal services to indigent defendants at every stage
of a state death penalty prosecution in which a death sentence
is sought.'' It would require the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts to promulgate
regulations specifying the elements of an effective system.
This section would also limit the applicability of certain
procedural rules in the current habeas corpus provisions,
enacted in 1996 (that require Federal courts pay deference to
findings of fact made in state criminal trials.) Thistitle of
the bill would also authorize the appropriation of Federal funds to
public and private agencies for the purpose of increasing the
availability of counsel in Federal and state death penalty cases.
Title III of the bill would also increase from $5,000 to
$50,0000 the amount of damages that can be awarded for each 12
month period in which as person was wrongly incarcerated. The
bill would further condition a state's receipt of Federal
``truth-in-sentencing'' prison construction grant funding on
the state's adoption of a similar compensation scheme.
Title IV of the bill contains several ``miscellaneous''
provisions. One of these would prohibit the Federal government
from imposing a sentence of death in any Federal criminal
prosecution if the state in which the Federal court is located
does not also allow for the imposition of the death penalty in
state prosecutions. The bill does contain some exception to
this prohibition, such as cases involving acts of terrorism,
the murder of a high public official, or murder of a Federal
inmate by another. Another provision would amend current habeas
corpus provisions, also enacted in 1996, that require offenders
convicted in state court to exhaust state court remedies before
proceeding in Federal court.
The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 4167 on June 20,
2000. The following witnesses testified at the hearing:
Representative Ray LaHood (R-IL); Representative William D.
Delahunt (D-MA); The Honorable George H. Ryan, Governor, State
of Illinois; Kirk Bloodsworth, Baltimore, Maryland; Stephen B.
Bright, Esq., director, Southern Center for Human Rights,
Atlanta, Georgia; Ward Campbell, Esq., Deputy Attorney General,
Sacramento, California; James E. Coleman, Jr., Esq., Professor
of Law, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Justice Gerald
Kogan, Alliance for Ethical Government, University of Miami
School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, Peter Neufeld, Esq., The
Innocence Project, New York, New York; The Honorable Eliot
Spitzer, Attorney General, State of New York; and The Honorable
Stuart VanMeveren, President, National District Attorney's
Association.
No further action was taken on the bill H.R. 4167 during
the 106th Congress.
Volunteer Organization Safety Act of 1999
H.R. 3410, the ``Volunteer Organization Safety Act of
1999'' was introduced by Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX).
The bill provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Federal government may not require volunteer
organizations who request background checks to be completed on
potential volunteer workers to submit fingerprints to the
government in order to complete the background check. The
purpose of the bill is to allow volunteer organizations seeking
background checks on potential volunteer workers to request the
FBI to conduct those checks using the system of criminal record
organized by name and other personal identifiers as part of the
National Crime Information Center system rather than using the
FBI's fingerprint system.
In 1993, Congress passed the National Child Protection Act
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 5119a), which authorized the FBI to conduct
background checks on persons who work with children upon the
request of the organization for which these persons would work.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-322) expanded the scope of the law to include
the elderly and person with disabilities. To take advantage of
this law, however, a state must first pass its own law
requiring that the check be performed. As it was envisioned,
states would require persons working with children, the
elderly, and the disabled, whether in a for-profit business or
in a volunteer agency, to submit fingerprints to a designated
state law enforcement agency (such as the state police). That
agency would them submit them to the FBI which would run the
prints through its fingerprint system, the Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), to determine whether
the person had ever been convicted of a crime. The FBI would
provide the results to the referring state agency which would
then determine, under state law, whether the person checked was
qualified to hold the position he or she was seeking. The
agency would inform the company or organization for which the
person was apply to work or volunteer whether the person had
been passed or denied by the system. In order to protect the
privacy of the applicant/volunteer, the state agency would not
inform any employees or volunteers at the agency of the actual
basis for the denial, but just that the person in question had
been denied during the background check process.
Only a few states passed a law authorizing fingerprints to
be submitted through a state agency to the FBI. In an effort to
encourage greater use of the law, Congress amended the Act in
1998 in the Interstate Criminal Justice Improvements Act
(Public Law 105-251) to enact Senate bill (S. 2022) to provide
that in the absence of any state-enacted procedure authorizing
background checks, a qualified entity could contact an agency
authorized by the governor of that state and request the
fingerprint background check be performed.
The FBI's National Crime Information Center is an
information system that provides local, state, and Federal law
enforcement agencies with information 24 hours-a-day on 17
different files of records, such as wanted persons, stolen
cars, stolen firearms, and other stolen property. The system
includes over 500,000 records on ``wanted persons'' (persons as
to whom as arrest warrant is outstanding) and 200,000 records
on persons subject to restraining or protecting orders. The
system is not designed to be a final determiner of a person's
identity but to ascertain in a short period of time (i.e., a
few minutes) whether a person is wanted by another jurisdiction
or is subject to a restraining or protective order. The system
is most commonly used by police making arrests or traffic stops
in order to determine if the person apprehended or detained is
wanted for another crime and whether the car they are driving
has been reported stolen.
The use of the NCIC system is limited because it is only
designed to search for records that match the data inputted.
For example, if the person arrested is carrying false
identification showing a fictitious name or date of birth, the
NCIC system will not reveal any records that pertain to him.
Because fingerprints are unique to each person, only a
fingerprint system search will reveal these records.
On May 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 3410. The following witnesses
testified: Representative Sessions (R-TX); and Representative
Kay Granger (R-TX); David R. Loesch, Assistant Director of the
FBI for the Criminal Justice Information ServicesDivision;
Julie Thomas, Executive Director, Volunteer Center of Dallas County,
Dallas Texas; Ben Casey, President, YMCA of Metropolitan Dallas, Texas;
and Al Philippus, Chief of Police, San Antonio, Texas.
No further action was taken on the bill H.R. 3410 during
the 106th Congress.
Internet denial of service attacks
On February 28, 2000, the Subcommittee held a joint hearing
together with the Subcommittee on Criminal Oversight of the
Senate Judiciary Committee concerning a series of well-planned
and coordinated cyber attacks on several of the nation's
largest Internet sites that began on February 8, 2000 and
continued for several days. Within seconds of the first wave of
attacks, two popular sites--search engine Yahoo.com and
retailer Buy.com--were effectively shut down for several hours.
Over the next two days, more of the Internet's flagship sites
were similarly disrupted, including news outlets CNN.com and
ZDNet.com, retailer Amazon.com, auction house eBay.com, and
brokerage house E*Trade.com. The attacks inconvenienced
millions of Internet users and resulted in a loss of revenue
for several of the affected sites. The Subcommittee received
testimony on the nature of the attacks and suggestions as to
how best to respond to the continuing threat.
Testifying at the hearing were Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice; Martha Stansell-Gamm,
Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section,
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Michael Vatis,
Director, National Infrastructure Protection Center, Federal
Bureau of Investigation; Ron Dick, Deputy Director, National
Infrastructure Protection Center, Federal Bureau of
Investigation; Howard Schmidt, Director, Information Security,
Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington; Charles Giancarlo,
Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems Incorporated, San Jose,
California; Paul Misener, Vice President, Global Public Policy,
Amazon.com, Seattle, Washington; Henry Wolfgang Carter, Chief
Compliance Officer, E*Trade, Menlo Park, California; Dan
Rosensweig, President and Chief Executive Officer, ZDNet.com,
New York, New York; Katherine T. Fithen, Manager, CERT
Coordination Center, Software Engineering Institute,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ``Mudge,'' Vice President of Research
and Development, @Stake, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts; and
James Dempsey, Esquire, senior Staff Counsel, The Center for
Democracy and Technology, Washington, D.C.
Reporting requirements concerning intercepted wire, oral, or electronic
communications
On November 5, 1999, the Senate passed by unanimous consent
S. 1769, a bill introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). On
November 18, 1999 the Committee was discharged from further
consideration and the House passed the bill with an amendment
by unanimous consent. On April 13, 2000 the Senate concurred in
the House amendment by unanimous consent. On May 2, 2000, the
President approved the bill and it became Public Law 106-197.
The bill makes a provision of the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (which terminates as of
December 31, 1999, all reporting requirements contained on a
list prepared by the Clerk of the House of Representatives for
the first session of the 103rd Congress) inapplicable to
certain reporting requirements under specified Federal
provisions and Acts, including: (1) the reports that the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts is required to transmit to Congress each April
concerning the number of applications for orders authorizing or
approving wire, oral, or electronic communications
interception; (2) the requirements for the Department of
Justice's annual report on crime statistics; and (3) the
Immigration and Naturalization Service's annual statistical
report.
The bill also amends the Federal criminal code to require
the Attorney General or specified other officials to report to
the Administrative Office each January on the number of such
orders in which encryption was encountered and whether such
encryption prevented law enforcement from obtaining the plain
text of communications intercepted. And the bill directs the
Attorney General to include within an annual report to Congress
on pen registers and trap and trace devices information
concerning: (1) the period of interceptions authorized by each
order and the number and duration of any extensions of the
order; (2) the offense specified in the order, application, or
extension of an order; (3) the number of investigations
involved; (4) the number and nature of the facilities affected;
and (5) the identity, including district, of the applying
investigative or law enforcement agency making the application
and the person authorizing the order.
Juvenile Justice Reform and Firearms Safety
Juvenile justice reform remained a top priority of the
Crime Subcommittee in the 106th Congress. Consequently, the
Subcommittee held two days of hearings on juvenile justice
reform, on March 10 and 11, 1999. On March 10, the following
witnesses were heard: Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Criminal Division, United States Department
of Justice; Sherry Matteucci, United States Attorney for the
State of Montana; and Frank A. Orlando, a retired Judge and the
Director of Center for the Study of Youth Policy of Nova
Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On March
11, the following witnesses were heard: David Grossmann, a
retired judge from Hamilton County Juvenile Court of
Cincinnati, Ohio; Patricia West, judge of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations District Court of Virginia Beach, Virginia;
Kenneth W. Sukhia, an attorney of the law firm of Fowler,
White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker of Tallahassee,
Florida; Jim Kester of the Criminal Justice Division of the
Office of the Governor of Texas, Austin, Texas; Wesley
Shackelford, attorney of the Texas Juvenile Probation
Commission, Austin, Texas; Mike Lawlor of the State of
Connecticut, House of Representatives of Hartford, Connecticut;
Laurence Steinberg, professor of psychology of Temple
University at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Richard D.
Taylor, judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court of Richmond, Virginia.
Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) introduced H.R. 1501,
the ``Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999'' on
April 21, 1999. All Crime Subcommittee members--Republicans and
Democrats--were original co-sponsors. It was marked up by the
Subcommittee on April 22, 1999, and considered by the House on
June 16 and 17, 1999, and then passed by a vote of 287-139. The
bill provides much-needed resources to State and local juvenile
justice systems to helpthem do more to focus on the youthful,
first-time offender. And it ties these additional resources to
graduated sanctions--an approach that seeks to ensure meaningful,
proportional consequences for juvenile wrongdoing, starting with the
first offense, and intensifying with each subsequent more serious
offense.
At the same time that the bill calls for graduated
sanctions, it provides flexibility. It ensures that a court's
disposition is tailored to the individual juvenile. It also
allows for the imposition of graduated sanctions to be
discretionary: That is, a state or locality can still qualify
even if its system of graduated sanctions allows juvenile
courts to opt out. the bill simply provides that when there are
such opt-outs, a record must be sent at the end of the year,
explaining why a sanction wasn't imposed. This is working well
in certain states and localities, and is not an undue burden.
Furthermore, the bill ensures flexibility by providing that
a wide range of juvenile justice system activities and services
can be supported. From new detention facilities and hiring more
judges and probation officers, to juvenile gun courts, drug
court programs and accountability-based school safety
programs--this bill allows States and localities to strengthen
their juvenile justice systems as they see fit.
The bill was substantially amended on the House floor to
include numerous provisions addressing a wide range of issues
related to juvenile justice and children's safety.
The Senate subsequently considered juvenile justice
legislation and the Speaker appointed conferees on July 30,
1999. The House-Senate Conference met on August 5, 1999. The
House instructed conferees on H.R. 1501 on July 30, September
22, September 23, September 24, October 14, March 15, 2000, and
April 11, 2000. No further action was taken on the bill during
the 106th Congress.
On June 10, 1999, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL)
introduced H.R. 2122, the ``Mandatory Gun Show Background Check
Act.'' The legislation provided for mandatory background checks
at gun shows. It was considered by the House on June 16, 1999.
Numerous amendments related to firearms safety were made to the
bill while being considered by the House. The bill was defeated
on final passage by a vote of 147 yeas to 280 nays. No further
action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.
prison industries reform
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (``BOP'') has custody of over
130,000 prisoners convicted of federal crimes. Over 115,000 of
these prisoners are incarcerated in the 94 institutions that
the BOP operates. Every prisoner who is physically able to work
is required to perform some type of labor five days a week.
Approximately 17% of the federal prison population works in
Federal Prison Industries, a correction program in which
inmates manufacture goods and provide services to agencies of
the federal government. Under the trade name ``UNICOR,''
Federal Prison Industries (FPI) currently produces goods in
over 150 different product lines. In 1998, its gross annual
revenues were approximately $534 million.
There are over 1.8 million persons incarcerated in state
prison systems. Each of the 50 states and the District of
Columbia operate some type of prison industry program. Some
states limit the sales of the goods manufactured in these
programs to the state government, while others authorize sales
to the commercial market under the Prison Industry Enhancement
(PIE) program. As of mid-1996 (the last year for which data is
available) there were over 64,000 state inmates employed in
these prison industry programs. Expressed as a percentage,
state prison industry programs employ approximately 6.3% of all
state prisoners.
The FPI program is entirely self-sufficient--no taxpayer
monies are used to operate it. Revenues exceed costs by about
2% of gross sales, and this money is retained by FPI to finance
the activation of future facilities. Of each dollar of revenue,
7 cents is paid as wages to prisoners and 20 cents is paid as
wages to the BOP employees who oversee the operation of UNICOR
factories. The remaining 70 cents is paid to the American
businesses which supply the goods, raw materials, and supplies
used in the UNICOR operation.
Congress has placed a number of requirements on FPI. Under
the statute authorizing the operation of federal prison
industries (18 U.S.C. Sec. 4121, et sec.), FPI is required to
provide employment ``for the greatest number of those inmates
in the United States penal and correctional institutions who
are eligible to work as is reasonably possible.'' The Board is
also required to diversify prison industrial operations, so far
as practicable, so that ``no single private industry shall be
forced to bear an undue burden of competition'' from the
products of the prison workshops and also to maintain a
``minimum competition'' with private industry or free labor.
FPI is to conduct its operations so as to ``avoid capturing
more than a reasonable share of the market'' among federal
departments, agencies, and institutions for any specific
products. Additionally, FPI is to concentrate on producing
``only those products which permit employment of the greatest
number of * * * inmates who are eligible to work as is
reasonably possible.''
FPI and states prison industry programs are prohibited by
Federal law from selling the goods inmates produce in the
commercial market. This prohibition dates to the late 1920s
when Congress enacted the Cooper-Hawes Act to enable States to
control the flow of prison-made goods and, in 1935, enacted the
Ashurst-Sumners Act to generally prohibit interstate commerce
in those goods. In 1979, Congress created the Prison Industry
Enhancement (PIE) Program. This law, as later amended,
establishes an exception to the prohibition for up to 50 state
prison industry projects and permits them to sell ``goods,
wares, or merchandise'' in interstate commerce as long as labor
representatives were consulted and currently employed workers
were not displaced in establishing the project. The program
also requires that participating inmates be paid prevailing
wages, with deductions to be taken from those wages for taxes,
charges for room and board, family support, and victim
compensation. These programs are only available to state
prisons industry programs. It is not available to FPI.
The departments and agencies of the Federal government are
required to purchase ``such products of the industries
authorized by [Chapter 307 of the United States Code] as meet
their requirements and may be available'' as long as the
products to not exceed ``current marketprices.'' This provision
is commonly known as the ``mandatory source preference.'' In practice,
this law gives FPI the exclusive right to sell goods to the federal
agencies, up to an annual market percentage previously authorized by
the FPI board. Of the 150 products FPI sells, in only 12 instances do
sales exceed 20% of the federal market for that product. The total
sales of all FPI products represent only 3% of the total federal
government purchases of these products. Of the total federal government
purchases of all products, FPI's total sales represent 1/4 of 1%.
Disputes as to the price, quality, character, or
suitability of FPI products are to be arbitrated by a board
comprised of the Comptroller General of the United States, the
Administrator of General Services, and the President, or their
representatives.\1\ Departments and agencies may request a
waiver of the mandatory source rule so that they may purchase
goods from a source other than FPI. In fiscal year 1997, FPI
granted 82% of all waivers requested, enabling private business
to sell approximately $236 million in additional goods to
federal departments and agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4124(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FPI program is operated as a ``government corporation''
created by Congress in 1934. The board of directors of FPI
consists of six persons appointed by the President and who
serve at his pleasure without compensation. By statute, one
director is to be appointed from each of the following
backgrounds: industry, labor, agriculture, retailers and
consumers, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the
Office of the Attorney General. Before FPI begins to produce a
new product, or significantly expands the production of an
existing product, the FPI Board must approve that change.
In 1991, researchers of the Bureau of Prisons published
preliminary findings in a study entitled ``The Effect of Prison
Work Experience, Vocational, and Apprenticeship Training on the
Long Term Recidivism of U.S. Federal Prisoners'' (the ``PREP
study''). The study began in 1983 and data was collected
through October 1987 on over 7,000 offenders. The findings
published in 1987 demonstrated that inmates who participated in
the work programs had statistically significant lower rates of
recidivism and higher levels of employment than inmates who did
not participate in these programs.
In 1995, the BOP conducted a follow-up study in which it
examined whether the inmates from the first study had been
recommitted to prison, Most of the inmates involved in the
study had been released for at least 8 years, and some for as
long as 12 years. This report confirmed the 1987 findings that
inmates who had received this type of training, and especially
male inmates, were 24% less likely to commit new offenses than
inmates who did not receive the training. A 1995 Ohio study
conducted by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction showed a similar result for prisoners who worked in
Ohio's prison industries program. That study showed that
participation in any prison industry jobs reduced the
recidivism rate for offenders by 20 percent, while
participation in a high skilled prison industry job reduced the
rate by 50 percent. A study conducted by the Maryland State Use
Industries over a five year period showed that participation in
that prison industry program reduced recidivism by half.
H.R. 2558, the ``Prison Industries Reform Act of 1999'' was
introduced by Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL), together
with Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA). The principal purpose
of H.R. 2558 was to increase the work opportunities available
to both Federal and state prisoners. It would have accomplished
this by allowing private sector companies to participate in
federal prison industry programs. The bill required FPI to open
all present and future prison industry programs to any private
company that wishes to operate its business using inmate
workers at a federal prison. These companies would have been
permitted to sell the products made by their inmate workers on
the open market, just as if they were made by non-inmate
workers. The bill would also have allowed FPI to sell products
made by prisoners directly to other American companies (e.g.,
should that companies not wish to operate the prison industry
program itself but prefer that FPI operate the industry for
it.)
The bill required FPI, and any private company that uses
FPI inmate workers to produce products or services, to pay to
the inmate workers who produce these goods a wage that is at
least equal to the Federal minimum wage. From the amounts paid
to these inmate workers, the Bureau of Prisons was authorized
to take deductions for fines and restitution owed by the
inmate, for the inmate's family support obligations, for an
inmate savings accounts to be paid to the prisoner upon his
release, and for room and board costs. The bill required that
one-half of the amounts deducted be paid to the U.S. Treasury
to offset the costs of housing Federal prisoners.
H.R. 2558 also provided incentives for American businesses
to use FPI labor to compete against foreign workers and bring
back to the U.S. jobs that have been lost to those workers.
Under the bill, FPI or private companies which have contracted
to use FPI inmates labor would be authorized to pay less than
the minimum wage to inmate workers if the products to be
produced would otherwise be made by foreign workers outside of
the United States. The determination as to whether the products
to be produced fall into this category would be made by an
Independent Review Panel comprised of representatives from
organized labor, the business community, the Small Business
Administration, the Commerce and Labor Departments and the
International Trade Commission.
The bill required FPI to make it a priority to produce
products that are currently made by foreign workers, in order
to lessen the impact of this program on non-inmate American
workers. As discussed above, the bill also required that FPI,
or companies using FPI labor, pay at least minimum wage to the
inmate employees if the products they produce might compete
with ones produced by non-inmate American workers. Further, the
bill prohibits American companies from laying off their non-
inmate American employees in order to hire inmate workers.
Under the bill, private companies who contract with FPI to use
prison labor must agree to maintain their existing level of
non-inmate American workers for at least 18 months after they
contract with FPI or begin making products with FPI labor,
whichever is later.
H.R. 2558 eliminated the mandatory source preference. It
would have immediately prohibited FPI from expanding its sales
using this authority. It also phased out FPI's use of the
authority by requiring FPI to annually reduce the portion of
the goods it sells each year using this authority. The bill
would have then abolished the use of this authority completely
after seven years by repealing the statute that allows for its
use. As a result, the entire Federal market forgoods and
services will be completely open to all bidders.
The bill also allowed, but did not require, state prison
industries to sell their products on the open market. To do so,
however, states must pay the inmates who produce the products
to be sold a wage that is not less than the Federal minimum
wage. As with FPI, States may deduct from these wages amounts
to be used to pay fines and restitution, family support
obligations, and room and board. Also, states must eliminate
any mandatory source preferences they impose on their state
agencies and departments within 7 years of the date when they
begin to sell goods on the open market.
On July 19, 1999, Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and
several cosponsors, including Representative Howard Coble (R-
NC) and Representative Barney Frank (R-MA), introduced H.R.
2551, Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act
of 1999. This bill would have made a number of significant
changes to the way in which FPI would be authorized to do
business. It made no change in the existing laws affecting
state prison industry programs.
H.R. 2551 would have immediately repealed the mandatory
source preference provision requiring Executive Branch
departments and agencies to buy a portion of their procurement
needs from FPI. FPI would have been required to compete for all
contracts to sell goods or provide services to the Federal
Government. But the bill would have continued the existing
prohibition on the sale of prison made goods or services to the
open market. The bill specifically prohibited private sector
companies from partnering with FPI, even if those companies
ultimately sell their product to the Federal government.
H.R. 2551 would have required all federal agencies to
solicit an offer from FPI, when making a purchase above a
minimal threshold, for any product or service which the FPI has
authorized UNICOR to sell. The bill contained a provision
allowing FPI to require an agency to negotiate with it on a
noncompetitive basis (i.e., a type of mandatory source
preference) only if the Attorney General determines that FPI
cannot reasonably expect to receive the contract award on a
competitive basis and the contract award is necessary to
maintain work opportunities in BOP facilities in order to
prevent a situation which could ``significantly endanger the
safe and effective administration'' of a BOP facility.
The bill would also have required that the FPI board
consider several new factors regarding the impact of a proposed
change in the FPI product or quantity limits before approving
that proposal. These factors include: (1) an analysis of the
proportion of the federal government market for a specific
product or service currently furnished by small businesses
during the previous three fiscal years; (2) whether the
industry producing the product in the private sector has
unemployment rates higher than the national average; (3)
whether that industry has an unemployment rate that has been
increasing over the prior five years; (4) whether the industry
has certain import to domestic production ratios; (5) the total
volume of domestic production for the five previous years in
the industry making the specific product in question; and (6)
the projected growth or decline in demand for the specific
product.
On August 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 2558, the ``Prison Industries
Reform Act of 1999'' and H.R. 2551, the ``Federal Prison
Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 1999.'' The
following witnesses testified: Representative Peter Hoekstra
(R-MI); Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of
Prisons; accompanied by Steve Schwalb, Assistant Director,
Bureau of Prisons; Fred P. Braun, Jr., President, The Workman
Fund, Leavenworth, Kansas; John H. Felt, Manager of Government
Accounts, HON Industries, Muscatine, Iowa; Phillip L. Glover,
President, Council of Prison Locals, Johnstown, Pennsylvania;
Andrew S. Linder, President, Power Connector, Incorporated,
Bohemia, New York; Larry K. Martin, President, American Apparel
Manufacturers Association, Arlington, Virginia; Thomas
Petersik, Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants,
Washington, D.C.; and Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Columbus, Ohio.
On September 23, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 2558 reported favorably to the full Committee. No
further action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.
protecting and supporting police
Financial assistance for higher education for the dependents of public
safety officers killed in the line of duty
On June 6, 1999, Representative Peter King (R-NY)
introduced H.R. 2059, a bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the retroactive
eligibility dates for financial assistance for higher education
for spouses and dependent children of Federal, State, and local
law enforcement officers who are killed in the line of duty.
H.R. 2059 would amend the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents
Assistance Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 3796d 5(a)) to extend the
retroactive eligibility dates for financial assistance for
higher education to the spouses and dependent children of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers killed in
the line of duty. Current law provides that the dependents of
Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty
after May 1, 1992, are eligible for this assistance. Dependents
of State and local public safety officers killed in the line of
duty after October 1, 1997, are also eligible. This legislation
would move the eligibility dates farther back in time to make
more dependents eligible. For Federal law enforcement officers
and State and local public safety officers, the dates would be
changed to January 1, 1978.
In 1996, Congress amended Part L of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.)
by passing the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance
Act. The Act was in response to several fatal shootings of
Federal law enforcement officers in the early 1990's, which
left surviving spouses and children in difficult financial
circumstances, without the means to pursue higher education. It
provided that the Attorney General could extend benefits to
pursue higher education to the dependents of Federal law
enforcement officers killed or permanently disabled in the line
of duty. The act included a ``special rule'' of retroactive
eligibility to receive educational benefits for the dependents
of Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty
on or after May 1, 1992. By its terms, the retroactive
eligibility clause did not cover the dependents of Federal law
enforcement officers permanently disabled in the line of duty.
The act was amended in 1998 to offer educational benefits to
the dependents ofState and local public safety officers killed
or permanently disabled in the line of duty, and that amendment
included retroactive eligibility for the dependents of public safety
officers killed in the line of duty on or after October 1, 1997.
Unfortunately, the somewhat arbitrary choice of dates to
qualify for benefits has excluded deserving dependents from
participating in the program. H.R. 2059 would correct this
inequity by (1) making the retroactive eligibility dates to
receive benefits for higher education the same for both Federal
law enforcement officers and public safety officers, and (2) by
moving the eligibility dates farther back in time to make it
possible for more young people to pursue higher education. To
date, the cost of providing educational benefits to dependents
of officers killed in the line of duty has been surprisingly
modest. For example, the Department of Justice reports that for
fiscal year 1999, only eight survivors of Federal agents were
paid a total of $44,036 in benefits, which no State and local
survivors received benefits. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that extending retroactive eligibility will cost the
Government an additional $14 million over fiscal years 2000
through 2005 and about $24 million over the next 10 years.
On July 6, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged
from further consideration of H.R. 2059. On July 11, 2000, the
full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the
House, and the bill was reported on July 27 (H. Rept. 106-800).
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th
Congress. On September 19, 2000, the House passed S. 1638, a
bill substantially similar to H.R. 2059, by voice vote. The
president approved that bill on October 2, 2000 and it became
Public Law 106-276.
Protecting public safety officers
H.R. 4423, the ``Probation Officers' Protection Act of
2000,'' was introduced by Representative Bob Barr (R-GA). It
would authorize probation and pretrial services officers to
carry firearms.
Probation officers and pretrial services officers are
employees of the Judicial Branch. They perform a number of
functions, including preparing reports to the court concerning
whether release on bail is appropriate for a defendant,
monitoring compliance with bail orders by all defendants, and
monitoring the activities of persons who are on parole or on
supervised release. Congress determines, by statute, the extent
of the authority given these officers. Under current law, they
are authorized to carry firearms if ``approved by the district
court.'' In practice, the chief judge of the district court in
each of the 94 Federal judicial districts decides whether
probation and pretrial services officers may carry firearms. As
a result, officers in 84 judicial districts may carry them,
while officers in the remaining 10 districts may not.
H.R. 4423 would make this practice uniform by amending
current law to authorize all probation officers and pretrial
services officers to carry firearms. The bill would require all
such officers to first complete any safety and proficiency
training or testing proscribed by the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
On July 13, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
bill. The following persons testified at the hearing: The
Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge,
District of Columbia, Judith M. De Santis, Executive Vice
President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; Robert
Ryan, Chief Probation Officer, District of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts. No further action was taken on the bill
during the 106th Congress.
Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grants Act
On March 20, 2000 Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) and
Representative Peter Visclosky (D-IN) introduced H.R. 4033, the
``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000'', to
reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program
administered by the Department of Justice Office of Justice
Programs to help State and local jurisdictions purchase armor
vests for use by law enforcement departments through FY 2004.
The bill would reauthorize the program, increase the
authorization level to $50 million, and guarantee that smaller
jurisdictions receive full funding available under the program.
On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 4033 reported favorably to the full Committee. On
July 11, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably
to the House, and the bill was reported on July 20 (H. Rept.
106-776). The House passed by the bill on July 26, 2000 by a
recorded vote of 413 yeas to 3 nays. No further action was
taken on the bill during the 106th Congress. On October 26,
2000, the House passed S. 2413, the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act of 2000, a bill substantially similar to
H.R. 4033, by unanimous consent. The president approved that
bill on November 13, and it became Public Law 106-517.
Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 1999
On January 6, 1999, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL)
introduced H.R. 46, the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor
Act of 1999.'' H.R. 46 would establish a national medal for
public safety officers who exhibit extraordinary valor above
and beyond the call of duty. While law enforcement agencies at
all levels present their own awards and medals to those who
demonstrate bravery, the United States Government has no medal
in recognition of acts of courage and valor demonstrated by
public safety officers. The medal would be given by the
President in the name of the United States Congress to public
safety officers who are recognized by the Attorney General for
extraordinary valor. The Attorney General would be limited to
naming not more than six medal recipients in a given year. The
legislation would create a Medal of Valor Review Board composed
of eleven members appointed by Congress and the President. The
members of the Review Board, who would serve four year terms,
would be persons with knowledge or experience in the field of
public safety, including firefighter, law enforcement and
emergency services expertise. Each year, the Board would be
charged with reviewing applications and determining which names
to present to the Attorney General for approval. They may
conduct hearings and take testimony as necessary. The Board
would be staffed by a new office within the Department of
Justice, known as the National Medal Office.
On March 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged
from further consideration of H.R. 46. On March 24, 1999, the
full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the
House, and the bill was reported on April 12, 1999 (H. Rept.
106-83). On April13, 1999, the House passed H.R. 46 by a
recorded vote of 412 yeas to 2 nays. On December 15, the Senate passed
the bill by voice vote with an amendment that added additional sections
to the bill. These sections were similar to H.R. 2816, a bill that
passed the House and Senate by unanimous consent on December 15 and was
signed into law by the president on December 28, 2000 as Public Law
106-572, and S. 2448 and H.R. 5393, bills on which the House took no
action during the 106th Congress. No further action was taken on the
bill H.R. 46 during the 106th Congress.
Training for railroad police officers
On June 17, 1999, Senator Leahy introduced S. 1235, a bill
that amends part G of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow railroad police officers to
attend the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy for
law enforcement training. The FBI was authorized to offer the
superior training available at the FBI's National Academy only
to law enforcement personnel employed by state or local units
of government. Police officers employed by railroads are not
allowed to attend this Academy despite the fact that they work
closely in numerous cases with Federal law enforcement agencies
as well as State and local law enforcement. Providing railroad
police with the opportunity to obtain the training offered at
Quantico, Virginia, will improve inter-agency cooperation and
prepare them to deal with the ever increasing sophistication of
criminals who conduct their illegal acts either using the
railroad or directed at the railroad or its passengers.
S. 1235 was introduced by Senator Partick Leahy (D-VT) on
June 17, 1999. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent
on October 26, 1999. On October 27, 1999 the bill was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary and on November 2, the bill
was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime. On November 17,
1999, the Committee was discharged from further consideration
of the bill, and on that day the House passed the bill under
suspension of the rules. On November 24, 1999, the President
approved the bill and it became Public Law 106-110.
The Community Protection Act of 1999
H.R. 218 was introduced by Representative Randy (Duke)
Cunningham (R-CA) on January 6, 1999. H.R. 218 would amend
title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and
former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the
carrying of concealed handguns.
On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 218 reported favorably to the full Committee. No
further action was taken on H.R. 218 during the 106th Congress.
criminal jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the armed forces
abroad
Civilians have served with or accompanied American forces
in the field or onboard ship since the founding of the United
States, but not in significant numbers until the Civil War.
During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, however,
thousands of Defense Department (DoD) civilian and contract
employees were present in the host nations. And with the rapid
growth of contingency operations following Operation Desert
Storm, significant numbers of civilian and contract employees
have been deployed to places such as Somalia, Haiti, Kuwait,
Rwanda, and the Balkans. In 1999, there were more than 58,600
civilian employees of the Department of Defense working
overseas.
Since the end of World War II, family members of American
service personnel and civilian employees have represented the
largest large segment of the civilians who accompany United
States forces overseas. In 1999, there were more than 193,000
dependent family members of military personnel living with them
abroad. More than 14,000 dependents of DoD civilian employees
also were living overseas that year.
Civilians accompanying the Armed Forces ``in the field''
have been subject to court-martial jurisdiction since the
Revolutionary War. In World Wars I and II, civilians
accompanying the force in the field were tried by court-
martial. The UCMJ, enacted in 1950, contains two provisions
that authorize courts martial to try civilians accompanying the
military for acts that violate the UCMJ. Beginning in 1957, a
series of court decisions severely limited the application of
those provisions, effectively limiting UCMJ jurisdiction over
civilians only to times of war declared by Congress.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957); McElroy v. United States ex
rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960); U.S. v. Averette, 41 C.M.R. 363
(C.M.A. 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some Federal criminal statutes are expressly
extraterritorial, most make the acts described therein criminal
only if they are committed within ``the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States'' or if they
affect interstate or foreign commerce. Therefore, in most
instances, Federal criminal jurisdiction ends at the nation's
borders. State criminal jurisdiction, likewise, ends at the
boundaries of each state. Because of these limitations, acts
committed by civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in foreign
countries, which would be crimes if committed in the United
States, often do not violate either Federal or state criminal
law. And, as discussed above, they also are not violations of
the UCMJ unless a ``time of war'' had been declared by Congress
when the acts were committed. As a result, these acts are
crimes, and therefore punishable, only under the law of the
country in which they occurred.
Suprisingly, host countries often do not choose to assert
their jurisdiction to try American civilians who commit crimes
in their countries. This is most often the case when the crime
was committed against another American or against property
owned by an American. When this happens, however, the
perpetrator goes unpunished for his crime. Each year, numerous
incidents of rape, sexual abuse, aggravated assault, robbery,
drug distribution, and a variety of fraud and property crimes
committed by American civilians abroad go unpunished because
the host nation chooses to waive jurisdiction over these
crimes. This problem is compounded by the increased involvement
of the military in areas of the world where no functioning
government exists to prosecute these crimes (e.g., Somalia and
Haiti) or where the U.S. has the right to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over its personnel. Because United Stateslaw does
not apply to crimes committed by American civilians in these
situations, such crimes go unpunished.
Over the past 43 years, many efforts have been made to fill
this jurisdictional void. Numerous bills designed to address
the problem have been introduced in Congress but have failed to
be passed by both Houses.\3\ In 1979, the General Accounting
Office issued a report on the problem (General Accounting
Office, Some Criminal Offense Committed Overseas by DoD
Civilians Are Not Being Prosecuted: Legislation is Needed,
Report No. FPCD 79-45 (1979)). It found that in 1977, 343,000
civilians had accompanied the forces abroad in a 12 month
period. During that year, while host countries exercised their
jurisdiction in 200 serious cases, they had waived their right
of prosecution in 59 serious cases (involving rape,
manslaughter, arsons, robbery, and burglary) and in 54 less
serious cases (involving simple assault, drug abuse,
drunkenness), In the report, the GAO recommended that Congress
enact legislation to extend criminal jurisdiction over U.S.
citizens accompanying the forces overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See e.g., S. 207, 90th Cong. (1967); S. 1, 94th Cong. (1975);
H.R. 763, 95th Cong. (1977); H.R. 255, 99th Cong. (1985); S. 147, 101st
Cong. (1989); H.R. 5808, 102d Cong. (1992); S. 2083, 104th Cong.
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1995, Congress passed the National defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106 (1996)). Section
1151 of that act directed the Departments of Defense and
Justice to jointly establish an advisory committee to ``review
and make recommendations concerning the appropriate forum for
criminal jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the Armed
Forces in the field outside the United States in time of armed
conflict.'' The advisory committee's report was submitted to
Congress in April, 1997. It recommended two changes in the law.
First, it recommended that court-martial jurisdiction be
extended to civilians accompanying the Armed Forces during
``contingency operations'' as designated by the Secretary of
Defense. The advisory committee also recommended that the
jurisdiction of Federal courts be extended to reach offenses
committed by civilians accompanying the force abroad. The
Departments of Defense and Justice support only the extension
of Federal criminal jurisdiction to persons accompanying the
Armed Forces outside the United States.
H.R. 3380, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act
of 2000'' was introduced by Representative Saxby Chambliss (R-
GA) together with Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL). It
establishes a new Federal crime involving conduct by military
personnel and civilians accompanying the Armed Forces outside
the United States that would have been a felony under Federal
law, had the conduct occurred within the United States. The
punishment for the new crime is that which could have been
imposed under Federal law had the crime been committed in the
United States.
The new crime applies to two groups of people: persons
employed by or who are accompanying the Armed Forces outside of
the United States and persons who are members of the Armed
Forces. It includes both civilian employees of the Department
of Defense, contractor employees, and dependants of military
members. It brings within its scope both American citizens and
nationals, as well as persons who are nationals of other
countries. The bill also allows for the prosecution of military
members, under certain conditions. For example, military
personnel who commit acts that fall within the scope of the new
crime enacted by the act but who are not tried for their crime
sunder the UCMJ and who later cease to be subject to the UCMJ
(e.g., because the case was not solved before they were
discharged from the military, or because the person is no
longer on active duty may be prosecuted under the Act. And
military personnel still on active duty could also be
prosecuted under the act if they are indicted or otherwise
charged with committing the offense together with one or more
non-military co-defendants.
The act prohibits a prosecution under the new statute if a
foreign government has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person
for the conduct constituting the offense in accordance with
jurisdiction recognized by the United States, but allows the
Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General to waive this
provision in appropriate cases. The act also contains a
provision that requires most of the initial proceedings in any
case under the act to be conducted before the defendant is
brought to the United States--in most cases by telephone. In
order to enforce this provision, the act prohibits the forced
return of a defendant to the United States prior to these
proceedings being held, except certain situations.
The Subcommittee on Crime, held a hearing on that bill on
March 30, 2000. The following witnesses testified on the bill:
The Honorable Robert Reed, Office of the General Counsel,
Office of the Secretary of Defense, United States Department of
Defense; Brigadier General Joseph R. Barnes, Assistant Judge
Advocate General, United States Army; Brigadier General James
B. Smith, Commander, 18th Fighter Wing, Kadena Air Force Base,
Naha, Japan; Roger Pauley, Esq., Director of Legislation,
Office of Policy and Legislation, United States Department of
Justice; and Jan Mohr, President, Federal Education
Association, Washington, D.C.
On May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 3380 reported favorably to the full Committee. On
July 27, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably
to the House, and the bill was reported on July 20 (H. Rept.
106-778, Part I). The House passed the bill on H.R. 3380 was
passed by the House by voice vote on July 25, 2000. No further
action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress. Also on
July 25, 2000, the House took up consideration of S. 768, a
bill similar in purpose to H.R. 3380 and which passed the
Senate by unanimous consent on July 1, 1999. The House struck
out all of the text of the Senate bill, and substituted for it
the text of H.R. 3380 as passed by the House. The House then
passed the Senate bill by unanimous consent. The Senate passed
S. 768, as amendment in the House, by unanimous consent on
October 25, 2000. The President approved the bill on November
22, and it became Public Law 106-523.
authority of federal law enforcement agencies
Authority of the United States Secret Service
On June 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime held an
oversight hearing of the Secret Service during which various
issues concerning the work of the Service were discussed. The
following witnesses testified: Brian Stafford, Director, United
States Secret Service; Kevin T.Foley, Assistant Director,
Office of Investigations, United States Secret Service; Barbara S.
Riggs, Assistant Director, Office of Protective Research, United States
Secret Service; and Carlton Danny Spriggs, Assistant Director, Office
of Protective Operations, United States Secret Service.
During the hearing several areas were identified as to
which legislative changes would be appropriate. In order to
address this need, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL)
introduced H.R. 3048, the ``Presidential Threat Protection Act
of 1999.''
The principal change made by the bill is with respect to
the jurisdiction of the Secret Service to investigate threats
made against former Presidents or their families, or against
the immediate families of the major candidates for the office
of President or Vice President. Under current law, in order for
the Service to have jurisdiction to investigate a threat made
against any person, that person must currently be receiving
Secret Service protection. However, the immediate family of the
major candidates for the office of President and Vice President
do not receive Secret Service protection and so, threats made
against them are not Federal crimes and may not be investigated
by the Service. Obviously, threats made against children of
candidates for President or Vice President are often related to
their candidacy, and should be investigated by the Federal law
enforcement agency charged with protecting the candidate during
the pendency of their campaign. Similarly, should a former
President decline Secret Service protection, as has occurred in
the past, threats made against him would not be a Federal crime
and may not be investigated by the Secret Service. This
potential problem will be exacerbated by a change made to title
18 in 1994 which requires that Secret Service protection for
former Presidents and their spouses terminate ten years after
the President leaves office.
To remedy this problem, H.R. 3048 will amend current law to
make it clear that it is a Federal crime, which the Secret
Service is authorized to investigate, for any person to
threaten any current or former President or Vice President,
major candidates for the office of President or Vice President,
or the immediate family of such person, notwithstanding the
fact that the Secret Service may not be protecting the person
at the time the threat is made.
H.R. 3048 will also clarify the authority of the Secret
Service to coordinate the design, planning, and implementation
of security operations at special events of national
significance, as determined by the President or his designee.
Under the authorizing statute for the Secret Service, the
Service is authorized to protect a number of persons,
including: the President, Vice President, former Presidents and
their spouse and certain of their children, visiting heads of
foreign states or governments, other distinguished visitors to
the United States, major candidates for the office of President
and Vice President, and certain other persons as to whom the
President directs receive such protection. Recently, the
President has directed the Secret Service to coordinate the
design, planning, and implementation of security operations at
special events of national significance. In some cases,
however, none of the persons specified in section 3056 may be
present at these events and, therefore, the Secret Service's
authority to coordinate the security for these events is
unclear. H.R. 3048 clarifies the authority of the Secret
Service to do this by specifically authorizing it to coordinate
the design, planning, and implementation of security operations
at these events.
H.R. 3048 also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
issue administrative subpoenas in limited situations.
Administrative subpoenas are subpoenas issued by a law
enforcement agency rather than a United States Court. Under
current law the authority to issue administrative subpoenas is
given to the Attorney General, but limited to cases involving
violations of Title 21 (i.e., drug cases), investigations
concerning a Federal Health Care Offense, or investigations
involving child abuse and child sexual exploitation. During the
oversight hearing of the Service held by the Subcommittee on
Crime, the Service asked the Committee to consider granting it
administrative subpoena authority for investigations under
sections 871 and 879 of Title 18 (involving threats against the
President, former Presidents, and other persons protected by
the Service.). The bill grants the Secretary of the Treasury
this authority but limits its use by the Secretary only to
cases where the Director of the Service determines that the
threat being investigated is imminent. The authority is further
limited to requesting only the production of records and other
things relevant to an investigation (but not the testimony of
persons) in cases involving violations of those two statutes.
The statute also consolidates the two administrative
subpoena statutes that exist in title 18 today, together with
the new authority granted to the Secretary of the Treasury
under this bill, into one comprehensive statute. The re-draft
also contains new provisions designed to give citizens added
protections against misuse of these subpoenas, including
provisions that give citizens the right to move a court to
quash an administrative subpoena and which describe the process
by which that may be accomplished.
On March 16, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 3048 reported favorably to the full Committee. On
May 24, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably
to the House, and the bill was reported on June 12, (H. Rept.
106-669). The House passed the bill on June 26 by a voice vote.
On October 13, the Senate amended the bill and passed it by
voice vote. On October 25, the House disagreed with two of the
five amendments made by the Senate, agreed to two of the Senate
amendments, and agreed to a third with an amendment. The House
then passed the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent.
United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1999
On June 24, 1999, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL)
introduced the ``United States Marshals Service Improvement Act
of 1999'', to provide for the appointment of U.S. Marshals for
each judicial district of the United States and for the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia by the Attorney
General of the United States, subject to Federal law governing
appointments in the competitive civil service. Currently, those
appointments are made by the President.
On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee ordered the bill
favorably reported to the full Committee, where it was
considered on July 20, 1999 and ordered reported favorably. On
November 8, 1999, H.R. 2336 was considered under suspension of
the rules and then again considered (as unfinished business) on
November 16, 1999, where it failed by a vote of 183 yeas to 231
nays. No further action on this legislation was taken in the
106th Congress.
On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 2336 reportedfavorably to the full Committee. On
July 20, 1999, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably
to the House, and the bill was reported on November 8, 1999 (H. Rept.
106-459). The House considered the bill under suspension of the rule on
November 16, 1999 and the bill failed by a recorded vote of 183 to 231.
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.
Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000
On July 26, 2000, S. 2516, the ``Fugitive Apprehension Act
of 2000'' passed the Senate by unanimous consent and was
received in the House. This legislation, introduced by Senator
Strom Thurmond (R-SC), would authorize funding for fugitive
apprehension task forces to be administered by the USMS and
would also provide administrative subpoena authority for the
Attorney General in certain cases related to fugitive
apprehension, but only under specific conditions relating to
protection of the privacy of involved individuals. On August 3,
2000 this legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on
Crime. Subsequently, the administrative subpoena provisions
proved to be controversial and no further action was taken on
this legislation in the 106th Congress. Similar provisions to
those within S. 2516 were added as an amendment to unrelated
legislation, H.R. 3048, the ``Presidential Threat Protection
Act of 2000'' in the Senate before that legislation was passed
in the Senate on October 13, 2000. Those provisions relating to
administrative subpoena authority for the Attorney General were
subsequently stripped from the amended version of H.R. 3048
before it was again considered and approved by unanimous
consent by the House on October 25, 2000.
Oversight Hearing on the United States Marshals Service
The U.S. Marshals Service is the nation's oldest Federal
law enforcement agency. Since 1789, U.S. Marshals have served
the nation through a variety of vital law enforcement
activities. The Marshals Service occupies a uniquely central
position in the Federal justice system. It is involved in
virtually every Federal law enforcement initiative.
Approximately 4,000 Deputy Marshals and USMS career employees
perform the following nationwide, day-to-day missions:
protecting the Federal judicial process through judicial
security, witness security, and prisoner security; fugitive
investigation and apprehension; asset seizure, management, and
forfeiture; and special operations responding to high-threat or
emergency situations. Today, Marshals Service Director John
Marshall and 94 U.S. Marshals appointed by the President direct
the activities of 95 district offices and personnel stationed
at more than 350 locations throughout the 50 states, Guam,
Northern Mariana Isands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Each district is headed by a U.S. Marshal.
On July 13, 2000, the subcommittee on Crime held an
oversight hearing on the Marshals Service. Testimony was heard
from: John W. Marshall, Director, United States Marshals
Service; Donald S. Donovan, Acting Assistant Director, Judicial
Security Division; Robert J. Finan, Assistant Director,
Investigative Services Division; Kenneth Pekarek, Acting
Assistant Director, Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation
System; and George K. McKinney, United States Marshal, District
of Maryland.
United States Supreme Court Police Protective Authority
On September 7, 2000, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL)
introduced H.R. 5136, a bill to make permanent the current
temporary statutory authority of the Marshal of the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court Police to provide security beyond
the Supreme Court building and its grounds to Supreme Court
Justices, Court personnel, and official guests of the Court.
The current authority to provide this security will terminate
on December 29, 2000. H.R. 5136 would also eliminate the
Court's annual reporting requirement to Congress detailing the
administrative cost associated with providing off-grounds
security. This cost has been very modest in the past and is
fully detailed each year in the Court's annual budget request
to Congress. Finally, H.R. 5136 would repeal the ministerial
requirement that the Chief Justice authorize in writing armed
protection for official guests of the Supreme Court when they
are traveling in the United States outside the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area.
The Supreme Court Police is charged with enforcing the law
at the Supreme Court building and its grounds as well as
protecting Justices and other Court employees on and off its
grounds.\4\ Since 1982, Congress has provided statutory
authority for the Supreme Court Police to provide security
beyond the Court building and grounds for Justices, Court
employees, and official visitors of the Court. This same
authority requires that the Supreme Court annually report to
Congress on the cost of such security. Since 1986, Congress has
extended this off-grounds authority to provide security four
times, but the current authority will sunset on December 29,
2000. The current authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court Police are essential to the force's performance of its
everyday duties. Supreme Court Police regularly provide
security to Justices by transporting and accompanying them to
official functions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area,
and occasionally outside it when they, or official guests of
the Court, are traveling on Court business. Some Justices,
because of threats to their personal safety, are driven by the
police to and from their homes and the Court every day.
Additionally, the police protect Court employees going to and
from its parking lot, which is located one-half block east of
the Supreme Court building and off the grounds of the Court.
The committee believes that the Supreme Court Police should
continue to provide off-ground security to protect the
Justices, other Court personnel and the Court's official
guests. Given the fact that the Court's police force is well
trained and has an excellent performance record, it is
appropriate that this authority be made permanent at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 40 U.S.C. 13 et. seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime was
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5136. On
September 20, 2000, the full Committee ordered the bill
reported favorably to the house, and the bill was reported on
October 4, (H. Rept. 106-931). On October 10, 2000, the House
passed the bill by voice vote. A provision similar to H.R. 5136
was included in S. 2915, a bill to make improvements in the
operation and administration of the Federal courts, and for
other purposes. On November 13, 2000, S. 2915 was signed by the
President and became Public Law 106-518.
Protecting Animals
Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act of 1999
H.R. 1791, the ``Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection
Act of 1999'' was introduced by Representative Jerry Weller (R-
IL). The bill added new section 1368 to title 18 in order to
make it a crime to willfully harm any police animal, or attempt
to do so. The maximum punishment is one year imprisonment,
unless the offense disabled or disfigured the animal, or
resulted in the death of the animal, in which case the maximum
punishment would increase to 10 years imprisonment. The bill
defines ``police animal'' to mean a dog or horse employed by
federal agency for the principal purpose of detecting criminal
activity, enforcing the laws, or apprehending criminal
offenders.
Prior to the enactment of H.R. 1791, damage to an animal
used by the Federal government could be punished under 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1361. Under that statute, the maximum punishment is
determined by the amount of damage caused. If the damage is
less than $1,000 the maximum punishment is one year in prison.
If it is over that amount, the maximum punishment is 10 years
in prison.
The government spends a considerable amount of time and
money to train these animals, and their handlers often form a
close bond with them. In many cases, these animals have
prevented harm or even saved the lives of their handlers. In
some cases, the financial value of the animal might not
adequately reflect the training given the animal or the cost of
disrupting the bond between the law enforcement officer and his
animal if the animal were harmed. H.R. 1791 more accurately
reflects that harm.
On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R 1791 reported favorably to the full Committee. On
September 22, 1999, the full Committee ordered the bill
reported favorably to the House, and the bill was reported on
October 12, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-372). The House passed the bill
on October 12 by voice vote. On July 19, 2000, the Senate
passed the bill by unanimous consent. The president approved
the bill on August 2, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-254.
Punishing depictions of animal cruelty
Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced H.R. 1887,
a bill to punish the depiction of animal cruelty. On September
30, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. The
following witnesses testified: Loretta Swit, Actors and Others
for Animals, North Hollywood, California; Tom Connors, Deputy
District Attorney, Ventura County District Attorney Office,
Ventura, California; Susan Creede, Investigator, Ventura County
District Attorney Office, Ventura, California.
At the hearing law enforcement officials testified that
about a growing market in videotapes and still photographs
depicting insects and small animals being slowly crushed to
death. While most of this material featured torture to mice,
hamsters, and other small animals, their investigation did find
depictions of cats, dogs, and even monkeys being tortured. Much
of the material featured women inflicting the torture with
their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes. In some
video depictions, the woman's voice can be heard talking to the
animals in a kind of dominatrix patter. The cries and squeals
of the animals, obviously in great pain, can also be heard in
the videos.
The witnesses testified that because the faces of the women
inflicting the torture in the material often were not shown,
nor could the location of the place where the cruelty was being
inflicted or the date of the activity be ascertained from the
depiction, defendants arrested for violating state cruelty to
animals statutes in connection with the sale of these materials
in that state often were able to successfully assert as a
defense that the state could not prove its jurisdiction over
the place where the act occurred or that the actions depicted
took place within the time specified in the state statute of
limitations. While all have some form of a cruelty to animal
statues, few have a statute that prohibits the sale of the
depictions of such cruelty.
H.R. 1887 prohibits the creation, sale, or possession of
depictions of such cruelty with the intent to placing them into
instate or foreign commerce for commercial gain. The statute is
intended to augment, not supplant, state animal cruelty laws by
addressing behavior that may be outside the jurisdiction of the
states, as a matter of law, and appears often beyond the reach
of their law enforcement officials, as a practical matter.
On October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 1887 reported favorably to the full Committee. On
October 13, 1999, the full Committee ordered the bill reported
favorably to the House, and the bill was reported on October
19, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-397). The House passed the bill on
October 19, 1999 by a recorded vote of 372 to 42. On November
19, 1999, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. The
president approved the bill on December 9, 1999 and it became
Public Law 106-152.
The Captive Elephant Accident Prevention Act of 1999
On September 23, 2000, Representative Sam Farr (R-CA)
introduced H.R. 2929, the ``Captive Elephant Accident
Prevention Act of 1999.'' The bill would amend Title 18 of the
United States Code to prohibit anyone from knowingly making any
elephant available for use in a traveling show or circus, or
for the purpose of allowing individuals to ride an elephant.
Any person violating the law would be subject to a fine and
imprisonment for not more than one year. Repeat offenders could
be imprisoned for not more than two years. The bill defines the
term ``traveling show or circus'' as a show or circus that
spends most of it working time each year away from its
permanent facility.
On June 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held a one day
legislative hearing to consider the merits of the legislation.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Bob Barker, entertainer
and animal rights activist, Hollywood, California; Joel Parrott
D.V.M., Executive Director, Oakland Zoo, Oakland, California;
Tom Rider, formerly of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey
Circus, West Boxford, Massachusetts; Blayne Doyle, Palm Bay
Police Department, Palm Bay Florida; Pat Derby, President,
Performing Animal Welfare Society, Galt, California;David
Rawls, President, Kelly Miller Circus, Hugo, Oklahoma; Kari Johnson,
Have Trunk Will Travel, Perris, California; David Blasko, Elephant
Encounter, Six Flags, Marine World, Vallejo, California; Debbie Olson,
Director of Conservation and Science Programs, Indianapolis Zoo, Azle,
Texas; and Dennis Schmitt D.V.M., PhD, Associate Professor, Agriculture
Department, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2929 during the 106th
Congress.
general legislation and oversight hearings
Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 2000
Representative John Conyers (D-MI) introduced H.R. 1443 on
April 15, 1999. H.R. 1443 would direct the Attorney General to
conduct a nationwide study of stops for traffic violations by
law enforcement officers. It would require the Attorney General
to: (1) perform an initial analysis of existing data, including
complaints alleging, and other information concerning, traffic
stops motivated by race and other bias; (2) gather specified
data on traffic stops from a nationwide sample of jurisdiction,
including data on the alleged infractions, identifying
characteristics of the drivers, immigration status questions
and inquiries, searches instituted and alleged criminal
behavior that justified the searches, items seized, and
citations or arrests resulting from stops; and (3) report the
results to Congress and make such report available to the
public.
On February 3, 2000, the Subcommitte on Crime discharged
from further consideration of the bill H.R. 1443. On March 1,
2000, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to
the House, and the bill was reported on March 13, 2000 (H.
Rept. 106-517). No further action was taken on H.R. 1443 during
the 106th Congress.
Hearing on the Shoot Down of the Brothers to the Rescue Planes
On July 15, 1999, the Crime Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on the ``Shoot Down of the Brothers to the Rescue
Planes.'' A number of legal and factual questions were
considered at this hearing, including the basis for an
indictment of the Cuban leader Fidel Castro. The following
witness testified: Jeffrey Houlihan, Senior Detection Systems
Specialist, United States Customs Service, Domestic Air
Interdiction Coordination Center, George Fowler, General
Counsel of the Cuban American National Foundation; Jose
Basulto, President, Brothers to the Rescue; Arnoldo Iglesias,
Vice President, Brothers to the Rescue; Sylvia G. Iriondo, Co-
Owner & President, Tarafa & Iriondo Corporation, Realtors;
Jorge Mas, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, MasTec,
Incorporated; Incorporated; and Lazaro Betancourt Morin, a
recent Cuban defector.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representative condemning the act
of arson at Three Sacramento, California, Area Synagogues
H. Res. 226 was introduced by Representative Doug Ose (R-
CA) on June 29, 1999. H. Res. 226 expresses that the House of
Representatives: (1) condemns the crimes that occurred in
Sacramento, California, at Congregation B'Nai Israel,
Congregation Beth Shalom, and Kenesset Israel Torah Center on
June 18, 1999; (2) interprets such attacks as an attack on all
Americans; (3) is committed to using Federal law enforcement
personnel and resources to bring the persons who committed
these attacks to justice; (4) recognizes the residents of the
Sacramento, California, area who have so quickly joined
together to lend support and assistance to the victims and who
remain committed to preserving the freedom of religion of all
members of the community; and (5) calls upon all Americans to
categorically reject similar crimes of hate and intolerance.
On June 29, 1999, H. Res 226 was agreed to under suspension
of the rules by the Yeas and Nays (425-0, 1 Present). No
further action was taken on this resolution during the 106th
Congress.
Hearing on The Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
On July 22, 1999, the Crime Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on the Office of Justice Programs, the grant-making arm
of the U.S. Department of Justice. The witnesses who testified
were: Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice; Lawrence
Sherman, Director & Albert M. Greenfield Professor of Human
Relations, Fels Center of Government, University of
Pennsylvania; The Honorable Michael J. Anderegg, Judge,
Marquette County Circuit Court, Michigan; Joseph Myers,
Executive Director, American Indian Justice Center & Board
Member, National Organization for Victims Assistance; Mark
Soler, President, Youth Law Center, Washington, D.C.; Donna
Edwards, Executive Director, National Network to End Domestic
Violence; and Terence Thornberry, Director, Hindelang Criminal
Justice Research Center, School of Criminal Justice, State
University of New York at Albany.
Prisoner Health Care Co-Payment
H.R. 1349, the ``Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act
of 2000'' was introduced by Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ).
The bill authorizes the Federal Bureau of Prisons to collect a
fee from any person who has been charged with or convicted of a
Federal crime each time that person visits a health care
professional at his or her request and receives health care
services. The amount of the fee is to be determined by the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons through regulation, but would
be at least $1 per visit. The fee would be assessed and
deducted from any account maintained on behalf of the prisoner
receiving the services. The fee would not be assessed or
collected for preventative health care services, emergency
services, prenatal care, diagnosis or treatment for chronic
infectious diseases, mental health care, or substance abuse
treatment. The bill further provides that when a Federal
prisoner is housed in a non-Federal facility (e.g., pursuant to
an agreement between the Federal government and a state or
local government) the state or local facility may assess a fee
for health care services, provided that such a fee is
authorized under the law of the state where the Federal
prisoner is housed and that state prisoners are charged no
greater a fee.
Currently, inmates incarcerated in the Federal prison
system and persons who are detained pending trial receive free
medical care from BOP employees (physicians,
physicianassistants, and nurses) and Public Health Service (PHS)
personnel (generally physician assistants, dentists, and pharmacists)
assigned to each institution. Additionally, the BOP maintains contracts
with medical specialists in private practice who provide care that
cannot be provided by the BOP employees and PHS personnel. For the most
seriously ill inmates, the BOP operates seven Federal Medical Centers
at which are located fully accredited hospitals and facilities to care
for long-term chronically and terminally ill inmates. In fiscal year
1999, the BOP spent $372.1 million in health care costs.
All inmates in the BOP system are required to work if
medically able, and all who work are paid for their labor.
Persons detained while awaiting trial are not required to work.
Wages paid to inmates are retained in an inmate account, which
inmates can use to pay for telephone calls and purchases from
the prison commissary. A prisoner's family may deposit money
into his or her account for his or her use as well.
The Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on H.R. 1349 on
September 30, 1999. The following witnesses testified at the
hearing: Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ); Phillip S. Wise,
Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Jean Williams
Auldridge; Vice Chairman, National Board of Directors; Citizens
United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE); and Robert L.
Cohen, M.D., New York, New York.
At that hearing the Bureau of Prisons representative
testified that some portion of the inmates who seek medical
treatment at any given time do so for the purpose of avoiding
work or other rehabilitative programming which is imposed on
them. Inmates know that while they are waiting for treatment
they are excused from all programming. Inmates who seek
treatment without a legitimate medical complaint waste the time
of medical staff and force truly sick inmates to wait to
receive the care they need. The BOP supports imposing a nominal
health care co-payment fee on all prisoners for the same reason
that managed health care plans impose them on their customers,
namely, it will help deter overuse of health care services
(i.e., use of those services by people who do not really need
them).
A recent General Accounting Office report (Federal Prisons:
Containing Health Care Costs for an Increasing Inmate
Population, No. GAO/T-GGD-00-112, (April 6, 2000)) found that
co-payment fees for prison inmates have been adopted in 36
states. Among states and localities that have imposed these
fees, reductions in sick call visits of from 16 to 50 percent
have been realized. In its report, the GAO concluded that use
of a health care co-payment fee system would reduce the number
of unnecessary medical visits in the Federal prison system,
perhaps reducing overall visits by as much as 25 percent.
On March 16, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 1349 reported favorably to the full Committee. On
July 19, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably
to the House, and the bill was reported on September 14 (H.
Rept. 106-851). The House passed the bill on September 19 by
voice vote. No further action was taken on the bill during the
106th Congress. However, on September 19, the House took up
consideration of S. 704, a bill substantially similar to H.R.
1349 and which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on May
27, 1999. The House struck out all of the text of the Senate
bill, and substituted for it the text of H.R. 1349 as passed by
the House. The House then passed the Senate bill by unanimous
consent. The Senate passed S. 704, as amended in the House, by
unanimous consent on September 28, 2000. The President approved
the bill on October 12, and it became Public Law 106-294.
Hearing on COPS (``Community Oriented Policing Services'') Program
On October 28, 1999, the Crime Subcommittee held an
oversight hearing of the COPS Program. The following witness
testified: Thomas C. Frazier, Director, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), United States Department of
Justice; Robert L. Ashbaugh, Acting Inspector General, United
States Department of Justice; Richard Stana; Associate
Director, Administration of Justice Issues, United States
General Accounting Office; Joseph M. Newport, Chief of Police,
Terre Haute (Indiana) Police Department; Lawrence W. Sherman,
Albert M. Greenfield Professor of Human Relations, University
of Pennsylvania; Edward F. Davis, III, Police Superintendent,
Lowell, Massachusetts; and Martin L. Pfeifer, Sergeant,
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, and Secretary,
Fraternal Order of Police.
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000
Internet gambling has been characterized by gambling
addiction experts as the ``crack cocaine'' of gambling.
Legislation to ban Internet gambling was first introduced in
the House early in the 105th Congress, at which time there were
approximately a total of thirty (30) Internet gambling websites
in existence. Since that time, three years later, more than
seven-hundred (700) new gambling sites have been established,
and Internet gambling is now a billion-plus dollar-a-year
illegal industry, growing every day.
In the 106th Congress, legislation to prohibit Internet
gambling was introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).
H.R. 3125, the ``Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,'' would
prohibit gambling businesses from using the Internet to place,
receive, or otherwise make bets or wagers by providing criminal
penalties for violations, authorize civil enforcement
proceedings by Federal and State authorities, and establish a
mechanism for requiring Internet service providers (ISP's) to
terminate access to material on their facilities that violates
this section. The legislation would not apply to certain
lawful, regulated gaming activities.
On November 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime favorably
reported H.R. 3125 to the full Judiciary Committee. The
Subcommittee held a hearing on this bill on March 9, 2000, the
third held on this matter since legislation was introduced to
ban Internet gambling in the 105th Congress. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from the following witnesses: ``John Doe,''
Internet Gambling Addict, San Diego, California; Representative
Robert W. Goodlatte (R-VA); Senator John Kyl (R-AZ); The
Honorable Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice; and The
Honorable James E. Doyle, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin; Robert Minnix, Associate Athletics
Director, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida;
Stephen Walters, Chairman, Oregon Racing Commission, Portland,
Oregon; Keith Whyte, Executive Director, National Council on
Problem Gambling, Washington, D.C.; and Bartlett Cleland,
Esquire, Policy Director, Center forTechnology and Freedom,
Louisville, Texas.
On November 3, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 3125 reported favorably to the Full Committee. On
April 6, 2000 the full Committee ordered the bill reported
favorably to the House, and the bill was reported on June 7,
(H. Rept. 106-655). On June 7, the bill was referred
sequentially to the House Committee on Commerce, and on June
23, the Committee on Commerce was discharged from further
consideration of the bill. On July 17, the House considered the
bill under suspension of the rules and the bill failed to pass
by a recorded vote of 245 to 159 (270 ayes votes being required
for passage). No further action was taken on the bill during
the 106th Congress.
On November 19, 1999, S. 692, the ``Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act of 1999'' passed the Senate by unanimous
consent and was subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on
Crime on February 3, 2000. This legislation is a nearly
identical companion to H.R. 3125 as introduced, and no further
action was taken on it in the 106th Congress.
Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
H.R. 4419, the ``Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition
Act'' was introduced by Representative Jim Leach (R-IA) on May
10, 2000 and referred to the Committees on Banking and
Financial Services and Judiciary. The bill prohibits any person
engaged in a gambling business from knowingly accepting, in
connection with the participation of another person in Internet
gambling credit, an electronic fund transfer, or any financial
instrument and provide that if an appropriate Federal banking
agency determines that an insured depository institution is
engaged in prohibited activities, it may issue an injunction
against the person in violation of this Act. It would also
encourage that the Federal Government, in deliberations with a
foreign government on money laundering, corruption, and crime
issues, should encourage cooperation by foreign governments in
identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used
for money laundering, corruption, or other crimes.
On May 30, 2000 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee
on Crime. On July 20, the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services reported the bill to the House (H. Rept. 106-771, Part
I). The Subcommittee took no action on this bill, and the
Committee was discharged from further consideration of it on
September 29, 2000. No further action was taken on this bill
during the 106th Congress.
Enforcing Firearms Laws: Project Exile
On March 22, 2000, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL)
introduced H.R. 4051, ``Project Exile: The Safe Streets and
Neighborhoods Act of 2000.'' The bill's intent is to help make
our communities and neighborhoods safer by addressing gun
violence through the common sense approach of ensuring vigorous
prosecution of gun criminals. This approach simply involves
enforcing the laws already on the books, and ensuring a minimum
prison sentence of at least five years for convicted violators.
In states and communities around the country where aggressive
prosecution of gun crimes has been coupled with tough prison
sentences, violent crime has gone down.
In the last two years a handful of states, including
Virginia, have dramatically reduced the level of gun crime in
their states by implementing programs that ensure tough prison
time for criminals who use guns. The example of the impact of
Virginia Exile is noteworthy. Prior to Project Exile, Richmond,
Virginia had one of the highest murder rates in the world and
an exploding violent crime problem. Since 1997, when Project
Exile was begun in Richmond: homicides have dropped 46 percent
(the lowest level since 1987); crimes involving guns have
dropped by 65 percent; aggravated assaults have dropped by 39
percent; and the overall number of violent crimes have dropped
by 35 percent.
The Project Exile Act provides resources to states that
ensure a mandatory minimum sentence of five years (without
parole) for any person who uses or carries a firearm during and
in relation to a violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault) or serious drug trafficking offense (an
offense under state law involving manufacturing or distributing
a controlled substance, for which a maximum term of
imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law).
Importantly, the Act requires that the mandatory minimum
sentence must be in addition to the punishment provided for the
underlying crime. Alternatively, a state can qualify for the
Exile funds if it ensures that person convicted of possessing a
firearm and who has a prior conviction for a violent crime
serves a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. The Act will
give states the option to prosecute offenders in either Federal
or state court, so long as the states ensure that the mandatory
minimum sentence of five years is served.
The Project Exile Act will provide a total of $100 million
in federal resources over five years as an incentive for states
to implement such programs and to help defray costs associated
with tougher enforcement against gun criminals. Funds received
under the Act will be for strengthening state criminal justice
systems in a wide variety of ways, including: hiring and
training more judges, prosecutors and probation officers;
increasing prison capacity; and developing information-sharing
case management systems that ensure that all segments of the
criminal justice system are contributing to and using the same
case files for serious offenders.
The Act is an incentive grant program similar to the Trust-
in-Sentencing program that Congress has funded over the last
five years. The Trust-in-Sentencing program created an
incentive for states to require convicted violent offenders to
serve as least 85 percent of their sentences, and helped states
defray costs associated with the resulting longer prison terms.
This program has helped move the national average time served
for violent offenders from 35 percent in 1994 to close to 50
percent in 1998. It has been a key factor in lowering the crime
rate over the last 7 years.
Based on preliminary reviews, it appears that at least six
states may already qualify: They include Virginia, Texas,
Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Colorado. Additionally,
a number of cities have initiated Exile (including Rochester,
New York, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and there appears to
be considerable momentum that may carry over from these cities
to their states.
In calender years 1998 and 1999 the Administration has
significantly increased federal gun crime prosecutions (under
18 U.S.C. sections 922 or 924). It is important to note,
however, that the number of gun crime prosecutions dropped
substantially during the five year period before then, from
7,059 in 1992 to 5,150 in 1997. (The comparable prosecution
numbers for 1998 and 1999 were 5,876 and 7,057, respectively.)
The Crime Subcommittee held a hearing on April 6, 2000, on
H.R. 4051, ``Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods
Act 2000.'' The following witnesses testified: The Honorable
Jim Gilmore, Governor of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; The
Honorable Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney for the
Middle District of North Carolina, United States Department of
Justice; Rick Costaldo, Columbine, Colorado; Mary Leigh Blek,
President, The Bell Campaign, Los Angeles, California; The
Honorable Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia;
Michael T. McCaul, Special Assistant to the Attorney General,
Austin, Texas; George J. Terwilliger, III, Esq., Partner,
McGuire Woods, Battle & Boothe, Washington, D.C.; Kenneth W.
Sukhia, Esq., Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and
Banker, P.A.; Tallahasee, Florida; The Reverend William Fails,
Highpoint, North Carolina; Garen Wintemute, Director, Violence
Prevention Research Program, University of California, Davis;
and Kristen Rand, Violence Policy Center, Washington, D.C.
National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of 2000
Representative Thomas Barrett (D-WI) introduced H.R. 3235,
the ``National Policy Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of
1999.'' H.R. 3235 directs the Office of Justice Programs of the
Department of Justice to award a grant to the Police Athletic
League (PAL) for the purposes of establishing PAL chapters to
serve public housing projects and other distressed areas and
expanding existing chapters to serve additional youth. PAL was
founded by police officers in New York City in 1914, and its
goal is to offer an alternative to crime, drugs and violence
for our nation's most at-risk youth. Since 1914, PAL has grown
into one of the largest youth-crime prevention programs in the
nation, with a network of 320 local chapters and 1,700
facilities that serve more than 3,000 communities and 1.5
million children. Local chapters are volunteer driven and
receive most of their funding from private sources. In
partnership with local law enforcement agencies, PAL chapters
help to narrow the gap in trust between children and the
police, especially in low-income and high-crime neighborhoods.
PAL offers after school athletic, recreational, and educational
programs designed to give children an alternative to gangs,
drugs and crime, and to reinforce the values of responsibility,
hard work and community.
H.R. 3235 authorizes the appropriation of $16 million a
year for five years beginning with this fiscal year. The money
will be used to enhance the services provided by the 320
established PAL chapters and provide seed money for the
establishment of 250 (50 per year over a 5-year period)
additional PAL chapters in public housing projects and other
distressed areas, including distressed areas with a majority
population of Native Americans.
On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and
ordered H.R. 3235 reported favorably to the full Committee. On
July 25, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably
to the House, and the bill was reported on September 18 (H.
Rept. 106-859). The House passed the bill on October 2 by a
voice vote. On October 13, the Senate passed the bill by
unanimous consent. The President approved the bill on October
27 and it became Public Law 106-367.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President
should focus appropriate attention on the issue of neighborhood
crime prevention, community policing, and reduction in school
crime
H. Res. 561 was introduced by Representative Bart Stupak
(D-MI) on July 20, 2000. H. Res. 561 urges the President to
focus appropriate attention on the issue of neighborhood crime
prevention, community policing, and reduction of school crime
by delivering speeches, convening meetings, and directing his
Administration to make reducing crime an important priority.
On July 27, 2000, the Committee discharged from further
consideration H. Res. 561, and it was agreed to without
objection under unanimous consent on the same day. No further
action was taken on this resolution during the 106th Congress.
Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000
Representative Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) introduced H.R. 1800,
the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000.'' The bill
amended the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (Public Law 103-322) to ensure that certain information
regarding prisoners is reported to the Attorney General. On May
13, 1999, the bill was referred to the House Committee on the
Judiciary. On May 21, 1999, the bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Crime. No hearings were held and no report was
filed.
On May, 19, 2000, the full Committee adopted the substance
of the bill as an amendment to H.R. 1659, the ``National Police
Training Commission Act of 1999'' a bill introduced by
Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY). H.R. 1659 is described in
the full Committee section of this report.
On July 24, 2000, the Committee was discharged from further
consideration of the bill H.R. 1800. On July 24, 2000, the
House passed the bill by voice vote. On October 3, 2000, the
Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent On October 13,
2000, the President approved the bill and it became Public Law
106-297.
Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000
On May 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held an
oversight hearing entitled ``Breaches of Security at Federal
Agencies and Airports.'' The hearing was the culmination of an
undercover investigation conducted by the Office of Special
Investigations of the United States General Accounting Office
(GAO) at the request of Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL).
The hearing examined the security threat posed by individuals
using fake law enforcement badges and credentials to enter
Federal buildings, sensitive installations, and airports. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from three special agents from the
Office of Special Investigations (OSI) of the GAO: Robert Hast,
Assistant Controller General for Special Investigations, GAO
PatrickSullivan, Assistant Director, Office of Special
Investigations, GAO, and Ronald Malfi, Assistant Director, Office of
Special Investigations, GAO.
The witnesses testified that during the investigation,
undercover OSI Special Agents targeted 19 secure Federal
buildings and two major airports posing as plain-clothed law
enforcement officers. In every case, the agents were able to
enter agency buildings while claiming to be armed and carrying
briefcases, which were never searched and were big enough to be
packed with large quantities of explosives, chemical or
biological agents. The agencies penetrated included the CIA,
the Pentagon, the FBI, the Justice Department, the State
Department, and the Department of Energy. The agents were
simply waived around the metal detectors. In many cases, they
had the run of the buildings once they were inside, including
the offices of department secretaries. In one case, agents
drove a rental van into the courtyard of the building at
Federal Triangle without the van being inspected or searched.
The van was parked in the courtyard, and the agents left it
while they went inside the building.
For the two airports whose security was compromised, agents
obtained boarding passes and firearm permits to carry weapons
onboard the flights for which they had purchased tickets. Like
the Federal buildings they entered, they carried briefcases
that were never x-rayed. They walked right up to the door that
led down the gangway to the airplane. Nothing stood between
them and the aircraft.
Representative Steven Horn (R-CA) introduced H.R. 4827, the
``Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000,'' in response to the
undercover investigation and hearing. The purpose of H.R. 4827
is twofold. First, it is to reduce the threat to security in
Federal buildings, Federal vessels and aircraft, and airports
that is posed by criminals, terrorists, and foreign agents
seeking to gain unauthorized access to these places to commit
criminal acts. Second, it is to prohibit the sale and
distribution of genuine and counterfeit police badges to
individuals who might use them for criminal purposes.
Specifically, H.R. 4827 would make it a Federal crime to enter,
or attempt to enter, Federal property or the secure area of an
airport under false pretenses. A person entering such property
under false pretenses would be subject to a fine and up to six
months in prison. Additionally, a person entering such property
under false pretenses with the intent to commit a felony would
be subject to a fine and up to five years in prison. H.R. 4827
would also prohibit trafficking in genuine and counterfeit
police badges in interstate or foreign commerce. A person
trafficking in police badges would be subject to a fine and up
to six months in prison. The bill creates a defense to
prosecution to protect those who possess a badge as a memento,
in a collection or exhibit, for decorative purposes, for a
dramatic presentation, or for recreational purposes.
On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R.
4827 to the full Committee. On September 20, the full Committee
ordered the bill reported favorably to the House, and the bill
was reported on September 28 (H. Rept. 106-913). The House
passed the bill on October 2 by voice vote. The Senate passed
the bill by unanimous consent on December 7, 2000. On December
19, 2000, the President approved the bill and it became Public
Law 106-547.
Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 2000
H.R. 4999 was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum
(R-FL) on July 27, 2000. H.R. 4999 would require the Director
of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to pay to qualifying local
governments specified sums for reducing crime and improving
public safety, including for: (1) hiring, training, and
employing on a continuing basis new, additional law enforcement
officers and support personnel; (2) paying overtime to increase
the number of hours worked by presently employed officers and
support personnel; (3) procuring equipment, technology, and
other material directly related to basic law enforcement
functions; (4) enhancing security measures in and around
schools and any other facility or location which is considered
by the unit of local government to have a special risk for
incidents of crime; (5) establishing crime prevention programs
that may involve, though not exclusively, law enforcement
officials and that are intended to discourage, disrupt, or
interfere with the commission of criminal activity; (6)
establishing or supporting drug courts; (7) establishing early
intervention and prevention programs for juveniles to reduce or
eliminate crime; (8) enhancing the adjudication process of
cases involving violent offenders, including the adjudication
process of cases involving violent juvenile offenders; (9)
enhancing programs under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 drug control and system improvement grant
program; (10) establishing cooperative task forces between
adjoining local governments to work cooperatively to prevent
and combat criminal activity, particularly criminal activity
that is exacerbated by drug- or gang-related involvement; and
(11) establishing a multijurisdictional task force,
particularly in rural areas, composed of law enforcement
officials representing local governments, that works with
Federal law enforcement officials to prevent and control crime.
On September 19, 2000, H.R. 4999 was agreed to, as amended,
under suspension of the rules by voice vote. No further action
was taken on H.R. 4999 during the 106th Congress.
Jeanne's Act
Every year thousands of violent felons are moved from
prison to prison on our nation's highways. Many of these
criminals are transported by the U.S. Marshals Service and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. However, as the number of criminals
in state prisons continues to rise, many states rely on private
prisoner transportation companies to move prisoners from state
to state. There is no uniform set of standards and procedures
for these prisoner transport companies to follow, which may
lead to situations where prisoners may escape and commit more
crime before they are apprehended. A major reason for escapes
from prisoner transport companies is the lack of approved
standards for the private transport of dangerous prisoners. S.
1898, the ``Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals
Act of 2000'' or ``Jeanna's Act,'' seeks to increase public
safety by requiring the Attorney General to establish minimum
standards and requirements for companies engaging in the
business of transporting violent offenders. S. 1898 also
provides that any person who violates the regulations to be
promulgated by the Attorney General shall be liable for a civil
penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each violation,
and shall make restitution to any government agency for the
money expended to apprehend any prisoner who escapes.
S. 1898 was introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan (R-ND). The
Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on October 25,
2000. On October 27, the bill was referred to theSubcommittee
on Crime. On December 7, the Committee was discharged from further
consideration of the bill, and on that day the House passed the bill by
unanimous consent. On December 21, 2000, the President signed the bill
and it became Public Law 106-560.
Mentally ill offenders
A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics study (``Mental
Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers,'' July 1999),
estimated that there are over 283,000 mentally ill offenders
incarcerated Federal, state, and local prisons and jails. BJS
estimated that 16% of state inmates, 7% of Federal offenders,
and 16% of those held in local jails are mentally ill. A
similar percentage of persons on probation, approximately
547,000 people, also have a history of mental illness.
According to the report, mentally ill offenders were more
likely than other offenders to have committed a violent
offense. These offenders also reported a higher rate of prior
physical and sexual abuse than other inmates. They reported
higher incidents of alcohol and drug abuse by parents and
guardians while they were children. Half of these offenders
also reported that a parent, brother, or sister had been in
prison or jail. And mentally ill offenders were more likely
than other offenders to have been unemployed and homeless prior
to their arrest.
Mentally ill offenders serve, on average, 15% longer prison
terms than other offenders. And while incarcerated, they are
more likely then other offenders to be involved in fights with
other inmates and to be charged with breaking prison rules.
Law enforcement and corrections officials, prosecutors,
judges, and mental health officials wrote the Subcommittee on
Crime to urge the Subcommittee to hold a hearing on the unique
problems that these type of offenders pose to the criminal
justice community. They urged that special procedures should be
developed to deal with these offenders, ones which would
address their underlying mental problems as part of the
punishment for their crimes, rather than simply placing them in
custody with other offenders. On September 21, 2000, the
Subcommittee on Crime held an oversight hearing on the impact
of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system.
On October 24, 2000, the House passed S. 1865, ``America's
Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project,'' a bill introduced
by Senator Mike Dewine (R-OH), by voice vote. The Senate passed
the bill by unanimous consent on September 26, 2000. The
President approved the bill on November 13, and it became
Public Law 106-515.
The bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 to authorize the appropriation of $10 million over
a four year period for the Attorney General to use to make
grants to States, State courts, local courts, units of local
government, and Indian tribal governments, acting directly or
through agreements with other public or nonprofit entities, for
up to 125 programs that involve: (1) continuing judicial
supervision, including periodic review, over preliminarily
qualified offenders with mental illness, mental retardation, or
co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders who
are charged with non-violent offenses; and (2) the coordinated
delivery of services, which includes specialized training of
law enforcement and judicial personnel to identify and address
the unique needs of a mentally ill or mentally retarded
offender, voluntary outpatient or inpatient mental health
treatment that carries with it the possibility of dismissal of
charges or reduced sentencing upon successful completion of
treatment, and centralized case management involving the
consolidation of all of a mentally ill or mentally retarded
defendant's cases (including violations of probation) and the
coordination of all mental health treatment plans and social
services, including life skills training.
Hearing on preventing and fighting crime: What works?
On October 2, 2000, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing
on the subject of what works to prevent and reduce crime. The
following witnesses testified: The Honorable Lynne Abraham,
District Attorney, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick
J. Coleman, Deputy Director of Policy and Management, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, United States
Department of Justice; John W. Wilson, Acting Administrator,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office
of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice; Bruce
C. Fry, Social Science Analyst, Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Chuck
Wexler, Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum;
Edmund F. McGarrell, Director, Crime Control Policy Center, the
Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana; Morgan Reynolds,
Director, Criminal Justice Center, National Center for Policy
Analysis, Washington, D.C.; John Holton, Director, National
Center for Child Abuse Prevention Research, Chicago, Illinois;
James Fox, Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice,
Northeastern University, College of Criminal Justice, Boston,
Massachusetts; Byron R. Johnson, Director, Office for the Study
and Prevention of Domestic Violence, University of
Pennsylvania; Mr. Mark Mauer, Assistant Director, The
Sentencing Project, Washington, D.C.; and Patrick Tolan,
Director, Institute for Juvenile Research, University of
Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Hearing on the convergence of organized crime, drug trafficking, and
terrorism
On December 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held a
hearing on the threat posed by the convergence of organized
crime, terrorism, and drug trafficking. The witnesses who
testified at the hearing were: The Honorable Donnie Marshall,
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; The Honorable
Michael Sheehan, United States Ambassador at Large for
Counterterrorism; Frank Cilluffo, Senior Policy Analyst and
Deputy Director, Center for Strategic and International
Studies; Ralf Mutschke, Assistant Director, Sub-Directorate for
Crimes Against Persons and Property, Interpol General
Secretariat; Steven C. McCraw, Deputy Assistant Director,
Information, Analysis, and Assessments Branch, Investigative
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Raphael F. Perl,
Specialist in International Affairs, Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress.
Deterring the use of false identification documents
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced S. 2924, a bill
designed to strengthen the enforcement of Federal statutes
relating to false identification documents. S. 2924 makes it
clear that it is a crime to transfer false identification
documents by electronic means, and that the term false
identification documents include documents that are in the form
of computer files, discs, or templates. S. 2924 closes a
loophole in current law that permits manufacturers of false
identification documents to escape liability by displaying the
disclaimer: ``Not a Government Document,'' disclaimers that can
be removed easily. The bill also directs the Attorney General
and the Secretary of the Treasury to coordinate efforts to
investigate and prosecute the distribution of false
identification documents on the Internet.
On October 31, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by
unanimous consent. The bill was referred to the Judiciary
Committee on that same day and to the Subcommittee on Crime on
November 3. On December 15, the Committee was discharged from
further consideration of the bill. The House then passed the
bill by unanimous consent, with an amendment. Later that same
day, the Senate agreed to the House amendment by unanimous
consent. The president approved the bill on December 28, 2000
and the bill became Public Law 106-578.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania,
Chairman
JERROLD NADLER, New York ED BRYANT, Tennessee \1\
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MELVIN WATT, North Carolina STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \2\
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MARY BONO, California \3\
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \4\
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana \5\
----------
\1\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee June 25, 1999.
\2\ Stephen Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee effective the
afternoon of March 4, 1999.
\3\ Mary Bono, California, assigned to the subcommittee March 24, 1999.
\4\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, assigned to the subcommittee March 24,
1999.
\5\ David Vitter, Louisiana, assigned to the subcommittee July 20,
1999.
Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity
Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.......................... 79
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.............. 14
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee.............. 0
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee. 0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee.... 0
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee...................... 3
Legislation ordered tabled in the Subcommittee.................... 1
Legislation pending before the full Committee..................... 2
Legislation reported to the House................................. 15
Legislation discharged from the Committee......................... 9
Legislation pending in the House.................................. 2
Legislation passed by the House................................... 20
Legislation pending in the Senate................................. 9
Legislation vetoed by the President............................... 0
Legislation enacted into public law............................... 7
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another bill....... 2
Legislation on which hearings were held........................... 22
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)...................... 28
Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has
legislative and oversight responsibility for the Independent
Counsel Act, the Legal Services Corporation, the Office of
Solicitor General, the United States Bankruptcy Courts, the
Executive Office for the United States Trustees of the
Department of Justice, the Executive Office of United States
Attorneys, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division
of the Department of Justice. The Subcommittee's legislative
responsibilities include administrative law (practice and
procedure), regulatory flexibility, state taxation affecting
interstate commerce, bankruptcy law, bankruptcy judgeships,
legal services, federal debt collection, the Contract Disputes
Act, the Federal Arbitration Act, and interstate compacts.
Legislative Activities
administrative law and regulatory reform
H.R. 1924, the Federal Agency Compliance Act
On October 27, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.R. 1924, the ``Federal Agency Compliance Act,'' introduced by
Subcommittee Chairman Gekas. The legislation, simlar to H.R.
1544 which passed the House on February 25, 1998 by a vote of
241-176,generally prevented agencies from refusing to follow
controlling precedents of the United States courts of appeals in the
course of program administration and litigation involving their
programs. This practice by agencies, known as ``non-acquiescence,'' has
been criticized for many years by courts and legal scholars, and has
resulted in hardship to those appearing before agencies and continual
relitigation of settled questions of law. The bill, based upon a
recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States,
addressed the two kinds of agency non-acquiescence: intracircuit non-
acquiescence--refusal to follow controlling appellate precedent within
a specific federal judicial circuit; and intercircuit non-
acquiescence--relitigating in other judicial circuits issues on which
precedents have already been established in multiple circuits.
Regarding intracircuit non-acquiescence, the bill generally
required an agency in its administration of statutes and
regulations within a given judicial circuit to follow relevant
existing courts of appeals precedent in that circuit. An agency
would have been permitted to assert a position contrary to
precedent in limited circumstances, for example, when
intervening legal, factual or public policy developments may
have undermined or changed the rationale for the earlier
decision. With respect to intercircuit non-acquiescence, the
bill provided that the Department of Justice and other agency
officials shall seek to ensure that federal litigation under
their control is initiated, defended, and continued so as to
avoid unnecessarily repetitive litigation on questions of law
already consistently resolved against the government in three
or more circuit courts of appeals. The provision relating to
intercircuit non-acquiescence was not subject to judicial
review or enforcement.
Witnesses testifying at the hearing were: Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO); Honorable Walter K. Stapleton,
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
representing the Judicial Conference of the United States;
William Schultz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice; Arthur J. Fried,
General Counsel, Social Security Administration; John
Pickering, Chair, Senior Lawyers Division of the American Bar
Association, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Honorable Ronald
Bernoski, Social Security Administration, Office of Hearings
and Appeals, President of the Association of Administrative Law
Judges, Incorporated; Sheldon Cohen, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP.
On June 20, 2000 the Subcommittee reported the bill
favorably by a voice vote. On September 20, 2000 the Judiciary
Committee ordered reported the bill favorably by a voice vote.
The report (H. Rept. No. 106-976) was filed on October 12,
2000. The House took no action on H.R. 1924.
H.R. 881, the Regulatory Fair Warning Act
H.R. 881, the ``Regulatory Fair Warning Act,'' was
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Gekas on March 1, 1999. Mr.
Gekas first introduced fair warning legislation (H.R. 3307) in
the 104th Congress. During the 105th Congress, Mr. Gekas
introduced a revised regulatory fair warning bill (H.R. 4049)
and held a hearing on the measure on July 23, 1998.
H.R. 881 would have prohibited a federal agency or federal
court from imposing a sanction for a violation of an agency
rule if: (1) the rule was not printed in the Code of Federal
Regulations or in the Federal Register, was not known to the
person, or was not knowable to a person who has engaged in a
reasonable, good faith investigation of the rules applicable to
the conduct that allegedly violated the rule; (2) the rule
failed to give the person fair warning of the conduct that it
prohibits or requires, or (3) with respect only to a
retrospective sanction, the person acted in reasonable reliance
upon written representations about what the rule prohibits or
requires which were issued by the agency or an official with
actual or apparent authority to interpret, administer, or
enforce the rule.
The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 881 on June 29,
1999. The following witnesses testified: June Bolstridge,
President, GAIA Corporation; Ernest Gelhorn, Professor of Law,
George Mason University School of Law; Steve Goodman, JSG
Trading Corporation; Robert Hahn, Director, AEI-Brookings,
Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Barbara C. Somson, Deputy
Legislative Director, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; David Sparks,
Senior Vice President of Finance, Providence Hospital,
Representing the American Hospital Association.
On September 29, 2000, the Subcommittee ordered the bill
reported as amended, with a single amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Representative Delahunt (D-MA). No
further action was taken on the bill.
executive orders
The executive order is a well known instrument employed by
Presidents to manage the affairs of the executive branch. While
most executive orders are routine and unremarkable, others
raise questions concerning the separation of powers between the
branches. A number of bills addressing this perceived problem
were considered by the Subcommittee during the 106th Congress.
H. Con. Res. 30
H. Con. Res. 30 was introduced by Representative Metcalfe
(R-WA) on February 10, 1999. The resolution have expressed the
sense of Congress that any executive order that infringes on
the constitutional powers and duties of Congress or requires
the expenditure of federal funds not specifically appropriated
to carry out the order is advisory only and has no legal effect
unless enacted as law.
H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act
Introduced by Representative Paul (R-TX) on July 30, 1999,
H.R. 2655, the ``Separation of Powers Restoration Act,'' would
have broadly defined a ``presidential order'' as any executive
order or action that has ``normative effect outside the
executive branch.'' The bill would have directed the President
to include with each presidential order a statement of the
specific statutory or constitutional authority for its
issuance. The bill would have also divested the power to
declare a national emergency solely to Congress and would have
limited the application of presidential orders to the executive
branch. Finally, H.R. 2655 would have liberalized
standingrequirements to allow lawmakers or aggrieved citizens to
challenge executive orders that are constitutionally or statutorily
suspect, and repealed the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1541 (1998)).
H.R. 3131, the Presidential Order Limitation Act of 1999
H.R. 3131, the ``Presidential Order Limitation Act of
1999,'' was introduced by Representative Barr (R-GA) on October
21, 1999. The bill would have broadly defined a ``presidential
order'' as any executive action ``purporting to have
prescriptive effect.'' The bill would have required the
President to transmit a copy of each presidential order to: (1)
the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (2) the president
pro tempore of the Senate; and (3) the chairperson and ranking
member of each standing and select committee of the House and
the Senate H.R. 3131 would have also prohibited any
presidential order from taking effect earlier than 30 days
after submission and review by Congress. The bill would have
exempted presidential orders from congressional review if they
describe an emergency which requires the order to take effect
at an earlier time to: (1) protect national security; (2)
prevent physical injury; (3) provide disaster relief; or (4)
safeguard an American foreign policy interest.
On October 28, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.R. 2655, H.R. 3131, and H. Con. Res. 30. Witnesses who
testified included: Representative Jack Metcalf (R-WA);
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX); Representative Bob Barr (R-GA);
Professor Phillip Cooper, University of Vermont; Thomas
Fielding, Esq, Wiley, Reign & Fielding, and Eliot Mincberg,
Vice President and Legal Counsel, People for the American Way.
The witnesses examined constitutional and legal issues
surrounding executive orders and considered the impact of the
proposed legislation. None of the measures received further
Subcommittee consideration.
BANKRUPTCY
H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999
Subcommittee Chairman Gekas (for himself and 36 original
cosponsors) introduced H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of
1999, on February 24, 1999. As introduced, H.R. 833 was
virtually identical to the conference report on H.R. 3150, the
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, which Mr. Gekas introduced in
the 105th Congress. Like H.R. 3150, which received overwhelming
bipartisan support in the House as evidenced by a vote of 300
to 125, H.R. 833 also attracted extensive bipartisan support
and eventually obtained 106 cosponsors.
H.R. 833 presented a comprehensive package of reforms
pertaining to consumer and business bankruptcy law and
practice, and included provisions regarding the treatment of
tax claims and enhanced data collection. The bill also
established a separate chapter under the Bankruptcy Code
devoted to the special issues and concerns presented by
international insolvencies.
The consumer bankruptcy reforms of H.R. 833, as introduced,
were implemented through a self-evaluating income/expense
screening mechanism, the establishment of new eligibility
standards for bankruptcy relief, the imposition of additional
financial disclosure requirements for consumer debtors, and
augmented responsibilities for those charged with administering
consumer bankruptcy cases. In addition, H.R. 833 instituted a
panoply of consumer bankruptcy reforms designed to increase the
protections afforded to debtors and creditors.
H.R. 833 was introduced in response to several developments
affecting bankruptcy law and practice. Based on data released
by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
bankruptcy filings increased by more than 72 percent between
1994 and 1998. In 1998, bankruptcy filings, according to the
Administrative Office, set an ``all-time high of 1,436,964.''
Paradoxically, however, this dramatic increase in bankruptcy
filing rates occurred during a period when the economy
continued to be robust, with relatively low unemployment and
high consumer confidence. (The most recent data reported by the
Administrative Office indicate that case filings for fiscal
year 2000 decreased by 6.8 percent from the prior fiscal year.)
Coupled with this development was the release of a
privately funded study that estimated financial losses in 1997
resulting from these bankruptcy filings exceeded $44 billion, a
loss equal to more than $400 per household. This study
projected that even if the growth rate in personal bankruptcies
slowed to only 15 percent over the next three years, the
American economy would have to absorb a cumulative cost of more
than $220 billion.
The consumer bankruptcy provisions of H.R. 833 were
intended to enhance recoveries for creditors and include
protections for consumer debtors. With respect to creditors,
H.R. 833's principal provisions consisted of needs-based
bankruptcy relief, general protections for creditors, and
protections for specific types of creditors. The bill's debtor
protections included heightened requirements for those
professionals and others who assist consumer debtors in
connection with their bankruptcy cases, expanded notice
requirements for consumers with regard to alternatives to
bankruptcy relief, required participation in debt repayment
programs for consumers before they may be debtors in
bankruptcy, and the institution of a pilot program to study the
effectiveness of consumer financial education for debtors.
The heart of H.R. 833's consumer bankruptcy reforms was the
implementation of a mechanism to ensure that consumer debtors
repay their creditors the maximum that they can afford. The
needs-based formula under H.R. 833, as introduced, articulated
objective criteria so that debtors and their counsel could
self-evaluate their eligibility for relief under chapter 7 (a
form of bankruptcy relief where the debtor generally receives a
discharge of his or her personal liability for most unsecured
debts). Certain expense allowances were localized and a
debtor's extraordinary circumstances were recognized, including
episodic losses of income. Parties in interest, such as
creditors, were empowered under H.R. 833 to move for dismissal
of chapter 7 cases where debtors were ineligible. These reforms
were intended to not affect consumer debtors lacking the
ability to repay their debts and deserving of an expeditious
fresh start.
With regard to business bankruptcy reform, H.R. 833
addressed the special problems that small business cases
present by instituting a variety of time frames and enforcement
mechanismsto identify and weed out small business debtors who
were not likely to reorganize. It also required more active monitoring
of these cases by United States Trustees and the bankruptcy courts. In
addition, H.R. 833 included provisions dealing with business bankruptcy
cases in general and chapter 12 (family farmer bankruptcies). The small
business and single asset real estate provisions of H.R. 833 were
largely derived from consensus recommendations of the National
Bankruptcy Review Commission. Many of these recommendations received
broad support from those in the bankruptcy community, including various
bankruptcy judges, creditor groups, and the Executive Office for United
States Trustees. It also included provisions concerning the treatment
of certain financial contracts under the banking laws as well as under
the Bankruptcy Code. H.R. 833 responded to the special needs of family
farmers by making chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, a form of
bankruptcy relief available only to eligible family farmers, permanent.
With regard to single asset real estate debtors, H.R. 833 eliminated
the monetary cap from the Bankruptcy Code's definition applicable to
these debtors and made them subject to the small business provisions of
the bill. It also amended the automatic stay provisions by permitting a
single asset real estate debtor to make requisite interest payments out
of rents or other proceeds generated by the real property.
H.R. 833, in addition, contained several provisions having
general impact with respect to bankruptcy law and practice.
Under H.R. 833, certain appeals from final bankruptcy court
decisions were to be heard directly by the court of appeals for
the appropriate circuit. Another general provision of H.R. 833
required the Executive Office for United States Trustees to
compile various statistics regarding chapter 7, 11 and 13
cases, to make these data available to the public, and to
report annually to Congress on the data collected. Other
general provisions included a prohibition against the
appointment of fee examiners and the allowance of shared
compensation with bona fide public service attorney referral
programs.
The Judiciary Committee began its consideration of
comprehensive bankruptcy reform early in the 105th Congress. On
April 16, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law conducted a hearing on the operation of the
bankruptcy system that was combined with a status report from
the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. This would be the
first of 13 hearings that the Subcommittee held on the subject
of bankruptcy reform over the ensuing two years. Eight of these
hearings were devoted solely to consideration of H.R. 833 and
its predecessor, H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998.
Over the course of these hearings, more than 120 witnesses,
representing nearly every major constituency in the bankruptcy
community, testified. With regard to H.R. 833 alone, testimony
was received from 69 witnesses, representing 23 organizations,
with additional material submitted by other individuals and
groups.
The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held
four hearings on H.R. 833, the first of which was held jointly
with the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and
the Courts on March 11, 1999. This marked the first time in
more than 60 years that a bicameral hearing was held on the
subject of bankruptcy reform. Witnesses who testified at the
March 11, 1999 hearing included: United States Senators Charles
Grassley (R-IA), Joseph R. Biden (D-DE), and Christopher J.
Dodd (D-CT). House Members included: Representatives James P.
Moran (D-VA), Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Nick Smith (R-MI). Other
witnesses included: Dean Sheaffer, Vice President and Director
of Credit at Boscov's Department Store, Inc., representing the
National Retail Federation; Bruce L. Hammonds, Senior Vice
Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, MBNA America Bank, N.A.;
the Honorable Carol J. Kenner, United States Bankruptcy Judge
for the District of Massachusetts; Larry Nuss, Chief Executive
Officer, Cedar Falls Community Credit Union, representing
Credit Union National Association, Inc.; Gary Klein, Senior
Attorney with the National Consumer Law Center; the Honorable
Edith Hollan Jones, Judge, Untied States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, and former member of the National Bankruptcy
Review Commission; Judith Greenstone Miller, Clark Hill, PLC,
representing the Commercial Law League of America; Professor
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University School of Law; and
Professor Elizabeth Warren, Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at
Harvard Law School.
Witnesses at the March 16, 1999 hearing included the
following: Representatives James P. Moran (D-VA), Bill McCollum
(R-FL), Nick Smith (R-MI), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Steven Rothman
(D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Louise McIntosh Slaughter
(D-NY), and John LaFalce (D-NY). Other witnesses included:
James I. Shepard, a bankruptcy tax consultant and former member
of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission; Professor Eric
Posner of the University of Chicago Law School; Professor David
Skeel of the University of Pennsylvania Law School; Professor
Lawrence P. King, Charles Seligson Professor of Law at New York
University School of Law; Ralph R. Mabey, a practitioner and
former United States Bankruptcy Judge; the Honorable Joe Lee,
United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of
Kentucky; Leon Forman, a practitioner; James E. Smith,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Union State Bank and
Trust, representing the American Bankers Association; Janet
Kubica, President and Chief Executive Officer, Postmark Credit
Union, representing the Credit Union National Association; and
Frank Torres, Legislative Counsel for Consumers Union.
Witnesses at the March 17, 1999 hearing included the
following: George J. Wallace of Eckert, Seamans, Cherin &
Mellott, LLC, representing the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform
Coalition; the Honorable William Brown, United States
Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Tennessee,
representing the American Bankruptcy Institute; Professor Todd
Zywicki of George Mason University School of Law; Professor
Kenneth Klee of the University of California--Los Angeles
School of Law, representing the National Bankruptcy Conference;
Jeffrey A. Tassey, Senior Vice President of Governmental and
Legal Affairs for the American Financial Services Association;
Michael Moore, President of Badcock Home Furnishing Centers,
representing the National Retail Federation; Wayne Sigmon, a
partner with the law firm of Gray, Layton, Kersh, Solomon,
Sigmon, Furr and Smith, representing the National Association
of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys; the Honorable Thomas R.
Carper, Governor of the State of Delaware, representing the
National Governors' Association; the Honorable Randall J.
Newsome, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern
District of California, representing the National Conference of
Bankruptcy Judges; Robert Waldschmidt, a chapter 7 trustee,
representing the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees;
Henry E. Hildebrand, III, a chapter 13 trustee, representing
the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees; Prof. Michael
E. Staten, Director of the Credit Research Center, at the
McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University; Professor
Marianne B. Culhane, Creighton University School of Law; Lisa
H. Ryu, Staff Economist at the National Association of Federal
Credit Unions; Dr. Thomas S. Neubig, Ernst &Young LLP; and
Richard M. Stana, Associate Director Administration of Justice Issues,
General Government Division at the General Accounting Office.
Witnesses at the fourth and final hearing held on March 18,
1999 included the following: Representatives Robert E. Andrews
(D-NJ), James A. Leach (R-IA) and Marge Roukema (R-NJ); Philip
L. Strauss, Assistant District Attorney, Family Support Bureau
of the Office of the District Attorney in San Francisco,
California; Joan Entmacher, Vice President and Director of the
Family Economic Center, National Women's Law Center; Stephanie
M. Saperstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Utah
Attorney General, representing the National Association of
Attorneys General; Professor Karen Gross, New York Law School;
the Honorable Thomas Carlson, United States Bankruptcy Judge
for the Northern District of California; H. Elizabeth Baird,
Assistant General Counsel for the Bank of America Corporation;
William H. Schorling, Klett, Lieber, Rooney & Schorling,
representing the American Bar Association--Business Bankruptcy
Section; Charles M. Tatelbaum, a partner with the law firm of
Cummings & Lockwood, representing the National Association of
Credit Managers; Judith Greenstone Miller, a partner with the
law firm of Clark Hill, PLC, representing the Commercial Law
League of America; Damon Silvers, Associate General Counsel for
the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations; Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for the Office of
Advocacy, United States Small Business Administration; Ray
Valdes, Tax Collector for Seminole County in Florida, on behalf
of the National Association of County Treasurers and Finance
Officers, the National Association of County Officials, and the
National League of Cities; Don Harris, Special Assistant to the
Attorney General, State of New Mexico, representing the States'
Association of Bankruptcy Attorneys; Paul H. Asofsky, a partner
at the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, representing
the American Bar Association--Section of Taxation; the
Honorable Tina Brozman, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge
for the Southern District of New York; Oliver Ireland,
Associate General Counsel for the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System; Professor Randal C. Picker, Leffmann
Professor of Commercial Law at University of Chicago Law
School, representing the National Bankruptcy Conference; Seth
Grosshandler, a partner at the New York office of Cleary,
Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton; Joseph Peiffer, Peiffer Law Office;
and Harley D. Bergmeyer, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Saline State Bank, representing the
American Bankers Association.
On March 24 and 25, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open
session and on March 25, 1999 ordered favorably reported the
bill H.R. 833, with a single amendment in the nature of a
substitute, by a record vote of five to three, a quorum being
present. Thereafter, the Judiciary Committee met in open
session on April 20, 21, 22, 27, and 28, 1999, and on April 28,
1999 ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 833 with
amendment in the nature of a substitute by a recorded vote of
22 ayes to 13 nays with one Member voting present, a quorum
being present. The legislation, as reported, incorporated
Chairman Hyde's proposals (1) establishing a safe harbor for
below median income chapter 7 debtors from motions to dismiss
alleging ability to repay, and (2) requiring certain minimum
payments to general unsecured creditors as a precondition to
dismissal of a chapter 7 case under the needs-based test. On
April 29, 1999, the Committee filed its report on H.R. 833 (H.
Rpt. 106-123 pt. 1).
The House, under a rule making certain amendments in order,
thereafter passed H.R. 833, as amended, on May 5, 1999 by a
vote of 313 to 108. Among the principal changes to the bill
occurring as the result of floor action was the inclusion of a
provision permitting states to opt out of the homestead
exemption limitation and a provision modifying the Truth in
Lending Act with respect to credit card disclosures regarding
interest rates, minimum monthly payments, and late fees. An
amendment by Chairman Hyde that would have substituted a
reasonably necessary standard in determining permissible living
expenses of debtors and their families in place of the bill's
usage of Internal Revenue Service expense allowances failed by
a recorded vote of 184 to 238.
The following day, the bill was received in the Senate. On
February 2, 2000, H.R. 833 was laid before the Senate by
unanimous consent. The Senate struck all of H.R. 833's language
after its enacting clause and substituted the text of S. 625,
as amended. H.R. 833, as amended, was then passed by the Senate
in lieu of S. 625 by a recorded vote of 83 to 14. The Senate
then insisted on its amendment and requested a conference.
Owing to a constitutional impediment presented by the
Senate-passed version of this legislation, the Senate did not
send its bill to the House for its consideration. Instead, an
informal conference ensued which produced a compromise package
of bankruptcy reform measures, which was introduced as S. 3186,
the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, on October 11, 2000. On that
same date, the House agreed to a conference by voice vote on
H.R. 2415 (an unrelated bill authorizing certain State
Department appropriations, among other purposes) that was
chosen as a legislative vehicle for bankruptcy reform because
of certain procedural matters. The House also passed a motion
inter alia requiring the conference committee meeting be open
to the public and available to the print and electronic media.
Chairman Henry Hyde, Ranking Member John Conyers, Majority
Leader Dick Armey, Subcommittee Chairman George Gekas, and
Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler were appointed as
House conferees.
The conference report accompanying H.R. 2415 (H. Rpt. 106-
970) was filed on October 11, 2000. It replaced the text of
H.R. 2415 with that of S. 3186. On October 12, 2000, the House
agreed to the conference report on H.R. 2415 by voice vote and,
on unanimous consent, directed the enrolling clerk to amend the
bill's short title to ``The Gekas-Grassley Bankruptcy Reform
Act of 2000''.
The conference report differed from the House passed
version of H.R. 833 in various respects. The House bill and its
Senate counterpart had distinctive versions of ``needs-based''
bankruptcy relief. Although both bills required a mandatory
presumption of abuse if a chapter 7 debtor's ``current monthly
income'' (a defined term) less specified expenses exceeded
certain monetary thresholds, the bill differed with respect to
the amount and calculation of these thresholds. The conference
report provided that the presumption of abuse is established if
the debtor's current monthly income (when multiplied by 60) was
not less than the lesser of (a) 25% of the debtor's nonpriority
unsecured claims or $6,000 (whichever is greater); or (b)
$10,000.
The House and Senate bills also had differing standards for
rebutting the presumption of abuse. Whereas the House bill
permitted a debtor to rebut the presumption of abuse only by
demonstrating extraordinary circumstances that require
adjustment of expenses or income, theSenate bill allowed the
debtor to rebut the presumption by special circumstances that justify
the adjustment of income. Under the conference report, the presumption
of abuse could only be rebutted by demonstrating special circumstances
that justify additional expenses or adjustment to the debtor's income.
In addition, both the House and Senate bills took into
consideration differing expenses with respect to their needs-
based tests. The House bill, for example, allowed a debtor to
claim certain education expenses for a child under the age of
18 years as well as estimated administrative expenses and
attorneys' fees associated with a chapter 13 case. The House
bill also authorized a five percent enhancement for food and
clothing expenses, under certain circumstances. The Senate
bill, on the other hand, permitted a debtor to claim expenses
for the care of an elderly, chronically ill or disabled member
of the debtor's household or immediate family. In addition, the
Senate bill allowed the debtor to claim reasonably necessary
expenses incurred to maintain the safety of the debtor and the
debtor's family from domestic violence. In addition to the
debtor's applicable monthly expenses specified under the IRS
National and Local Standards, the conference report permitted a
debtor to claim the following expenses: (1) the debtor's actual
monthly expenses for the categories specified by the IRS as
Other Necessary Expenses; (2) reasonably necessary expenses
incurred to maintain the safety of the debtor and the debtor's
family from domestic violence; (3) an additional allowance of
up to five percent of the IRS National Standards for food and
clothing expenses if demonstrated to be reasonable and
necessary; (4) continued actual expenses that are reasonable
and necessary for the care and support of an elderly,
chronically ill, or disabled member of the debtor's household
or immediate family; (5) the actual administrative expenses of
administering a chapter 13 case--up to 10% of projected plan
payments--as determined under schedules issued by the Executive
Office for United States Trustees; (6) actual expenses of up to
$1,500 per year per child of the debtor to attend a private
elementary or secondary school, under certain circumstances;
and (7) payments made to secured creditors, including any
additional payments necessary to enable the debtor to retain
possession of a primary residence, motor vehicle or other
property that collateralizes a secured obligation and is
necessary for the support of the debtor and the debtor's
dependents.
The House and Senate bills had divergent ``safe harbor''
provisions for chapter 7 debtors with incomes below certain
monetary thresholds. The conference report incorporated two
safe harbors as follows: (1) only the judge, United States
Trustee, or bankruptcy administrator could seek dismissal of
chapter 7 case for abuse if the debtor's income equals or is
less than the applicable state median income; and (2) no one
(including the judge, United States Trustee, bankruptcy
administrator, trustee or party in interest) could seek
dismissal of a chapter 7 case based on the bill's formula for
determining a debtor's ability to repay debts if the debtor's
income equals or is less than the applicable state median
income.
The House and Senate bills had significant differences with
regard to how they implemented their respective needs-based
tests. The House bill primarily relied upon the chapter 7
trustee to analyze a debtor's ability to repay under the test
and to seek dismissal of abusive cases. The Senate bill
required the Office of the United States Trustee, a component
of the Department of Justice, to conduct this review and to
file the requisite dismissal motion, if appropriate. Under the
conference report, the Office of the United States Trustee was
required to conduct the requisite review and file the dismissal
motion, if appropriate. This requirement was discretionary if
the debtor's income was between 100% and 150% of the applicable
state median income and the debtor's current monthly income
(reduced by certain expenses) did not exceed a specified
monetary threshold. The statement of review had to be filed not
later than 10 days after the first meeting of creditors.
On October 19, 2000, the Senate, by a vote of 89 to 0,
agreed to a motion to proceed to consideration of the
conference report. A further motion to proceed was agreed to in
the Senate on October 27, 2000 by a vote of 87 to 1. After a
cloture motion failed by a vote of 53 to 30 on November 1,
2000, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott moved to reconsider the
vote. On December 5, 2000, the Senate passed a cloture motion
by a vote of 67 to 31. The Senate thereafter passed the
conference report on December 7, 2000 by a vote of 70 to 28. On
December 19, 2000, the conference report was pocket vetoed by
the President.
H.R. 1161, the Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act
H.R. 1161, the ``Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act
of 1999,'' was introduced by Banking Committee Chair James
Leach (R-IA) (for himself and Representatives John LaFalce (D-
NY) and Marge Roukema (R-NJ) on March 17, 1999. The Committee
on the Judiciary was named as an additional committee of
jurisdiction upon the introduction of H.R. 1161 pursuant to its
jurisdiction over bankruptcy law under Rule X of the Rules of
the House. The Judiciary Committee had jurisdictional interests
in sections 8, 11, 13 and 15 of this bill.
The Judiciary Committee had no substantive objection to
H.R. 1161 as ordered to be reported by the Banking Committee on
July 27, 2000 as it was substantively similar to Title X of
H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, which the House
had passed, as amended, on May 5, 1999. In view of the
substantively similar language and in the interest of
expeditiously moving H.R. 1161 forward, the Judiciary Committee
agreed to be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1161
on September 7, 2000.
The House passed H.R. 1161, as amended, on October 24, 2000
by voice vote. The Senate did not act on the bill prior to the
conclusion of the 106th Congress.
H.R. 2942, H.R. 4718, and H.R. 5540, bills extending the period of time
for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is
reenacted
During the 106th Congress, there were several bills
introduced to extend chapter 12, a specialized form of
bankruptcy relief available to a ``family farmer with regular
annual income'' as defined in the Bankruptcy Code. For a
discussion of the significance of chapter 12, refer to the text
accompanying H.R. 808, which appears in that portion of the
report pertaining to the activities of the full Committee.
On September 24, 1999, Representative Nick Smith (R-MI)
(for himself and Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Doug
Bereuter (R-NE), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA),and Charles Pickering
(R-MS) introduced H.R. 2942, to extend chapter 12 for six additional
months. Given the imminent expiration date of chapter 12, the bill was
considered under suspension of the rules and agreed to by the House by
voice vote on September 27, 1999, as amended. As passed by the House,
the bill extended chapter 12 for three additional months until January
1, 2000. H.R. 2942 was received in the Senate on the following day.
In lieu of considering H.R. 2942, the Senate passed S.
1606, to extend chapter 12 for nine additional months until
July 1, 2000. The House, thereafter, passed S. 1606 on October
4, 1999. The bill was subsequently signed into law on October
9, 1999 (Public Law 106-70).
Thereafter, Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) (for himself
and Mr. Gekas) introduced H.R. 4718 on June 22, 2000 to extend
chapter 12 for an additional three months until October 1,
2000. In light of the imminent expiration date of July 1, 2000,
the bill was considered and passed by the House on June 26,
2000 under suspension of the rules. As the Senate failed to act
on this bill, chapter 12 expired as of July 1, 2000.
H.R. 5540, a further bill to extend chapter 12, was
introduced by Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) (for himself and
Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)) on October 25, 2000. The
bill, which would have reenacted and extended chapter 12 for
eleven months until June 1, 2002, was subsequently amended to
include provisions authorizing the creation of certain
temporary bankruptcy judgeships and extending five presently
authorized temporary bankruptcy judgeships. This provision of
the bill was added in response to the need in certain areas in
the nation for additional bankruptcy judgeships. The bill, as
amended, was passed by the House under suspension of the rules
on October 31, 2000 and received by the Senate on the following
day. The Senate did not act on this bill prior to the
conclusion of the 106th Congress.
state taxation affecting interstate commerce
The right of States to tax economic activities within their
borders is a key aspect of federalism rooted in the
Constitution and long recognized by Congress. At the same time,
the authority of State to lay and collect taxes is subject to a
number of constitutional limitations. First, the Commerce
Clause prohibits States from assessing taxes which unduly
burden interstate commerce. Second, the Due Process clause
prohibits State from taxing those who lack a ``substantial
nexus'' with the taxing State. Finally, the Privileges and
Immunities clause prevents states from assessing taxes which
discriminate against nonresidents. During the 106th Congress,
the Subcommittee considered a number of bills that bear
directly on state taxes affecting interstate commerce.
H.R. 462, a bill clarifying that governmental pension plans of the
possessions of the United States shall be treated in the same
manner as State pension plans for purposes of the limitation on
the State income taxation of pension income
On February 2, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas (for
himself and Representatives Bill McCollum (R-FL), John Mica (R-
FL), and Carlos Romero-Barcelo (D-RC-PR)), introduced H.R. 462.
H.R. 462 made technical corrections to section 114 of title
4 of the United States Code, which was enacted in 1996 to
restrict the ability of States to tax certain types of pension
income received by their former residents. Although section 114
was intended to apply to ``possessions of the United States,''
the provision's incorporation of the Internal Revenue Code's
definition of ``governmental plan'' (which neither includes
possessions of the United States nor Puerto Rico) created an
anomaly that effectively excluded retirement plans established
by possessions of the United States. In addition to remedying
this technical error, H.R. 462 also corrected a typographical
error concerning the designation of a subsection. H.R. 462 is
virtually identical to H.R. 4572, a bill that was introduced by
Mr. Gekas in the last session and which passed the House, under
suspension of the rules, by voice vote on October 15, 1998. The
Senate did not consider H.R. 4572 prior to the end of the 105th
Congress.
No hearings were held on H.R. 462. It was ordered favorably
reported by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative
Law without amendment by voice vote on March 24, 1999. The
Judiciary Committee ordered the bill without amendment
favorably reported to the House by voice vote on May 19, 1999.
The report (H. Rept. No. 106-302) was filed on September 8,
1999. The bill was passed by the House under suspension of the
rules by voice vote on October 18, 1999 and received in the
Senate on the following day. The Senate did not consider this
bill prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress.
H.R. 4391, the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act
On May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee reported H.R. 4391
favorably by voice vote, H.R. 4391, the ``Mobile
Telecommunications Sourcing Act.'' The bill, introduced by
Chairman Hyde, amended federal provisions concerning tax
authority to deem mobile telecommunications services provided
in a taxing jurisdiction as provided by the customer's home
service provider. It subjected charges for such services to
taxation by the taxing jurisdiction whose territorial limits
encompass the customer's place of primary use, regardless of
where the services originate, terminate, or pass through. It
prohibited any other taxing jurisdiction from imposing any tax,
charge or fee for such services.
H.R. 4391 also authorized a state or designated database
provider to provide an electronic database to a home service
provider which would designate for each street address the
appropriate taxing jurisdiction as identified by a nationwide
standard numeric code. It required the database provider to
provide notice of the availability of such database, as well as
subsequent revisions thereto. It held harmless from any fee
liability a home service provider that uses such database if
the provider employees an enhanced zip code to assign each
street address to a specific taxing jurisdiction and exercises
due diligence to ensure that each address is assigned to the
correct taxing jurisdiction. It required one specific taxing
jurisdiction to be assigned when an enhanced zip code overlaps
boundaries of different taxing jurisdictions. It terminated the
authority to use the enhanced zip code on the later of: (1) 18
months after the nationwide standard numeric code has been
approved, or (2) six months after a state or designated
database provider provides such database.
The bill authorized a taxing jurisdiction, or a state
acting on behalf of such jurisdiction, to: (1) determine the
place of primary use for the purposes of appropriate taxing
authority; and (2) if necessary, notify a home service provider
to change the assignment of a taxing authority to reflect the
appropriate place of primary use. It required the home service
provider to obtain and maintain the customer's place of primary
use for taxing purposes. It additionally provided transition
provisions and special rules.
The Subcommittee had held a hearing on H.R. 3489,
legislation addressing similar subject matter, on May 4, 2000.
Testimony was received from: Representative Chip Pickering (R-
MS); Ray Scheppach, on behalf of the National Governors
Association; Thomas Wheeler, President and CEO of the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association; Harley Duncan, on
behalf of the Federation of Tax Administrators; and Joseph
Brooks, representing the National League of Cities. (H. Rept.
106-725, part two, filed on July 11, 2000)
On May 24, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered reported
both H.R. 3489 and H.R. 4391 by voice vote. The report of H.R.
3489 (H. Rept. No. 106-725) was filed on July 11, 2000; the
report to H.R. 4391 (H. Rept. No. 106-719), was filed on July
10, 2000. H.R. 3489 was amended by deleting subject matter
within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The House
passed the bill by voice vote on July 11, 2000. The Senate
passed the bill by unanimous consent on July 14, 2000 and it
was signed by the President as Public Law 106-252 on July 28,
2000.
Electronic Commerce
The Internet and information technology (IT) industries
continue to drive U.S. economic expansion, presently accounting
for 35 percent of real U.S. economic growth. Conservative
forecasts estimate that electronic retail sales will reach $300
billion over the next three years. The sharp rise in e-commerce
has not gone unnoticed by state governments, which continue to
derive a substantial portion of their revenue from taxes on
retail sales. The rise of electronic commerce has brought
heightened taxing complexity to consumers and businesses alike.
Current case law limits the power of states to require remote
vendors without a substantial in-state taxing nexus to collect
and remit state sales and use taxes. Moreover, inconsistent
state taxing policies threaten to impede interstate commerce
and impair the commercial development of the Internet.
In 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47
U.S.C. Sec. 151 (1998)) to help address the emerging challenges
associated with Internet commerce. The ITFA imposed a three
year moratorium on both Internet access taxes and multiple and
discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The bill also
created a nineteen member Advisory Commission on Electronic
Commerce to examine, among other things, the effect of state
and local taxes on Internet commerce. While a majority of
Commissioners recognized the need to move toward national
uniform treatment of electronic commerce, no consensus on this
matter was achieved. However, legislation representing the
majority and minority findings of the Commission was
subsequently introduced and considered by the Subcommittee. To
advance the goals set out by the ITFA, the Subcommittee
conducted a series of hearings on bills intended to simplify
the taxing complexities that inhere in electronic commerce. To
foster bipartisan consideration of these bills, the Chairmen
and ranking members of the Committee and Subcommittee
cosponsored these measures.
H.R. 4267, the Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act
H.R. 4267, the ``Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act,''
was introduced by Committee Chairman Hyde, Committee ranking
member Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas, and Subcommittee
ranking member Nadler on April 13, 2000. H.R. 4267, represented
the majority findings of the Advisory Commission.
The bill would have placed a permanent moratorium on state
and local taxes on Internet access fees and extended tax
moratoria on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic
commerce and taxes on sales of digitized goods and products
until 2006. H.R. 4267 also would have clarified the taxing
status of electronic merchants by listing geographic, Internet
and telecommunications-related factors not sufficient to create
a jurisdictional tax nexus respecting a seller and purchaser
not present in the same state. Finally, the bill would have
expressed the sense of the Congress that states should work
together a draft draft a Uniform Sales and Use Tax Act by 2006.
H.R. 4267 also would also have clarified the jurisdictional
nexus criteria for taxing electronic merchants, expressed
congressional support for states to develop a uniform sales and
use tax act by 2004, and established an advisory commission to
assess whether the states have met the tax simplification goals
contemplated by the bill.
H.R. 4460, the ``Internet Tax Simplication Act of 2000''
H.R. 4460, the ``Internet Tax Simplification Act of 2000,''
was introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde, Judiciary
Committee Chairman Gekas and Subcommittee ranking member Nadler
on May 16, 2000. The bill would have extended the tax
moratorium on Internet access fees until 2006 and continued the
prohibition on multiple and discriminatory taxation of Internet
commerce until 2003. The bill would have authorized states to
enter into a sales and use tax compact to foster a uniform
Internet sales and use tax system and would have given states
who enter into the compact authority to levy and collect taxes
on remote sellers who lack a physical presence in the taxing
state. Finally, H.R. 4460 would have expressed the sense of
Congress that state and private industry continue to work
toward common definition and sourcing rules for taxing
electronic commerce.
On May 17, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R.
4267 and 4460. The following witnesses testified at the
hearing: the Honorable Ron Kirk, Mayor of Dallas, Texas; the
Paul Harris, Sr. of the Virginia State Legislature; Gene Lebrun
representing the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws; Grover Norquist, President of Americans for
Tax Reform and Stanley S. Sokul, Independent Consultant,
Association for Interactive Media. While no clear consensus
emerged from the hearing, the participants agreed that the
current taxing system imposes unnecessary burdens on state and
local governments, Internet retailers, and traditional ``brick
and mortar'' sales outlets.
On July 29, 2000, the Subcommittee held further hearings on
H.R. 4267 and H.R. 4460. In addition, the Subcommittee
considered H.R. 4462, the ``Fair and Equitable Interstate Tax
Compact Simplification Act of 2000.'' Introduced by
Representative Bachus (R-AL), the bill would have: extended the
moratoria on Internet access and multiple and discriminatory
taxes on Internet commerce until 2006; authorized states to
enter into an interstate taxing compact to develop uniform
taxing standards for Internet commerce: permitted states that
have entered into a taxing compact to collect sales and use
taxes on remote sellers who lack physical presence in the
taxing state; and recognized the importance of consumer
privacy. Finally, H.R. 4462 would have delineated a number of
uniform benchmarks that a streamlined taxing system should
reflect.
Testimony from a broad range of witnesses was received from
the following witnesses at the July 29 hearing: the Honorable
Ray Haynes of the California State Senate, the Honorable
Stephen Saland of the New York State Senate; R. Michael
Southcombe, Idaho State Tax Commissioner, representing the
Multistate Tax Commissioner; Gary Viken, Secretary of Revenue
for the state of South Dakota, representing National Federation
of Tax Administrators; Rodney Strain, Jr., Sheriff and Ex-
officio Tax Collector of St. Tammany Parish in Covington, LA;
Tom Stemberg, CEO, Staples, Inc.; Gary Rappaport, President and
CEO, The Rapport Companies representing the International
Council of Shopping Centers; Robert Benham, Owner and
President, Balliet's, L.L.C.; Katrina Doerfler, Senior Manager
of Planning and External Affairs, Cisco Systems, Inc.; David
Friedensohn, CEO of Bigstar Entertainment, Inc.; Frank Julian,
Operational Vice President and Tax Counsel of Federated
Department Stores, Inc.; Peter Lowy, Co-President of Westfield
America, Inc.; James Hunt, President and CEO, Ernst and Young
Technologies; Arthur Rosen, Esquire, McDermott, Will & Emery;
Mark Nebergall, President, Software Finance and Tax Executives
Council; Larry Good, Senior Vice President, Electronic Commerce
Association and Scott H. Walters, Vice President of Research
and Development of TAXWARE, International.
The three bills considered by the Subcommittee at the July
29, 2000 hearing did not receive further consideration.
H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000
H.R. 3709, the ``Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000,''
was introduced by Representative Cox on February 29, 2000. The
bill would amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C.
Sec. 141 (1998)) to extend the moratorium on multiple and
discriminatory taxation of Internet commerce and the ban on
Internet access taxes until October 21, 2006. It also would
express the sense of the Congress that a uniform Internet
taxing policy should include, among other things: (1) a
centralized, one-stop, multi-State registration system for
sellers; (2) uniform definitions for goods or services that
might be included in the tax base; (3) uniform and simple rules
for attributing transactions to particular taxing
jurisdictions; (4) uniform procedures for the certification of
software that sellers rely on to determine non-multiple and
non-discriminatory taxes and taxability; and (5) consistent
electronic filing and remittance methods.
No Subcommittee hearings were held on H.R. 3709. However,
during the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.R. 1054, the ``Internet Tax Freedom Act,'' which included a
provision creating the tax moratorium which is the subject of
H.R. 3709. The Subcommittee was discharged of the bill on May
2, 2000. On May 4, the Judiciary Committee favorably ordered
reported H.R. 3709, as amended, by a recorded vote of 29-8. The
minority expressed concerns about the expedited manner in which
the bill was considered and objected to the absence of language
clarifying jurisdictional criteria for states and local
taxation of electronic commerce. The report (H. Rept. No. 106-
609) was filed on May 8, 2000. On May 10, 2000, H.R. 3709
passed the House by a recorded vote of 352-75. It was received
by the Senate the next day. Although the bill was placed on the
Senate calendar for further consideration, it was not scheduled
for a vote prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress.
federal arbitration act
H.R. 534, Fairness and Voluntary Arbitration Act of 1999
H.R. 534, the ``Fairness and Voluntary Arbitration Act of
1999,'' was introduced by Representative Mary Bono (R-CA) on
February 3, 1999. H.R. 534 would have amended the Federal
Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1-14 (1998)) to make
arbitration clauses in sales and service contracts enforceable
only if parties to the contract consent in writing to arbitrate
the dispute after the controversy in question arises. A bill
similar to H.R. 543 (H.R. 3122) was introduced in the 102nd
Congress and received a hearing before the House Subcommittee
on Economic and Commercial Law. In 1996, the ``Fairness and
Voluntary Arbitration Act of 1996'' was introduced by
Representative Sonny Bono, but it did not receive a committee
hearing.
On June 8, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas held a hearing
on the bill. The following witnesses testified at the hearing:
Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI); James Wootton, President of
the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform; James Hebe,
Chairman, President and CEO of Freightliner, LLC; Florence
Peterson, General Counsel for the American Arbitration
Association; Gene N. Fondren, President, Texas Automobile
Dealers Association; Richard Holcomb, Commissioner of the
Department of Motor Vehicles for the state of Virginia; Mark K.
Stine, Director of Legislative Affairs, Pennsylvania Automobile
Association; G.C. Jerry Turnauer, President, Bayshore Sterling
Truck and Jason P. Isralowitz, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, LLP.
The Subcommittee held a mark up on H.R. 534 on July 13,
2000. At the mark up, Representative Bono offered an amendment
in the nature of a substitute limiting the application of the
bill to motor vehicle franchise contracts. The amendment also
renamed H.R. 534 the ``Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract
Arbitration Fairness Act of 2000.'' While some members
expressed interest in preserving the original language of the
bill, the Subcommittee reported H.R. 534 by voice vote with a
single amendment in the nature of a substitute.
On September 13, 2000, the Judiciary Committee met in open
session and ordered reported the amended version of H.R. 534 by
voice vote. The bill obtained broad bipartisan support,
obtaining the cosponsorship of 252 members. On October 3, 2000,
H.R. 534 passed theHouse, as amended, on suspension of the
rules. It was received in the Senate on October 4, 2000, but did not
receive a vote in the Senate.
H.R. 916, a bill making technical amendments to Section 10, Title 9,
United States Code
Subcommittee Chair Gekas introduced H.R. 916, making
technical corrections to subsection 10(a) of title 9, United
States Code, on March 3, 1999. H.R. 916 is identical to H.R.
2440, which Mr. Gekas introduced during the 105th Congress.
Title 9, which pertains to domestic and international
arbitration law, enumerates the grounds for which a federal
district court may vacate an arbitration award and/or order a
rehearing. Subsection 10(a) of title 9 consists of five
paragraphs. The fifth paragraph, however, is clearly intended
to be a separate provision as it specifies the basis of the
court's authority to direct a rehearing by the arbitrator. H.R.
916 corrected this drafting error--which has existed from the
legislation's original enactment in 1925--by simply converting
the fifth paragraph into a separate subsection of section 10
and making certain conforming grammatical and technical
revisions.
On March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee by voice vote reported
H.R. 916. The Judiciary Committee thereafter ordered reported
the bill on May 4, 1999 by voice vote. The report (H. Rept. No.
106-181) was filed on June 10, 1999. As amended on the House
floor, H.R. 916 also revised compliance dates and related
provisions in the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement
Act of 1994, which was enacted to preserve the government's
ability, pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization,
to intercept communications involving advanced technologies
(such as digital or wireless transmissions) and services (such
as call forwarding, speed dialing, and conference calling).
H.R. 916, as amended, passed the House by voice vote on July
13, 1999. The Senate did not act on the bill before the
conclusion of the 106th Congress.
interstate compacts
Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the United States
Constitution provides, ``No State shall, without the Consent of
Congress * * * enter in any Agreement or Compact with another
State, or with a foreign power. * * *'' Congressional consent
is required for such agreements and compacts to ensure that
they do not work to the detriment of another State and that
they do not conflict with Federal law or Federal interests. The
Subcommittee considered a number of interstate compacts which
under the Constitution the Congress must approve.
H.R. 744, a bill to rescind the consent of Congress to the Northeast
Interstate Dairy Compact, and H.R. 1604, the Dairy Consumers
and Producers Protection Act
H.R. 744 was introduced by Representative James
Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on February 11, 1999 and thereafter was
referred to this Subcommittee on February 25, 1999. The bill
would rescind Congress' consent to the Northeast Interstate
Dairy Compact by repealing Section 147 of the Federal
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, which codifies
Congress' consent to the Compact. If enacted, H.R. 744 would
simply execute Congress' reserved rescission power.
H.R. 1604 was introduced by Representative Asa Hutchinson
(R-AR) on April 28, 1999 and thereafter was referred to this
Subcommittee on May 11, 1999. The bill would, with respect to
the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, grant consent to the
inclusion of Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in the Compact,
delete the requirement that the Secretary of Agriculture find a
compelling public interest to authorize the Compact, eliminate
any sunset provisions concerning the Compact's existence,
remove certain prohibitions limiting imports from other regions
and creating barriers to entry of milk into the Compact region,
and substitute Ohio for Virginia in the list of potential
Compact states. The bill would also authorize the Southern
Dairy Compact for Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia with potential membership for
Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Any
states withdrawing from the Compact would be required to give a
year's notice.
On June 17, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R.
744 and 1604. Witnesses who testified at this hearing included:
Honorable Russell D. Feingold, United States Senator of the
State of Wisconsin; Honorable Mary L. Landrieu, United States
Senator of the State of Louisiana; Honorable Charles E.
Schumer, United States Senator of the State of New York;
Honorable Tommy G. Thompson, Governor of the State of
Wisconsin; Leon C. Graves, Commissioner of the Vermont
Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets; Jay Kopp; David
Krug on behalf of the Family Dairies USA; Albert Simmons on
behalf of the National Family Farm Coalition; Wayne Bok,
President, Associated Milk Products, Inc., representing the
Upper Mid-West Dairy Coalition; Gary A. Corbett, Vice President
of Governmental and Dairy Industry Relations, Dean Foods
Company; James Green, Vice President and General Manager of
Maola Milk & Ice Cream Company; Scott Charlton, Vice President
of Manufacturing at Publix Supermarkets, Incorporated, on
behalf of the Food Marketing Institute; Charles Parker, General
Manager and Chief Operating Officer at Gold Star Dairy; Mae S.
Schmidle, Chair of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact
Commission; John Frydenlund, Director of the Center for
International Food & Agriculture Policy/Citizens Against
Government Waste; Kathy Lawrence, Executive Director of Just
Food; Arthur S. Jaeger, Assistant Director of the Consumer
Federation of America; Gregg Engles, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Suiza Foods Corporation; Daniel Smith,
former Executive Director of the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact Commission; Steven J. Rosenbaum of Covington & Burling;
Professor Bill Thomas, University of Georgia; Professor Robert
M. Dunn, Jr., George Washington University; Geoffrey Covert,
Senior Vice President and President of Manufacturing at The
Kroger Company, on behalf of the Food Marketing Institute.
The Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 1604, as amended,
on July 29, 1999. There was no further consideration of the
bill.
H.R. 1293, The Transportation Employee Fair Taxation Act of 2000
The Constitution permits States to levy income taxes both
on the basis of taxpayerresidence and on the basis of where the
income is derived. In some cases, taxpayers are required to pay income
taxes both in their state of residence and in states in which they earn
income in the course of regularly assigned professional duties.
Representative Baird (D-WA) introduced H.R. 1293, the
``Transportation Employee Fair Taxation Act of 2000,'' on March
25, 1999. The bill was introduced to address the concerns of
interstate waterway workers who work along the Columbia River,
which serves as part of the state border between Washington and
Oregon in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon assesses a broad based
state income tax, Washington does not. Washington residents who
worked along the Columbia River were presented with sometimes
staggering tax assessments by Oregon officials who claimed that
income earned along the Columbia River was taxable by Oregon.
H.R. 1293 equalized the taxing status of interstate
waterway workers vis-a-vis other interstate transportation
workers by prohibiting states from levying taxes on the income
of nonresident interstate waterway workers. Over the last few
decades, Congress has provided earlier relief to interstate
motor, rail and airway workers. Interstate waterway workers
were not accorded similar treatment. On July 18, 2000, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. Representative Baird,
Chris D. Eckhardt, Captain, Shaver Transportation, and Mike
Simonsen, Representative, International Organization of
Masters, Mates and Pilots testified at the hearing. On the same
day, the Subcommittee ordered the bill reported by voice vote.
The Judiciary Committee favorably reported H.R. 1293 by voice
vote on September 20, 2000, and the committee report was filed
on October 3, 2000 (H. Rept. No. 106-927, part 1, filed on
October 3, 2000). To facilitate consideration of the bill, the
House passed the Senate version of the bill (S. 893) introduced
by Senator Gorton (R-WA) under suspension of the rules on
October 24, 2000. The bill had passed the Senate on September
28, 2000. S. 893 was signed by the President on November 9,
2000 to become Public Law 106-489.
H.R. 4700, granting the consent of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri
Metropolitan Culture Compact
On July 18, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on and
reported favorably by voice vote H.R. 4700, granting the
consent of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan
Culture Compact Representative Karen McCarthy (D-MO) and Audrey
Langworthy (Kan. State Senate) testified at the hearing. The
Compact, entered into by the two states in 1999, permanently
extended the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Culture Compact,
to which Congress consented in 1994. The 1994 Compact created a
bi-state taxing district spanning five counties in western
Missouri and eastern Kansas. The Compact permitted residents of
the region to jointly approve district-wide sales taxes to
support cultural activities in the bi-state region. The revised
Culture Compact expands the definition of ``cultural
facilities'' to permit voters to approve sales taxes to support
the construction or renovation of sports-related facilities.
The Judiciary Committee ordered the bill favorably reported by
voice vote on July 18, 2000. The report (H. Rept. No. 106-769)
was filed on July 20, 2000. The bill passed the House on July
24, 2000. The Senate passed H.R. 4700 on September 26, 2000,
and it was signed by the President on October 10, 2000 to
become Public Law 106-287.
H.J. Res. 72, granting the consent of the Congress to the Red River
Boundary Compact
On October 26, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.J. Res. 72 (Representative Thornberry (R-TX)), a joint
resolution granting the consent of the Congress to the Red
River Boundary Compact, establishing a new boundary between
Oklahoma and Texas. The boundary between Texas and Oklahoma had
historically been the south bank of the Red River, which was
the southern boundary of the Louisiana Purchase, later
clarified by the Transcontinental Treaty of 1819. That treaty,
negotiated with Spain by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams,
extended the western boundary of the Louisiana purchase to the
Pacific Ocean (encompassing an area already explored by Lewis
and Clark) and set the Purchase's southern boundary with Texas
(then a Spanish possession) at the Red River. At that time the
United States renounced its claim to Texas. After an armed
struggle for Independence. Texas became a republic in 1836 and
following approval by Texas. After an armed struggle for
Inpendence, Texas became a republic in 1836 and following
approval by Texas of a Congressional Resolution of Annexation,
it was eventually admitted into the Union on December 22, 1843.
Oklahoma was admitted to the Union on November 16, 1907. The
Red River boundary extends for a distance of approximately 517
miles.
However, the Red River has a tendency to run dry,
particularly in the area where it marks its western boundary
with Oklahoma extending eastward to Lake Texoma south of
Ardmore, Oklahoma. Because of this, the boundary is blurred by
deposits of dry alluvial sand which makes the demarcation of
the ``south bank'' difficult. Cut banks that could be useful in
demarcating the boundary are often relocated by transitory
floods. As a result, the precise boundary represented by the
south bank of the Red River has been a source of dispute and
litigation involving the two states.
H.J. Res. 72 resulted from the efforts of a two-state
commission which met to discuss and ultimately determine the
boundary question. The commission's proposed boundary was
adopted by the legislatures of both states. The boundary
established under the compact becomes the ``vegetation line''
on the south bank of the Red River (except for the Lake Texoma
area where the boundary is to established pursuant to the
compact by an agreement between the states). The vegetation
line was chosen because it was the simplest discernible method
for demarcating the boundary for ordinary citizens and
officials. Witnesses testifying at the October 26, 1999 hearing
were: Representative Max Sandlin (D-TX); Representative Mac
Thornberry (R-TX), David B. Braddock of the Oklahoma House of
Representatives; Eric Sigsbey, General Counsel of the Texas
General Land Office.
The subcommittee reported the resolution favorably by voice
vote on October 26, 1999. Subsequently to the subcommittee
markup, concerns were expressed by representatives of several
Indian tribes and nations bordering the Red River about how the
compact might effect their interests. Negotiations continued
for several months between the Subcommittee Congressional
sponsors of the legislation, representatives of the relevant
tribes and nations, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. On March
3, 2000, Subcommittee majority and minority counsel, met in
Austin, Texas with representatives of Texas and Oklahoma, as
well as those from the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache tribes (KCA)
and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. As a result of these
negotiations and additional consultations with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, an amendment wasadopted by the full Judiciary
Committee clarifying that Congressional approval of the Compact does
not alter the boundaries, the rights or the jurisdiction of the KCA
tribes or those of the Chickasaw or Choctaw Nations which are, or in
the future may be, established under Federal law. The Judiciary
Committee ordered reported H.J. Res. 72 with an amendment on July 19,
2000. The report (H. Rept. No. 106-770) was filed on July 20, 2000 and
the House passed the resolution on July 24, 2000. The Senate passed
H.J. Res. 72 on September 26, 2000. The President signed H.J. Res. 72
on October 10, 2000 as Public Law 106-288.
H.J. Res. 54, granting the consent of Congress to the Missouri-Nebraska
Boundary Compact
On July 29, 1999 the subcommittee held a hearing and
reported H.J. Res. 54 by voice vote. The bill granted the
consent of Congress to the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact
settling a portion of the boundary between those two states
that had been in dispute for many decades. When Missouri and
Nebraska were admitted into the Union in 1820 and 1867,
respectively, the boundary between them was set at the middle
of the Missouri River. However, less than six months after
Nebraska's admission, on July 4, 1867, the Missouri River
flooded and carved out a new path to the west. In the process,
a 5,000 acre piece of land--known as McKissick's Island--which
was west of the river, suddenly became east of the river. While
in 1914 the U.S. Supreme Court held that McKissick's Island was
part of Nebraska, in 1934 the Army Corps of Engineers began
construction of dikes, revetments, ripraps and dredging which
resulted in the river's further movement along the border.
Despite a 1982 decision by a United States District Court in
Nebraska that the boundary remained at its pre-1934 location,
the states were unable to agree on the precise location of the
1934 centerline. Consequently, farmers whose land was in the
disputed area faced taxation and threats of foreclosure from
both states.
After many years of negotiations and the appointment of an
interstate commission, the boundary dispute was resolved and
the states passed legislation embodying the commission's
recommendations and incorporating the Supreme court's decision.
The final agreement shifted more than 10,000 acres of land on
both sides of a 50 mile section of the river and provided a
mechanism to govern future boundary disputes. The Judiciary
Committee ordered reported H.J. Res. 54 on August 3, 1999. The
report (H. Rept. No. 106-303) was filed on September 8, 1999
and the House passed the bill on September 21, 1999. The Senate
passed H.J. Res. 54 on November 5, 1999 by unanimous consent.
The President signed it as Public Law 106-101 on November 12,
1999.
Testimony for the July 29, 1999 hearing on H.J. Res. 54 was
received from: Representative Doug Bereuter (R-NE),
Representative Pat Danner (D-MO) and David Duncan, a member of
the Missouri Boundary Commission.
H.J. Res. 62, granting the consent of Congress to a compact concerning
a change in the boundary between Georgia and South Carolina
On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing and
ordered reported H.J. Res. 62, granting the consent of Congress
to a compact concerning a change in the boundary between
Georgia and South Carolina which resolved a centuries-old
dispute over the border which is shared by the two states in
the Savannah River. Testimony for the hearing was received from
Representative Jack Kingston and Charles Challstrom, Acting
Director of the National Geodetic Survey, and agency of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within
the Department of Commerce. While Georgia and South Carolina
had agreed in the Beaufort Convention of 1787 that the boundary
between them should be at the centerline of the Savannah River
except where there were islands in the river, in which case it
should be the centerline between the islands. However, over
time they disagreed on whether the centerline should be
measured from the high water or the low water mark. Despite a
1922 Supreme Court decision holding that the proper measurement
was at the ordinary water level, the boundary continued to be
the subject of protracted debate as new islands emerged in the
river, the Army Corps of Engineers dredged certain parts of the
river, South Carolina claimed adverse possession over a set of
islands in the river, and the states disputed the boundary at
the mouth of the river on the Atlantic Ocean. The issue gained
prominence as the disputed land became critical to expanding
the Port of Savannah and as the potential of offshore oil
reserves arose.
Finally, in Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 376 (1990),
the Supreme Court directed the two states to draw a boundary in
accordance with its opinion and to submit it for approval.
Enlisting the help of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to update and make usable the 1855 map
used by the Supreme Court in its decision, the states
subsequently realized that the course of the Savannah River had
so changed since 1855 that they would have to negotiate a
different line. The two states worked together, pursuant to the
Supreme Court's direction, to arrive at a mutually agreeable
solution that ultimately covered about 3,000 acres of land.
However, in translating that new boundary into law, Georgia
used a legal description that was less technically precise and
accurate than that used by South Carolina, and thus the
versions passed by the states and referenced in H.J. Res. 62
were not identical. Nonetheless, Georgia's law provided that
its textual description could be superseded by a map to be
prepared by NOAA and paid for by the two states. If such a map
is produced and is identical to South Carolina's textual
description, then the two states will have an identical
agreement and, pursuant to H.J. Res. 62, Congress will have
consented to the boundary. If, however, NOAA does not produce
such a map or the map is not sufficiently clear or identical to
bind the states, the joint resolution gives consent in advance
to adopt each other's language or come up with new language to
settle their dispute within five years of enactment. Under H.J.
Res. 62, the compact will not legally bind the states until
NOAA produces the requisite map or the states adopt identical
language.
The Judiciary Committee ordered reported H.J. Res. 62 by
voice vote on August 3, 1999 and the report (H. Rept. No. 106-
304) was filed on September 8, 1999. The House passed the bill
on September 21, 1999 and the Senate concurred on October 26,
1999. It was signed by the President as Public Law 106-90 on
November 8, 1999.
miscellaneous
H.R. 3312, the Merit Systems Board Administrative Dispute Resolution
Act of 2000
H.R. 3312 was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Gekas on
November 10, 1999. The bill would have amended the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 501-
583 (1998)) to authorize a three-year, early intervention
alternative dispute resolution program at the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB). The pilot program is designed to
assist MSPB judges in managing an increasing caseload while
facilitating the settlement of disputes between federal
agencies and employees before they escalate into costly
litigation before the Board. The bill would also require the
MSPB to submit an annual report to Congress detailing the
efficacy of various ADR techniques and requires the Board to
submit to Congress a report summarizing the merits of the pilot
program before its conclusion. The Subcommittee held a public
briefing on H.R. 3312 on February 29, 2000. Testimony was
received from Ben Erdreich, MSPB Chairman; Jeffrey Senger,
Deputy Senior Counsel, Department of Justice; and Richard
Vitaris, President of the MSPB Professional Association.
On June 20, 2000, the Subcommittee held a markup on the
bill. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by
Mr. Gekas and ranking member, Mr. Nadler. Reflecting
suggestions made by MSPB and the Department of Justice, the
amendment stressed the voluntary nature of the program. H.R.
3312, as amended, was reported favorably by voice vote by the
Subcommittee. On September 20, 2000, the Judiciary Committee
held a markup on and ordered favorably reported H.R. 3312, as
amended, by voice vote. After being ordered reported by the
Judiciary Committee on October 23, 2000 (H. Rept. No. 106-994,
pt. 1), Mr. Gekas proposed an amended version for floor action
that restored conditional pay equity to MSPB judges. House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Chairman Burton
waived jurisdiction on the measure and did not object to the
amended version of H.R. 3312 with the pay provision. On October
24, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3312 with the amendment by
voice vote on suspension of the rules. It was received in the
Senate on October 25, 2000, but did not receive further
consideration prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress.
H.R. 436, Government Waste, Fraud, and Error Reduction Act of 1999
On February 2, 1999, Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA)
(for himself and Representatives Judy Biggert (R-IL), Jim Davis
(D-FL), Thomas Davis (R-VA), and Pete Sessions (R-TX)),
introduced H.R. 436, the ``Government Waste, Fraud, and Error
Reduction Act of 1999''.
H.R. 436 was intended to improve federal debt collection
practices, among other matters. With respect to the bill's
provisions concerning private collection contractors and
delinquent federal debtors, H.R. 436 included clarifying
language that the amendments effectuated by such provisions
were not to be construed as altering or superseding the
Bankruptcy Code.
The Judiciary Committee was discharged from further
consideration of the bill on February 5, 1999 and the House
passed the bill, as amended, on February 24, 1999. The bill was
received in the Senate on February 25, 1999, but was not acted
upon prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress.
H.R. 915, authorizing a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in the pay of
administrative law judges
On May 27, 1999 the Subcommittee held a hearing on and
reported H.R. 915 by voice vote. Witnesses at the hearing were:
Ronald Bernoski, President, Social Security Administration,
Office of Hearings and Appeals appearing on behalf of the
Association of Administrative Law Judges, Inc.; Judith Dowd,
President, Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference and
Henry Romero, Associate Director, Workforce Compensation and
Performance Service, Office of Personnel Management. The bill
authorized the President to adjust the pay of administrative
law judges (ALJ) by an amount that he determines to be
appropriate (within basic pay parameters set out in 5 U.S.C.
5372(b)), as he is authorized to do for members of the Senior
Executive Service. The bill also modified the language in 5
U.S.C. 5372(b)(1) by adding new paragraphs (A) through (C)
describing the levels at which ALJ's are paid to facilitate the
President's ability to so adjust that pay. As a result of this
modification there will continue to be six levels of basic pay
for AL-3 and one each for AL-2 and -1 (which retains the
current minimum and maximum parameters, i.e. 65 to 90 percent
of level IV of the Executive Schedule for AL-3, 95 percent for
AL-2 and 100 percent for AL-1). Prior to 1990, ALJs were paid
under the General Schedule as GS-15 and 16's. While the intent
of Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act of 1990, which put
ALJs under the Executive Schedule, was to serve as a pay
increase for ALJs, it had in fact worked to substantially
undermine their pay comparability with their former colleagues
on the General Schedule who continued to receive COLAs.
Subsequent to the Subcommittee's action, the Judiciary
Committee was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 915
on June 10, 1999 and it was referred to the Committee on
Government Reform which reported the Subcommittee's version to
the House on September 30, 1999, which filed its report (H.
Rept. 106-387) on October 18, 1999. The House passed the bill
on October 25, 1999 by voice vote and the Senate passed it on
November 8, 1999 by unanimous consent. The President signed
H.R. 915 as Public Law 106-97 on November 12, 1999.
H.R. 4105, the Fair Justice Act
H.R. 4105, the ``Fair Justice Act,'' was introduced by
Representative James Traficant (D-OH) on March 28, 2000. The
bill would have established an independent agency to
investigate and prosecute alleged misconduct, criminal
activity, corruption and fraud by an officer or employee of the
Justice Department. H.R. 4105 authorized the agency to be
appropriated $10 million for fiscal year 2001, $15 million for
fiscal year 2002, and $20 million for the following fiscal
year. The agency would have been headed by a director,
appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate, for a ten-year term. The bill specifies various
administrative aspects of the position, including pay rate,
eligibility to receive travel expenses, and grounds for
dismissal. In addition, H.R. 4105 empowered the director to
appoint officers and employees as well as to retain the
temporary and intermittent services of experts and consultants.
The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 4105 on July 27,
2000. Witnesses who testified at the hearing included the
following: Representative James Traficant (D-OH); Joseph
Occhipinti, Executive Director of the National Police Defense
Foundation; John Culbertson,Director of The Center for Reform;
David Margolis, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of
Justice; John C. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Marshall Jarrett, Counsel, Office
of Professional Responsibility, U.S. Department of Justice; Howard
Sribnick, General Counsel, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Justice; Michael Shaheen, former Counsel, Office of Professional
Responsibility, U.S. Department of Justice; and Professor Bennett
Gershman, Pace University School of Law.
H.R. 1219, the Construction Industry Payment Protection Act of 1999
During the Second Session of the 105th Congress, the
Subcommittee held a joint hearing with the Committee on
Government Reform on legislation similar to H.R. 1219,
introduced by Representative Maloney, amending the Miller Act
to: (1) require the amount of a payment bond required for any
contract for the construction, alteration, or repair of any
public building or public work of the United States to be equal
to the total amount payable by the terms of the contract unless
the constructing officers determines that such amount is
impractical, in which case such officer shall set a different
amount that cannot be less than the amount of the required
performance bond; (2) permit notice of an action on a payment
bond by a subcontractor to be served by any means which
provides written, third-party verification of delivery; (3)
provides that any waiver of the right to sue on a required
payment bond shall be void unless it is in writing, signed, and
executed after the covered labor or material has been
furnished. The bill also required that proposed revisions to
the Government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement
the bill be published within 120 days after enactment and final
regulations to be published within 180 days of enactment.
The Subcommittee agreed to the waiver of Judiciary
Committee jurisdiction in order to facilitate House passage of
H.R. 1219 which occurred by a vote of 416-0 on August 2, 1999.
It passed the Senate on August 8, 1999 by unanimous consent and
was signed by the President as Public Law 106-49 on August 17,
1999.
Oversight Activities
Reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act
On March 2, 1999 the Subcommittee began a series of
oversight hearings to consider the operation of the Independent
Counsel Act (originally enacted as title VI of the Ethics In
Government Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-521)). After its original
enactment, the act was reauthorized for five-year periods in
1983, 1988 and again in 1994. The law was developed in response
to the so-called ``Saturday Night Massacre'' that occurred
during the investigation of the Watergate scandal in 1973. In
that instance, Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was
fired because of disagreements with President Richard Nixon
over the conduct of the investigation. In the course of one
evening, not only was Cox discharged but also Attorney General
Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William
Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out the President's
direction to fire Cox. Public outcry led not only to the
subsequent appointment of another Watergate Special Prosecutor,
Leon Jaworski, but ultimately resulted in the adoption of
legislation that created a structured approach to investigation
of alleged executive branch wrongdoing that would ensure the
complete independence of special prosecutors. The intent of the
law was to provide a mechanism to avoid potential conflicts of
interest, or the appearance thereof, that might arise if the
Attorney General were to investigate wrongdoing by either
himself or other high Administration officials.
Although upheld by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson,
487 U.S. 654, the law became increasingly controversial during
the tenure of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh and his
investigation of the Iran-Contra matter during the 1980's.
While during the Clinton Administration numerous counsel were
appointed pursuant to the act, the most controversial became
Kenneth Starr and his investigations growing out of, or added
to, the so-called Whitewater matter. Mr. Starr's efforts
ultimately lead to the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998
and his trial the following year.
Testifying at the Subcommittee's March 2, 1999 hearing was
Deputy Attorney General Eric J. Holder. Subsequent hearings
were held on: March 10, 1999, with the following witnesses
testifying: Representatives Jay Dickey (R-AR), Alcee L.
Hastings (D-FL) and Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS); William B. Parr,
Former Attorney General; Benjamin R. Civiletti, Former Attorney
General; Timothy E. Flanigan, former Assistant Attorney
General; Philip S. Anderson, President of the American Bar
Association and Professor Julie Rose O'Sullivan of Georgetown
University Law Center; June 11, 1999, with following witnesses
testifying: former Senators George Mitchell and Robert Dole;
Professor Drew Days, former Solicitor General and John Roberts,
former Deputy Solicitor General. On September 23, 1999, the
following witnesses testified before the subcommittee: Michael
Espy, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Susan
McDougal; Julie Hiatt Steele; Robert Bennett, attorney for
Caspar Weinberger; Lyn Nofziger, Political Consultant and
Robert Plotkin, attorney for Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walke.
On June 9, 1999 Subcommittee Chairman Gekas introduced H.R.
2083, similar to the proposal offered by former Senators
Mitchell and Dole at the June 11, 1999 hearing. The Dole-
Mitchell recommendation, the result of a joint study by the
American Enterprise Institute and The Brookings Institution,
was that: (1) legislation be adopted authorizing the Attorney
General to appoint a special counsel to investigate or
prosecute violations of federal criminal law that would result
in ``personal, financial, or political'' conflicts of interest
if conducted by the Department of Justice, if it be in the
pubic interest to do so, and (2) legislation be adopted
requiring the Attorney General to issue regulations governing
the conduct of investigations or prosecutions by such counsel.
H.R. 2083 additionally provided that such regulations should
provide for removal of a special counsel by the Attorney
General only for good cause.
The Independent Counsel Act expired on June 30, 1999 and
was replaced by regulations issued by Attorney General Janet
Reno governing the appointment of special prosecutors (28
C.F.R. Sec. 591-99 (1999)). No action was taken on H.R. 2083.
Oversight hearing on reinvented taxation and the Taxpayer's Defense Act
Federal agencies are routinely empowered by Congress to
impose user fees, an appropriate method of compensating the
government for specific benefits it provides. However, such
fees may escalate into taxes when they go beyond covering the
cost of services, or exceed the value of services provided to
identifiable beneficiaries. Taxation has been a governmental
function reserved to the legislative branch since before the
founding of our country. In The Second Treatise of Government,
John Locke wrote ``[I]f any one shall claim a power to lay any
levy taxes on the people, * * * without * * * consent of the
people, he thereby * * * subverts the end of government.'' John
Locke, The Second Treatise of Government para.140 (Thomas P.
Peardon, ed., Macmillan 1989). Consent, according to Locke,
could only be given by a majority of the people, ``either by
themselves or their representatives chosen by them.'' Id.
Furthermore, first among the powers that the Constitution gave
to the Congress, the government's most representative branch,
was the power to levy taxes. U.S. Const., art. I, Sec. 8, cl.
1. And, notably, bills to raise revenue must originate in the
most representative chamber, the House. Id. at art. I, Sec. 7,
cl. 1. The modern rise of the regulatory state threatens to
erode the essential principle that Congress has plenary power
to raise taxes.
On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing to examine the proliferation of agency-promulgated tax
measures. The witnesses at the hearing were: Representative Lee
Terry (R-NE); Representative J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ); James C.
Miller, III, Counselor, Citizens for a Sound Economy; Rick
Joyce, Esquire, Joyce & Jacobs, representing Celpage, Inc.;
Matthew C. Ames, Esquire, Miller & Eaton, P.L.L.C.,
representing EDLING, the Education and Library Networks
Coalition; Theodore J. Garrish, Vice President, Nuclear Energy
Institute; Dan Gerawan, President, Gerawan Farms, Inc.; Thomas
A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste.
Immediately following the oversight hearing, Subcommittee
Chairman Gekas introduced H.R. 2636, the ``Taxpayer's Defense
Act.'' The bill would have limited executive taxing authority
by prohibiting federal agencies from promulgating rules that
establish or increase taxes without the consent of Congress.
The Act would have created an expedited congressional review
procedure and required any agency promulgating a rule that
would establish or increase a tax (however denominated) to
submit the rule to Congress for its approval before such a rule
can take effect. This would essentially prohibit agencies from
increasing taxes and allow them instead to propose, under
existing authority, a new or increased tax. The Taxpayer's
Defense Act would not affect existing programs, interpretations
of the Internal Revenue Code, tax decreases, or taxes whose
amounts are set by law.
The Subcommittee did not conduct a legislative hearing on
the ``Taxpayer's Defense Act.'' However, the Judiciary
Committee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2636 on November
3, 1999. The hearing also examined H.R. 2533, the ``Fairness in
Telecommunications License Transfers Act of 1999'' and H.R.
2701, the ``Justice for MAS Applicants Act of 1999.'' Witnesses
at the Judiciary Committee hearing included: Representative
McIntosh (R-IN); Representative Hayworth (R-AZ); William
Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission; Roy Neel,
President, United States Telecom Association; Richard Weening,
Executive Chairman, Cumulus Media, Inc., Ronald Binz,
President, Competition Policy Institute; Kent Lassman, Deputy
Director for Technology and Communications Policy; and Robert
Ryan, Multiple Address System Applicant, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Oversight hearing on Know Your Customer Rules; Privacy in the Hands of
Federal Regulators
In response to a perceived increase in illegal financial
activities such as money laundering and fraud, four federal
bank regulators proposed rules that would require banks and
other financial institutions to develop profiles of their
customers to facilitate financial crime law enforcement. The
``Know Your Customer'' regulations were proposed by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve),
the Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC), and the Treasury Department's Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS) on December 7, 1998.
Among other things, the proposed rules required financial
institutions to set up programs that would monitor customer
accounts, establish a profile of the customer's ``regular and
expected'' transactions, determine the source of customer
funds, and report ``suspicious'' activities to relevant
enforcement authorities. The Treasury Department claimed
authority to issue ``Know Your Customer'' rules under the Bank
Secrecy Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1818 1994)). The FDIC predicated
its ``Know Your Customer'' rulemaking authority on the Federal
Deposition Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1881-1835a
(1994)).
On March 3, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas held an
oversight hearing into ``Know Your Customer'' regulations. The
hearing focused on procedural, administrative, and policy
aspects of the proposed regulations. Testimony from the
following witnesses was received at the hearing: Representative
Barr (R-GA); John D. Hawke, Jr., Comptroller, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency; Richard A. Small, Assistant
Director, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Christie A.
Sciacca, Associate Director, Division of Supervision, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation; Timothy Burniston, Managing
Director, Compliance Policy and Specialty Examinations, Office
of Thrift Supervision; David Medine, Associate Director,
Financial Practices Division, Federal Trade Commission; Jere W.
Glover, Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, Small Business
Administration; Professor Robert A. Anthony, George Mason
University; James McLaughlin, Director, Regulatory Affairs,
American Bankers Association; Solveig Singleton, Director of
Information Studies, CATO Institute; and Gregory T. Nojeim,
Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union.
The ``Know Your Customer'' proposals engendered widespread
criticism from a variety of quarters. Financial institutions
and regulators claimed that the proposed rules would pose a
grave threat to customer privacy. In addition, a number of
bills were introduced in both the House (see e.g. H.R. 516,
H.R. 530, H.R. 575, H.R. 621) and Senate (see e.g. S. 403 and
S. 406) to overturn these proposed rules in the event that they
became final. In response to overwhelming public and
congressional opposition to the ``Know Your Customer'' rules
during the proposed regulations' notice and comment period, all
four of the regulating agencies that noticed the proposed
regulations withdrew them in March of 1999.
Oversight hearing on novel procedures in FCC license transfer
proceedings
On May 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing
on administrative aspects of the Federal Communication
Commission's (FCC) license transfer authority under the
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 310 (Supp. 1994)). Under the
law, the FCC has authority to determine whether ``public
interest'' and ``convenience'' is served by allowing
telecommunications companies to freely transfer operating
licenses for specific services between and among communications
firms. The impetus for the hearing was perceived FCC regulatory
mishandling of license transfer request between Southwestern
Bell Communications (SBC) and Ameritech after the companies
announced plans to merge in May of 1998.
FCC review of license transfers raises important
administrative practice and procedure issues. The determination
of ``public interest'' and ``convenience'' may not be
identifiable legal standards by which the FCC can determine
whether or not to approve such requests. Furthermore, the
absence of regularized procedures to examine license transfer
applications might also lead to arbitrary and discriminatory
treatment of regulated entities while undermining public
confidence in the fairness and predictability of agency
adjudication. The following witnesses testified at the May 25,
1999 hearing: Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Commissioner, Federal
Communications Commission; professor Lars Noah, University of
Florida College of Law; and Brian More, Esq. Moir & Hardman
representing the International Communications Association.
While the Subcommittee did not have a legislative hearing on
bills tailored to address this problem, the Judiciary Committee
held a hearing on H.R. 2533, the ``Fairness in
Telecommunications License Transfer Act'' and H.R. 2701, the
``Justice for MAS (Multiple Address System) Applicants Act of
1999'' on November 3, 1999. No further action was taken on
these bills.
Oversight hearing on the franchising relationship
On June 24, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on the franchising relationship. The hearing was held
in response to the important role franchising plays in the
nation's economy, particularly in the retail and service
industries. It is estimated that more than 40 percent of retail
sales in the United States are generated by franchised
businesses. The hearing was also intended to air the various
issues associated with a federal regulatory role in this
relationship suggested in the past several Congresses and most
recently by H.R. 4841, the ``Small Business Franchise Act of
1998,'' which was introduced in the 105th Congress by
Representative Howard Coble (R-NC).
Witnesses who testified at this hearing included the
following: Representatives Howard Coble (R-NC); John J. LaFalce
(D-NY); and Jay Dickey, (R-AR); Susan Kezios, President of the
American Franchise Association; Micahel F. Adler, Chairman,
President & Chief Executive Officer of Moto-Photo,
Incorporated, on behalf of the International Franchise
Association; Patrick J. Leddy, Jr., Baskin-Robbins Franchisee;
Arleen Goodman, Goodman & Company, on behalf of the KOA
Franchisee Association; Darrell Dunafon, Dunafon Real Estate
Development; Lawrence ``Doc'' Cohen, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Doc & Associates; Professor Timothy Bates,
College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs at Wayne State
University; Dennis E. Wieczorek, Rudnick & Wolf; Peter Singler,
Jr., Law Offices of Peter Singler; and Larry I. Tate, Vice
President of Franchising at Golden Corral Corporation.
Oversight hearing on Legal Services Corporation
On September 29, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on Legal Services Corporation, a private, non-profit,
federally funded corporation established by legislation enacted
in 1974. Witnesses who testified at the hearing included the
following: Edouard R. Quatrevaux Inspector General for the
Legal Services Corporation; Dr. Laurie E. Ekstrand, General
Accounting Office; John McKay, President of the Legal Services
Corporation; and John N. Erlenborn, Vice Chair of the Board of
Directors of the Legal Services Corporation; Virginia L.
Thomas, Senior Fellow in Government Studies at the Heritage
Foundation; Kenneth F. Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal
and Policy Center and; John Pickering of Wilmer Cutler and
Pickering.
Since its inception, LSC has been controversial,
particularly with regard to the types of activities that
federally funded attorneys undertake. As a result, LSC has
lacked authorizing legislation since 1980. The Subcommittee, in
1995, held an extensive series of hearings on the
reauthorization of LSC, resulting in legislation recommended by
the Judiciary Committee, but not considered by the full House.
In the absence of reauthorization, LSC's continued operation
has depended upon the appropriation process, which typically
has included legislative provisions restricting the activities
of LSC-funded grantees.
In early 1998, the LSC Office of Compliance and Enforcement
identified certain case reporting problems with two grantees.
Beginning in the spring of 1998, the Inspector General
conducted field audits of three LSC grantees with regard to
their 1997 case service reporting statistics. Based on the
initial results of these audits, it became apparent by the
summer of 1998 that there were serious problems with the case
reporting statistics supplied by certain of the audited LSC
grantees. Additional audits were thereafter conducted of three
other grantees. The first official audit issued by the
Inspector General, however, was not issued until October of
1998 and the final audit report was not submitted until August
2, 1999. Based on these reports, the Inspector General
estimated that the six audited grantees erroneously reported
41,272 cases.
Among the matters examined over the course of the hearing
were the reasons for and the impact of the extensive case
statistics over-reporting by LSC grantees; the remedial efforts
that LSC has undertaken since this problem was brought to its
attention; and whether LSC and/or the Inspector General
intentionally failed to timely bring information about the case
over-reporting problem to the attention of the Congress.
Joint oversight hearing on bankruptcy judgeship needs
On November 2, 1999, the Subcommittee held a joint
oversight hearing with the Senate Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight and the Courts on bankruptcy judgeship
needs. Witnesses who testified included the following:
Representatives Jack Kingston (R-GA); Michael N. Castle (R-DE);
Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD); Ed Bryant (R-TN); Howard Coble (R-NC);
the Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States District Chief
Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, on behalf of the
Judicial Conference of the United States; the Honorable Mary
Davies Scott, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern
and Western Districts of Arkansas, on behalf of the National
Conference of Bankruptcy Judges; Hugh M. Ray, Andrews & Kurth;
and Ford Elsaesser on behalf of the American Bankruptcy
Institute.
The hearing was held in response to a judicial resource
assessment prepared by the Judicial Conference of the United
States in March 1999. That report, based on a judgeship survey
conducted in the fall of 1998, cited the need for six temporary
bankruptcy judgeships in addition to the 18 previously
requested. The Judicial Conference asserted that the need for
the 24 additional judgeships was ``critical.''
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina,
Chairman
HOWARD BERMAN, California F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan Wisconsin
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
MARY BONO, California
Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the subcommittee
Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.......................... 84
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.............. 17
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee.............. 0
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee. 0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee.... 1
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee...................... 4
Legislation pending before the full Committee..................... 2
Legislation reported to the House................................. 18
Legislation discharged from the Committee......................... 8
Legislation pending in the House.................................. 5
Legislation passed by the House................................... 21
Legislation pending in the Senate................................. 7
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overriden)............... 0
Legislation enacted into public law............................... 4
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another measure.... 17
Legislation on which hearings were held........................... 19
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)...................... 21
Private legislation referred to the Subcommittee.................. 1
Private legislation pending in the Subcommittee................... 1
Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee has legislative and oversight
responsibility for (1) the intellectual property laws of the
United States (including authorizing jurisdiction over the
Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of Commerce and
the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress); and (2)
Article III Federal courts (including authorizing jurisdiction
over the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the
Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Federal
Judicial Center); the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil and
Appellate Procedure; and judicial discipline and misconduct.
Legislative Activities
courts
Quality Child Care for Federal Employees Act, H.R. 28
Introduced by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman, for
himself, Ms. Kelly, Ms. Maloney, Ms. Morella, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo, Mr. Shays, and Mr. Waxman, H.R. 28 directs the
Administrator of General Services to: (1) establish health,
safety, and facility standards and compliance requirements for
child care in executive branch facilities; (2) issue
regulations requiring any entity sponsoring a child care center
to comply with certain accreditation standards; and (3)
establish an interagency council to facilitate cooperation and
sharing of best practices. On September 15, 1999, the Committee
on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of
the bill.
To amend rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to restore the
stenographic preference for recording depositions, H.R. 771
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for
himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Barr, Mr. Berman, Mr. Blagojevich,
Mr. Canady, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Frank, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Hastings,
Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Kind, Mr. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Murtha,
Mr. Rothman, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, H.R. 771 amends rule 30 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require that
depositions be recorded by stenographic or stenomask means
unless the court upon motion orders, or the parties stipulate
in writing, to the contrary.
On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 771, by voice vote, a
quorum being present. No further action was taken on the bill.
Multiparty, Multiform Jurisdiction Act of 1999, H.R. 967
Introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr., for
himself, and Mr. Coble, H.R. 967 amends the Federal judicial
code to grant Federal district courts original jurisdiction
over civil actions arising out of a single accident that
results in the death or injury of 25 or more natural persons,
provided the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 per person
and minimaldiversity of citizenship exists. See H.R. 1852 and
H.R. 2112 for further action.
To allow media coverage of court proceedings, H.R. 1281
Introduced by Representative Steve Chabot, for himself, Mr.
Baker, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Borski,
Mr. Bryant, Ms. Chenoweth-Hage, Mr. Coble, Mr. Delahunt, Mr.
DeLay, Mr. Dixon, Mr. English, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Gibbons, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Hayes, Mr. Hefley, Mr.
Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Jones of North Carolina,
Mr. Lewis, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. McCollum, Mr. McIntosh, Mr.
Meehan, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Portman, Mr.
Rahall, Mr. Riley, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Salmon, Mr.
Scarborough, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Watkins, Mr.
Wiener, and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 1281 authorizes the presiding
judge of a U.S. appellate court or U.S. district court to
permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting,
or televising to the public of court proceedings over which
that judge presides. It also authorizes the Judicial Conference
of the United States to promulgate advisory guidelines to which
a presiding judge may refer in making decisions regarding the
management and administration of photographing, recording,
broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings. H.R. 1281 was
incorporated into H.R. 1752, the ``Federal Courts Improvement
Act of 1999.''
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, H.R. 1714
Introduced by Representative Tom Bliley, Mr. Burr, Mr.
Cannon, Mr. Davis, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Oxley, Mr.
Pickering, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Towns, H.R. 1714
facilitates the continued success of electronic commerce by
enabling parties to agree to use electronic signatures and
electronic records in commercial transactions affecting
interstate commerce. This will provide uniformity among State
and Federal laws and give parties engaged in electronic
commerce certainty that electronic signatures and electronic
contracts will have the same legal effect and enforceability as
paper signatures and contracts.
The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1714 on September
30, 1999. Testimony was received from Andrew Pincus, General
Counsel, Department of Commerce; Ivan K. Fong, Deputy Associate
Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Pamela
Meade Sargent, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws; Scott Cooper, Manager, Technology Policy, Hewlett
Packard; David Peyton, Director, Technology Policy, National
Association of Manufacturers; and Margot Freeman Saunders,
Managing Attorney, National Consumer Law Center, Inc.
On October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1714, amended, by
a voice vote, a quorum being present. On October 13, 1999, the
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported
the bill H.R. 1714, as amended with additional full Committee
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1714
was reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on
October 15, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-341, Part II). On November 9,
1999, the House passed H.R. 1714. The Senate counterpart, S.
761, passed in the Senate on November 19, 1999, by unanimous
consent. On February 16, 2000, the House took S. 761 from the
desk and struck all after the enacting clause and inserted the
provisions of H.R. 1714 and passed it. On March 29, 2000, the
Senate disagreed with the House amendments. Both bodies
requested a conference. On June 14, 2000, the House agreed to
the conference report, H. Rept. 106-661, by the Yeas and the
Nays; 426-4. On June 16, 2000, the Senate agreed to the
conference report by Yea-Nay vote, 87-0. On June 30, 2000, the
President signed S. 761 and it is Public Law 106-229.
Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1999, H.R. 1752
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, by request, H.R.
1752 contains several provisions that are needed to improve the
Federal Court System. It is designed to improve administration
and procedures, eliminate operational inefficiencies, and, to
the extent prudent, reduce operating expenses.
On June 16, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R.
1752. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following
witnesses: The Honorable Joel B. Rosen, United States
Magistrate Judge, Camden, New Jersey, President, Federal
Magistrate Judges Association; The Honorable Robert B.
Collings, United States Magistrate Judge, Boston,
Massachusetts; and The Honorable Harvey F. Schlesinger, Judge,
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
On July 15, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1752, amended, by
voice vote, a quorum being present. On July 27, 1999, the full
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported
the bill H.R. 1752, as amended with additional full Committee
amendments, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1752
was reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on
September 9, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-312). H.R. 1752 was passed by
the House under suspension of the rules on May 22, 2000. The
Senate companion to H.R. 1752, S. 2915, was passed by the
Senate on October 19, 2000. The House passed S. 2915, with
amendments, by unanimous consent on October 25, 2000. The
Senate agreed to the House amendments and passed S. 2915 by
unanimous consent on October 27, 2000. The President signed S.
2915 on November 13, 2000, and it is Public Law 106-518.
Multidistrict Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999, H.R. 1852
Introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr., for
himself, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Coble, H.R. 1852 amends the
Federal judicial code to allow a civil action transferred for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings to be
transferred for trial purposes, by the judge or judges of the
transferee district to whom the action was assigned, to the
transferee or other district in the interest of justice and for
the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1852, by voice vote, a
quorum being present. H.R. 1852 and H.R. 967 were combined to
form H.R. 2112, the ``Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999.''
Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act, H.R. 2031
H.R. 2031 grants federal court jurisdiction to actions for
injunctive relief brought by state attorneys' general seeking
to enforce their state liquor importation and transportation
laws. The sole remedy available under the bill is injunctive
relief--no damages, no civil fines or criminalpenalties can be
imposed by the federal courts under this legislation. The legislation
requires prior notice to the adverse party or parties, applies
traditional proof requirements for preliminary injunctions and requires
that a hearing be held before the issuance of any preliminary or
permanent injunction occurs. A State must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that a violation of State law has taken place or is taking
place.
Under the authority of the Twenty-First Amendment and the
Webb-Kenyon Act, states are permitted to regulate the
distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages (i.e., distilled
spirits, wine and beer) within their borders. Consequently,
most states have passed legislation to either prohibit direct
shipment of alcoholic beverages into their state or severely
limit the amount of alcoholic beverages that may be shipped
directly to any unlicensed individual in their state.
In recent years, several new players have entered the
alcoholic beverage industry. These groups include small
wineries and breweries. With the advent of the Internet, they
have been able to advertise their product nationally and have
been able to widely expand their market access. Because they do
not typically produce a large amount of their product, they
sometimes depend on direct shipment sales for economic
survival. The proponents of H.R. 2031 point out that illegal
direct shipping is a growing problem, including illegal sales
to minors using the Internet to order alcohol. Over the last 2-
3 years, several states, including Utah, Florida, and Missouri,
have brought legal action against companies illegally shipping
alcohol into their state. Neither the Twenty-First Amendment
nor the Webb-Kenyon Act includes any criminal or civil
penalties for violations of its provisions. Thus, states
wanting to bring an action against violators in federal court
have encountered difficulty to obtaining jurisdiction over the
violators. Congress responded by passing this legislation to
confer jurisdiction on federal courts to provide injunctive
relief against persons or entities violating a state law
regulating the importation or transportation of intoxicating
liquor.
The bill reflects the respectful comity that exists between
the federal government and the states. In this bill, Congress
is granting to the states the privilege of using the forum of
the federal courts for limited jurisdictional purposes--so, the
legislation is procedural in nature. Congress is acting under
its powers to establish the lower federal courts and to define
their jurisdiction. Congress is not pre-judging or endorsing
the validity of the various state liquor statutes and whether a
particular state law on this subject is a valid exercise of
state power is, and will continue to be, a matter for the
courts to decide.
On July 15, 1999, the Subcommittee was discharged from
further consideration of the bill. On July 20, 1999, the full
Committee marked up the bill, H.R. 2031, the Twenty-First
Amendment Enforcement Act. The Committee ordered the bill
favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being
present. H.R. 2031 was reported by the Committee on July 27,
1999 (H. Rept. 106-265). No hearing was held on H.R. 2031 prior
to the July 20, 1999, Judiciary Committee markup session. The
Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act passed the House, as
amended, 325-99 on August 3, 1999. The Senate Judiciary
Committee passed a similar version of H.R. 2031, S. 577, on
March 3, 2000 (no report was filed). S. 577 was incorporated
into the conference report for H.R. 3244, which became Public
Law 106-386 on October 28, 2000.
Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999,
H.R. 2112
Introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr., for
himself, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Hyde, H.R. 2112 would allow a
designated U.S. district court (a so-called ``transferee''
court) under the multidistrict litigation statute to retain
jurisdiction over referred cases arising from the same fact
scenario for purposes of determining liability and punitive
damages, or to send them back to the respective courts from
which they were transferred. In addition, the legislation would
streamline the process by which multidistrict litigation
governing disasters are adjudicated. The bill would save
litigants time and money, but would not interfere with jury
verdicts or compensation rates for attorneys. The bill is
comprised of H.R. 967 and H.R. 1852.
On June 16, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R.
2112. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following
witnesses: The Honorable John F. Nangle, Chairman, Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and United States District
Judge, Southern District for Georgia; Thomas J. McLaughlin,
Attorney-at-law on behalf of the Boeing Company; and Brian
Wolfman, Staff Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group.
On July 15, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2112, by voice vote, a
quorum being present. On July 27, 1999, the full Committee met
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R.
2112, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 2112
was reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on
July 30, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-276). H.R. 2112 was passed by the
House under suspension of the rules on September 13, 1999. On
October 21, 1999, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary ordered
to be reported H.R. 2112 with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute favorably. On October 27, 1999, H.R. 2112 passed the
Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. The House
disagreed with the Senate amendment and requested a conference.
No further action was taken on the bill.
College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 1999, H.R. 3210
Introducted by Representative Fred Upton, for himself, and
Ms. McKinney, H.R. 3210 enhances protections against fraud in
the offering of financial assistance for college education. No
action was taken on the bill. A similar bill, S. 1455, passed
the Senate with amendment by unanimous consent on November 4,
1999. On September 25, 2000, the House passed S. 1455 under
suspension of the rules. S. 1455 was signed by the President on
November 1, 2000, and it is Public Law 106-420.
Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 1999, H.R.
3333
Intorduced by Representative Tom Udall, for himself, and
Mr. Miller, H.R. 3333 directs the Attorney General to provide
technical and legal assistance to tribal justice systems and
members of Indian tribes. No action was taken on the bill. A
similar bill, S. 1508, was passed by the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent on November 19, 2000. On
September 6, 2000, the Committee on Judiciary was discharged
from further consideration of the bill. On October 23, 2000,
the House passed S. 1508, as amended, under suspension of the
rules. On December 11, 2000, the Senate agreed to the House
amendment by unanimous consent. S. 1508 is cleared for the
White House.
Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000, H.R. 5369
Introduced by Representative Deborah Pryce, for herself,
Mr. Camp, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Hyde, and Ms. Johnson, H.R. 5369 seeks
to improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of
the Nation's abuse and neglect courts. The Senate counterpart,
S. 2272, passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous
consent on September 26, 2000. On October 3, 2000, S. 2272 was
passed by the House under suspension of the rules. On October
17, 2000, S. 2272 was signed by the President and became Public
Law 106-314.
Multidistrict Litigation Act of 2000, H.R. 5562
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for
himself, H.R. 5562 amends title 28, United States Code, to
allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain
jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for
trial. On December 15, 2000, the House passed H.R. 5565.
A bill to provide for the holding of court at Natchez, Mississippi in
the same manner as court is held at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and
for other purposes, S. 1418
Introduced by Senator Thad Cochran, S. 1418 amends the
Federal judicial code to: (1) repeal a condition that court for
the western division of the southern district of Mississippi be
held at Natchez only if suitable quarters and accommodations
are furnished at no cost to the United States; and (2) provide
that court for the eastern division of the northern district of
Illinois shall be held at Chicago and Wheaton.
On November 15, 1999, the Senate passed S. 1418 by
unanimous consent. On November 17, 1999, the House passed S.
1418, amended, under suspension of the rules. On November 19,
1999, the Senate agreed to the House amendment by unanimous
consent. On December 6, 1999, the President signed S. 1418, and
it is Public Law 106-130.
Intellectual Property
copyrights
Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act, H.R. 768
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for
himself, and Mr. Cannon, H.R. 768 amends title 17, United
States Code, to reform the copyright law with respect to
satellite retransmissions of broadcast signals. H.R. 768: (1)
reauthorizes the satellite copyright compulsory license for
five years; (2) allows new satellite customers who have
received a network signal from a cable system within the three
months prior to introduction to sign up immediately for
satellite service for those signals; (3) provides a discount
for the copyright fees paid by the satellite carriers; (4)
allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television
station to households within that station's local market; and
(5) allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national signal
of the Public Broadcasting Service.
On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.R. 768. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
following witnesses: William J. (``Bill'') Roberts, Jr., Senior
Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Copyright Office of
the United States, The Library of Congress; Mr. Cullie M.
Tarleton, General Manager, WCCB-TV, on behalf of the National
Association of Broadcasters; David Moskowitz, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, Echostar Communications
Corporation; John H. Hutchinson, Executive Vice President,
Chief Operating Officer, Local TV on Satellite; Fritz E.
Attaway, Senior Vice President for Congressional Affairs and
General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America; and
Thomas J. Ostertag, General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner
of Baseball. The provisions of H.R. 768 were later incorporated
into H.R. 1027.
Save Our Satellites Act of 1999, H.R. 851
Introduced by Representative W.J. (Billy) Tauzin, for
himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Barcia, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Bass, Mr.
Bereuter, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehlert, Mr.
Boucher, Mr. Burton, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Capps, Mr.
Castle, Mr. Collins, Ms. Cubin, Mr. Deal, Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Dickey, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms. Emerson, Mr. Ewing, Mr.
Gillmor, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Goss, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. John, Ms. Kelley, Mr. Lampson, Mr.
Largent, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Markey,
Mr. McHugh, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Miller, Mr. Minge, Mr. Moore, Mr.
Ney, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Olver, Mr. Oxley, Mr.
Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Petri, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Reyes,
Mr. Rush, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Stearns, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi,
Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Traficant, Mr.
Turner, Mr. Upton, Mr. Walsh, Ms. Wilson, and Mr. Young, H.R.
851 promotes competition in the market for multichannel video
programming distribution (``MVPD'') through the availability of
satellite-delivered local broadcast television programming.
H.R. 851: (1) clarifies the scope of local broadcast station's
rights in granting retransmission consent to satellite
carriers; (2) delays implementation of satellite must-carry
rules until January 1, 2002; (3) imposes network non-
duplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout rules
for satellite-delivered broadcast programming; (4) provides
satellite carriers with a permanent compulsory copyright
license to transmit both local and distant broadcast television
programming; and (5) reduces the copyright royalty fees that
satellite carriers pay for the out-of-market distribution of
broadcast programming.
On April 16, 1999. the Committee on Judiciary was
discharged from further consideration of the bill. No further
action was taken on H.R. 851. The provisions of H.R. 851 were
later incorporated into H.R. 1554.
Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act, H.R. 1027
Introduced by Representative Howard Coble, for himself,
H.R. 1027 extends and enhances the statutory framework for the
retransmission of television broadcast signals by satellite
carriers to their subscribers. H.R. 1027: (1) creates a new
copyright statutory license for the retransmission of local
television broadcast stations; (2) extends the expiration date
of the section 119 copyright compulsory license for the
retransmission of distant television broadcast stations, and
reduces the royalty fee for that license; (3) creates full
must-carry rights for all television broadcast stations in a
local market once a satellite carrier begins local service in
thatmarket, and prohibits the importation of distant signals in
that market that duplicate the network programming of a local station
as conditions of the copyright license; and (4) protects local
broadcaster programming exclusivity rights through imposition of
network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports blackout
modeled after the rules applicable to the cable industry, making the
protection of such rights a condition of the copyright license.
On Thursday, February 25, 1999, the Committee held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 768, the ``Copyright Compulsory
License Improvement Act.'' The provisions of H.R. 768 were
incorporated by amendment into H.R. 1027 during consideration
by the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property on
March 11, 1999.
On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1027 with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute, and one amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a voice vote, a
quorum being present. On March 24, 1999, the Committee met in
open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1027
as amended with additional full Committee amendment, by a voice
vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1027 was reported, amended,
by the Committee on Judiciary on April 12, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-
86, Part I). The provisions of H.R. 1027 were later
incorporated into H.R. 1554.
To make technical corrections to title 17, United States Code, and
other laws, H.R. 1189
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for
himself, and Mr. Berman, H.R. 1189 makes purely technical
amendments to the Copyright Act and other laws. It renumbers
sections and paragraphs. It clarifies section titles and
corrects clerical errors. H.R. 1189 does not make any
substantive changes in the law.
On March 22, 1999, the Subcommittee was discharged from
considering the bill. On March 24, 1999, the full Committee met
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R.
1189, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1189 was
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on April 12, 1999
(H. Rept. 106-84). H.R. 1189 was passed by the House under
suspension of the rules on April 13, 1999. The Senate companion
to H.R. 1189, S. 1260, was passed in the Senate by unanimous
consent on July 1, 1999. The House passed S. 1260 under
suspension of the rules on July 26, 1999. The President signed
S. 1260 on August 5, 1999, and it is Public Law 106-44.
Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999,
H.R. 1554
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for
himself, Mr. Berman, Mr. Bliley, Ms. Bono, Mr. Boucher, Mr.
Cannon, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Gallegly,
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hyde,
Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Markey, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Oxley,
Mr. Pease, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sawyer, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Stupak, Mr.
Tauzin, Mr. Upton, and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 1554 enables the
satellite industry to help consumers by establishing parity
between cable and satellite regarding their copyright licenses
and the conditions of those licenses. This will result in
better competition, which means better service at lower prices.
The legislation: (1) reauthorizes the Section 119 (distant
signal) satellite compulsory license for five years; (2)
authorizes local-to-local retransmission of broadcast signals
via satellite; (3) removes the restriction which prevents for
90 days a customer who currently receives network signals via
cable from receiving them through satellite; (4) authorizes a
satellite carrier to offer a national signal of the Public
Broadcasting Service; (5) provides for a discount on the
copyright fees paid by satellite carriers (30% for
superstations, 45% for distant network signals); (6) provides
for must-carry of all broadcast stations via satellite, as it
applies to local-to-local copyright license, on or before
January 1, 2002; (6) places a moratorium for shutting off Grade
B viewers until the FCC has fully implemented the new
predictive model system of more accurately identifying unserved
households; (7) requires the FCC to promulgate rules for the
satellite industry concerning network nonduplication,
syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackouts; and (8) shifts
the cost for testing a household for determining if it is
entitled to receive distant network signals from the customer
to the broadcaster and satellite company equally.
H.R. 1554 incorporates the provisions of H.R. 768, H.R.
851, and H.R. 1027. On April 27, 1999 the Committee on
Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of the
bill. The House passed H.R. 1554 under suspension of the rules
on April 27, 1999. On May 20, 1999, the Senate struck all after
the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S. 247,
amended, and passed H.R. 1554 by unanimous consent. The House
and Senate requested a conference on H.R. 1554. On November 9,
1999, the conference filed a report on H.R. 1554 (H. Rept. 106-
464). On November 9, the House agreed to the conference report.
The conference report was incorporated into S. 1948 the
``Intellectual Property Omnibus Communications Act'' which was
signed into law as part of H.R. 3194, an omnibus appropriation
act, on November 29, 1999, and is Public Law 106-113.
Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, H.R. 1761/Digital Theft
Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, H.R.
3456
Introduced by Representative James E. Rogan, for himself,
and Mr. Coble, H.R. 1761 provides more stringent deterrents to
copyright infringement and stronger enforcement of the laws
enacted to protect intellectual property rights. H.R. 1761
accomplishes this by increasing the statutory penalties in the
Copyright Act for copyright infringement, creating a new
statutory penalty for situations where infringement is part of
a ``repeated pattern or practice'' of infringement, and
clarifying Congress' intent that the United States Sentencing
Commission ensure that the sentencing guideline for
intellectual property offenses provide for consideration of the
retail price of the legitimate infringed-upon item and the
quantity of infringing items in order to make the guideline
sufficiently stringent to deter such crime.
On May 12, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing
on ``Implementation of the NET Act and Enforcement against
Internet Piracy.'' Testimony was received from Kevin V.
DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Computer Crimes
Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Timothy B. McGrath,
Interim Staff Director, U.S. Sentencing Commission; Batur
Oktay, Corporate Counsel, Adobe Systems, Inc., on behalf of the
Business Software Alliance (BSA); Tim Starback, Emigre, Inc.,
on behalf of the Software and Information Industry Association
(SIIA); and Tod Cohen, Vice President and Counsel, New
Technology, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1761, amended, by
voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 26, 1999, the
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported
the bill H.R. 1761, as amended,with additional full Committee
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1761 was
reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 1, 1999
(H. Rept. 106-216). The Senate passed its companion bill, S. 1257, by
unanimous consent on July 1, 1999. On August 2, 1999, the House struck
all after the Enacting Clause of S. 1257 and inserted the provisions of
H.R. 1761 and passed S. 1257 by unanimous consent. On November 19,
2000, the Senate concurred in the House amendment with an amendment by
unanimous consent. On November 18, 1999, Mr. Coble introduced H.R.
3456, the ``Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement
Act of 1999,'' which incorporated the Senate amendments to H.R. 1761.
On November 18, 1999, the House passed H.R. 3456 by unanimous consent.
On November 19, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 3456 by unanimous consent.
On December 9, 1999, the President signed H.R. 3456 and it is Public
Law 106-160.
Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, H.R. 3615
Introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, for himself,
Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Baker, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Ballenger, Mr.
Barrett, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Bass, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Berry, Mr.
Bishop, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Bonilla, Ms. Bono, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Boucher, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Canady, Ms.
Capps, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Chenoweth-Hage, Ms. Clayton, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Collins, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Creamer, Ms. Cubin, Mr.
Davis, Mr. Deal, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Duncan, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms. Emerson, Mr.
Ewing, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Foley, Ms. Fowler, Mr.
Frost, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Goode, Mr.
Goodling, Mr. Goss, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Hastings of Washington,
Ms. Hayes, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
Holden, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Jenkins,
Ms. Johnson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kind, Mr. Klink, Mr.
LaHood, Mr. Latham, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lucas, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
McInnis, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Minge, Mr. Moran, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr.
Norwood, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Olver, Mr. Oxley, Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Phelps, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Portman, Mr.
Quinn, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Riley, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Shaffer, Mr. Sherwood,
Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shows, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Skeen,
Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr. Stenholm, Mr.
Tauzin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Thune,
Mr. Traficant, Mr. Udall, Mr. Upton, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Walden,
Mr. Walsh, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Weller, and Mr. Wicker,
H.R. 3615 amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to
ensure improved access to the signals of local television
stations by multichannel video providers to all households
which desire such service in unserved and underserved rural
areas by December 31, 2006. On March 31, 2000, the Committee on
the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of the
bill. On April 13, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3615 by the Yeas
and Nays: 375-37. The Senate did not act on the bill.
National Recording Preservation Act of 2000, H.R. 4846
Introduced by Representative William M. (Bill) Thomas, for
himself, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Davis of
Florida, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Ewing, Ms. Fattah, Mr. Hoyer, Mr.
Jenkins, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. Ney, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Tanner, and
Mr. Wamp, H.R. 4846 establishes the National Recording Registry
in the Library of Congress to maintain and preserve sound
recordings and collections of sound recordings that are
culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.
On July 25, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary was
discharged from further consideration of the bill. On July 25,
2000, the House passed H.R. 4846, amended, under suspension of
the rules. On October 25, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4946
with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by unanimous
consent. On November 1, 2000, the House disagreed with the
Senate amendments. On November 1, 2000, the Senate receded from
its amendments by unanimous consent. On November 9, 2000, the
President signed H.R. 4846 and it is Public Law 106-474.
Copyright Technical Corrections Act of 2000, H.R. 5106
Introduced by Representative Howard Coble, Mr. Berman, and
Ms. Bono, H.R. 5106 makes purely technical amendments to Title
I of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus
Reform Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-113 (IPCORA), and title 17,
United States Code. H.R. 5106 corrects errors in references,
spelling, and punctuation; conforms the table of contents with
section headings; restores the definitions in chapter 1 to
alphabetical order; deletes an expired paragraph; and creates
continuity in the grammatical style used throughout title 17.
On September 8, 2000, the Subcommittee was discharged from
further consideration of the bill. On September 13, 2000, the
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported
the bill H.R. 5106, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R.
5106 was reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary
on September 18, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-860). On September 19,
2000, the House passed H.R. 5106 under suspension of the rules.
The Senate did not act on the bill.
Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000, H.R. 5107
Introduced by Representative Howard Coble, Mr. Berman, Ms.
Bono, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Goodlatte,
Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Rogan,
Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 5107 restores
the status quo as it existed before November 29, 1999, as to
the issue of whether a sound recording can qualify as a ``work
made for hire'' under the second part of the definition of that
term in Section 101 of the Copyright Act, and to do so in a
manner that does not prejudice any person or entity that might
have interests concerning this question. H.R. 5107 also makes
other non-controversial corrections to the Copyright Act. These
amendments remove expired sections and clarify miscellaneous
provisions governing fees and record keeping procedures.
The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the issue of
sound recordings as works made for hire on Thursday, May 25,
2000. Testimony was received from: The Honorable Marybeth
Peters, Registrar of the United States Copyright Office; Hilary
Rosen, President and CEO of the Recording Industry Association
of America; Paul Goldstein, Lillick Professor of Law, Stanford
Law School; Michael Greene, President and CEO of the National
Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences; Marci Hamilton, Thomas
H. Lee, Chair in Public Law, Cardozo School of Law; and Sheryl
Crow, recording artist.
On September 8, 2000, the Subcommittee was discharged from
further consideration of the bill. On September 13, 2000, the
Committee met in open session and ordered favorablyreported the
bill H.R. 5107, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 5107 was
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on September 18, 2000 (H.
Rept. 106-861). On September 19, 2000, the House passed H.R. 5107,
amended, under suspension of the rules. On October 12, 2000, the Senate
passed H.R. 5107 by unanimous consent. On October 27, 2000, the
President signed H.R. 5107, and it is Public Law 106-379.
Patents
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999, H.R. 209
Introduced by Representative Constance A. Morella, for
herself, and Mr. Brown of California, H.R. 209 amends the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to revise
requirements regarding enumerated authority under a cooperative
research and development agreement to permit Government
laboratories to grant licenses to a federally owned invention
for which a patent application was filed before the signing of
the agreement, and directly within the scope of work under such
agreement.
On May 6, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary was
discharged from considering the bill. On May 11, 1999, the
House passed H.R. 209 under suspension of the rules. On October
5, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 209 with an amendment by
unanimous consent. On October 17, 2000, the House agreed to the
Senate amendment and passed H.R. 209 under suspension of the
rules. On November 1, 2000, H.R. 209 was signed by the
President and is Public Law 106-404.
United States Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act, Fiscal
Year 2000, H.R. 1225
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for
himself, H.R. 1225 enables the Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO), a self-sustaining federal agency, to generate as much
revenue through the collection of user fees as necessary to
operate, and to retain all of those funds for this purpose. The
bill will prevent the diversion of these funds to other federal
programs or for other endeavors, such as deficit reduction, and
will proscribe the creation of new statutory surcharges which
have been used in the past for activities unrelated to PTO
operations.
On March 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on the Patent and Trademark Office reauthorization.
Testimony was received from nine witnesses, representing seven
organizations.
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1225 by voice vote, a
quorum being present. On May 26, 1999, the full Committee met
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R.
1225 by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1225 was
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on June 9, 1999 (H.
Rept. 106-177). The Senate counterpart, S. 1258, passed the
Senate on July 1, 1999, by unanimous consent. On July 26, 1999,
the House passed S. 1258 under suspension of the rules. On
August 5, 1999, the President signed S. 1258 and it is Public
Law 106-42.
Patent Fairness Act of 1999, H.R. 1598
Introduced by Representative Ed Bryant, for himself, Mr.
Aderholt, Mr. Archer, Mr. Baker, Mr. Barr, Mr. Bartlett, Mr.
Blagojevich, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehner, Ms. Bono, Mr. Callhan, Mr.
Cannon, Mr. Castle, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Clement, Mr. Collins,
Mr. Conyers, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. DeMint,
Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Ford, Mr. Franks, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Frost, Mr.
Gibbons, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Green, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Hefley, Mr.
Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Hyde, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Istook, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Johnson,
Mr. Linder, Mr. Maloney, Mr. Matsui, Mr. McCrery, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Ney, Ms.
Northrup, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Payne, Mr. Pickering,
Mr. Price, Mr. Riley, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Roukema, Mr. Sandlin,
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shays, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Stump, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Tanner, Ms. Tauscher, Mr. Thornberry,
Mr. Wamp, Mr. Watt, Mr. Weldon and Mr. Wicker, H.R. 1598 amends
Federal law to require, if the Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks determines that certain standards are met,
restoration of the term of any patent, in force on September
24, 1984, and on the filing date of a patent term restoration
application under this Act, that claims: (1) a drug product;
(2) a method of using a drug product; or (3) a method of
manufacturing a drug product.
On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R.
1598. Testimony was received from the following witnesses:
Senator Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey; The Honorable Ed
Bryant, Member of Congress, 7th District of Tennessee; The
Honorable Jim McDermott, Member of Congress, 7th District of
Washington; The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Member of Congress,
29th District of California; The Honorable Marion Berry, Member
of Congress, 1st District of Arkansas; Peter Barton Hutt,
Partner, Covington & Burling; Bruce L. Downey, Chairman & Chief
Executive Officer and President, Barr Laboratories; Andrew M.
Berdon, Vice President and General Counsel, Purepac
Pharmaceutical Company; Jonathan R. Spicehandler, M.D.,
President, Schering-Plough Research Institute; Gerald Meyer,
Senior Consultant, AAC Consulting Group, Inc; Bruce Lehman,
President and Chief Executive Officer International
Intellectual Property Institute; William Orr, Chairman,
National Alternative Fuels Association; Maura Kealey, Deputy
Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch; Richard Selden,
M.D., Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer Transkaryotic Therapies,
Inc., (TKT); Gordon Binder, Chief Executive Officer, Amgen; and
Richard P. Burgoon, Jr., Vice President, General Counsel &
Assistant Secretary Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. No further
action was taken on the bill.
American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, H.R. 1907
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, H.R. 1907
guarantees 17 years of patent protection to diligent
applicants; makes technology which is accessible to citizens of
other countries available to Americans as well; allows earlier
inventors limited relief when they cannot endure the
prohibitively high costs of patenting every process or method
that contributes to the development of an ``end'' product;
reduces patent litigation by improving the reexamination
process; protects inventors from scam promoters; and
streamlines operations at the Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO).
The Subcommittee held a hearing on the Committee Print of
the ``American Inventors Protection Act'' (later introduced as
H.R. 1907) on March 25, 1999. Testimony was received from seven
witnesses representing seven organizations, along with two
Members of Congress.
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered reported the Committee Print on the ``American
Inventors Protection Act'' by voice vote, a quorum being
present. On May 26, 1999, the full Committee met in open
session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 1907 with
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1907 was
reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on August
3, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-287, Part I). On August 4, 1999, the
House passed H.R. 1907, as amended, under suspension of the
rules as agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 376-43. Senator Lott
introduced the Senate companion to H.R. 1907, S. 1948, on
November 17, 1999. The House passed H. Rept. 106-479, the
conference report accompanying an omnibus appropriation act,
H.R. 3194, on November 18, 1999, by a vote of 296-135. The
Senate incorporated S. 1948 by reference into H.R. 3194, and
passed H. Rept. 106-479 by a vote of 80-8 on November 19, 1999.
The President signed H.R. 3194 on November 29, 1999, and it is
Public Law 106-113.
Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act, H.R. 4034
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for
himself, Ms. Bono, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Frank, Mr. Norwood, Mr.
Pease, and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 4034 ensures that the PTO is vested
with the authority to retain all the user fees it collects for
agency expenditures. This change will maximize the ability of
the PTO to serve the growing demand for its services by the
inventor and trademark communities.
On March 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on the Patent and Trademark Office reauthorization.
Testimony was received from nine witnesses, representing seven
organizations.
On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4034 by voice vote, a
quorum being present. On May 9, 2000, the Committee met in open
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4034 by
unanimous consent, a quorum being present. H.R. 4034 was
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 11, 2000 (H.
Rept. 106-722). No further action was taken on the bill.
Intellectual Property Technical Amendments Act of 2000, H.R. 4870
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, and Mr.
Berman, H.R. 4870 remedies miscellaneous technical and clerical
drafting errors currently set forth in the U.S. Code and will
also clarify provisions of last year's American Inventor's
Protection Act (AIPA). This bill aims to make these remedial
changes in three primary areas: patent law, trademark law, and
the organization of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
The bill contains no provisions regarding copyright law or the
U.S. Copyright Office.
On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4870 by voice vote, a
quorum being present. On July 25, 2000, the Committee met in
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 4870
by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 4870 was reported,
amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on September 14,
2000 (H. Rept. 106-853). On September 19, 2000, the House
passed H.R. 4870 under suspension of the rules. The Senate did
not act on the bill.
Trademark
Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, H.R. 769
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, and Mr.
Berman, H.R. 769 implements the Madrid Protocol Agreement
(``Protocol'') which provides for an international registration
system for trademarks.
On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 769, by voice vote,
quorum being present. On March 24, 1999, the full Committee met
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R.
769, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 769 was
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on April 12, 1999
(H. Rept. 106-81). On April 13, 1999, H.R. 769 passed the House
under suspension of the rules. The Senate did not act on the
bill.
To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to increase the penalties for
infringing the rights pertaining to famous performing groups
and to clarify the law pertaining to the rights of individuals
who perform services as a group, H.R. 1125
Introduced by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, and Mr.
Norwood, H.R. 1125 amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to declare
it is not a violation of Federal or State law for an individual
who had been a member of a group under a common famous name,
but subsequently terminated any relationship with such group,
to be able to represent, in any promotions, advertisements, or
performances that such individual had formerly been a member of
such group performing under such famous name, if such
representations do not tend to deceive or confuse as to the
nature, characteristics, qualities geographic origin,
sponsorship, or approval of his or her services with such
group.
The provisions of H.R. 1125 were included in H.R. 1565. The
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1565 on May 5, 1999.
Testimony was received from the Honorable Todd Dickinson,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Acting Commissioner
of Patents and Trademarks, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office;
Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual
Property Law Association (AIPLA); Kimbley L. Muller, Vice
President, International Trademark Association (INTA); Garo
Partoyan, Chairman, Trademark Committee, Intellectual Property
Owners (IPO); Jon Bauman, (a/k/a Bowzer, formerly of Sha Na
Na); and Chuck Blasko, original member of the Vogues. The
provisions were ultimately removed from H.R. 1565.
Trademark Amendments Act of 1999, H.R. 1565
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, H.R. 1565
makes significant improvements in trademark law. Section two
provides holders of famous marks with a right to oppose or seek
cancellation of a mark that would cause dilution as provided in
the ``Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995.'' Pub. L. 104-98,
109 Stat. 985 (1996), Lanham Act Sec. 43(c), 15c U.S.C. Section
three seeks to clarify that in passing the Dilution Act,
Congress did intend to allow for injunctive relief and/or
damages against a defendant found to have wilfully intended to
engage in commercial activity that would cause dilution of a
famuous mark. Section four provides private citizens and
corporate entities the right to sue the Federal Government for
trademarkinfringement. Section five amends section 43(a) of the
Trademark (Lanham) Act of 1946 to provide that in an action for trade
dress infringement, where the matter sought to be protected is not
registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the plaintiff has
the burden of proving that the trade dress is not functional. Section
six makes technical amendments. Section seven seeks to resolve the
problem of ``imposter'' celebrity musical groups by creating an
authenticity certification mark that can only be used by qualifying
members of a musical group.
The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1565 on May 5,
1999. Testimony was received from The Honorable Todd Dickinson,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Acting Commissioner
of Patents and Trademarks, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office;
Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual
Property Law Association (AIPLA); Kimbley L. Muller, Vice
President, International Trademark Association (INTA); and Garo
Partoyan, Chairman, Trademark Committee, Intellectual Property
Owners (IPO).
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1565, amended, by
voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 26, 1999, the
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported
the bill H.R. 1565, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being
present.H.R. 1565 was reported, amended, by the Committee on
Judiciary on July 22, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-250). the Senate
counterpart, S. 1259, passed in the Senate on July 1, 1999,
under unanimous consent. The House passed S. 1259 on July 26,
1999. On August 5, 1999, the President signed S. 1259 and it is
Public Law 106-43.
Antitampering Act of 1999, H.R. 2100
Introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, for himself,
Mr. Frank, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Holden, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Latham, Ms.
Lofgren, Ms. Meek, Mr. Price, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Shays, Mr. Smith
of Texas, and Mr. Toomey, H.R. 2100 amends the Trademark Act of
1946 (Lanham Act) and the Federal Criminal code to declare
unlawful unauthorized modification of product identification
codes, including: (1) specified acts of tampering with the
product identification code of any good; and (2) importing,
exporting, distributing, or brokering goods whose product
identification codes have been tampered with.
On October 21, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.R. 2100. Testimony was received from the following witnesses:
John S. Bliss, Esq., Executive Director, Coalition Against
Product Tampering; Gilbert Lee Sandler, Counsel, American Free
Trade Association; Aaron Graham, Director of Assets Protection,
Matrix Essentials, Inc.; John Paul DeJoria, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, John Paul Mitchell Systems; Mardi Mountford,
Executive Director, International Formula Council; and James A.
Dahl, President, Integrity Resource Group, Inc.
On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2100, amended, by the
Yeas and Nays: 6-3. No further action was taken on the bill.
Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act, H.R. 3028
Introduced by Representative James E. Rogan, for himself,
Mr. Boucher, Mr. Coble, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Salmon, H.R.
3028.
The Subcommittee held a hearing on Wednesday, July 28,
1999, on Internet Domain Names and Intellectual Property
Rights. The following witnesses appeared at the hearing: Andrew
Pincus, General Counsel, United States Department of Commerce;
Francis Gurry, Assistant Director General & Legal Counsel,
World Intellectual Property Organization; Michael Roberts,
Interim President and CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN); Michael A. Daniels, Chairman of the
Board, Network Solutions, Incorporated; Jonathan Cohen,
President, Intellectual Property Constituency of the Domain
Name Supporting Organization of ICANN; Ken Stubbs, Chairman of
the Executive Committee, Internet Council of Registrars (CORE);
Kathlene Karg, Director of Intellectual Property and Public
Policy. Interactive Digital Software Association, for the
Copyright Coalition on Domain Names; Mike Kirk, Executive
Director, American Intellectual Property Law Association
(AIPLA); and Anne Chasser, President, International Trademark
Association (INTA).
On October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3028, by voice
vote, a quorum being present. On October 13, 1999, the
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported
the bill H.R. 3028, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being
present. H.R. 3028 was reported, amended, by the committee on
Judiciary on October 25, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-412). H.R. 3028 was
incorporated into the conference report on H.R. 1554 (H. Rept.
106-464). On November 9, the House agreed to the conference
report. The conference report was incorporated into S. 1948 the
``Intellectual Property Omnibus Communications Act'' which was
signed into law as part of H.R. 3194, an omnibus appropriation
act, on November 29, 1999, and is Public Law 106-113.
Other Intellectual Property Rights
Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, H.R. 354
Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for
himself, Mr. Barr, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Barrett of
Wisconsin, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Bass, Mr. Bereuter, Ms. Berkley,
Mr. Berman, Ms. Biggert, Ms. Bono, Mr. Canady, Mr. Cannon, Mr.
Chabot, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Doolittle,
Mr. Filner, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ford, Mr. Frank, Mr. Gallegly, Mr.
Goodlatte, Mr. Goss, Mr. Granger, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hall of
Texas, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hobson, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Jackson, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Lahood,
Mr. Lantos, Ms. Lee, Mr. Linder, Mr. Luther, Ms. Maloney, Mr.
Maloney, Mr. Matsui, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Minge, Mr. Moakley, Ms. Morella, Ms. Myrick,
Ms. Holmes-Norton, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Pease, Mr. Peterson, Mr.
Petri, Mr. Portman, Ms. Pryce, Mr. Regula, Mr. Reynolds, Mr.
Rothman, Mr. Royce, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Shaffer, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Shaw, Mr. Shays, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Shows, Mr. Sununu, Mr.
Tancredo, Ms. Tauscher, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Vento, Mr. Weldon,
and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 354 responds to a need to supplement
copyright law to prevent the wholesale copying of another's
collection of information in a manner which harms the market
for that collection. The bill ensures incentives for investment
in the production and dissemination of collections of
information, while maintaining continued access to information
contained in such collections for public interest purposes such
as education, science and research.
The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act prohibits the
misappropriation of commercially valuable collections by those
who pirate data that has been collected by others through
substantial effort and expense, and use it in a way that causes
market injury to the producer of the original collection. This
protection is modeled in part on the Lanham Act, which already
makes various types of unfair competition a civil wrong under
federal law. Importantly,existing protections for collections
of information afforded by other bodies of law, most notably copyright
and contract rights, are maintained in their present form. The bill is
intended to supplement these legal rights, not replace them.
H.R. 354 was the topic of a legislative hearing on
Thursday, March 18th, 1999. Testifying at the hearing was
Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of
the United States, Library of Congress; Andrew Pincus, general
Counsel, United States Department of Commerce; James G. Neal,
University Libraries, Johns Hopkins University; Terrance M.
McDermott, Executive Vice President, The National Association
of Realtors; Marilyn G. Winokur, Executive Vice President,
Microdex, Incorporated, Dr. Joshua Lederberg, Professor,
Sackler Foundation Scholar, The Rockfeller University; Lynn
Henderson, President, Doane Agricultural Services Company;
Michael Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual
Property Lawyers Association; Charles E. Phelps, Provost,
University of Rochester; and Dan Duncan, Vice President,
Government Affairs, Software and Information Industry
Association.
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property met in open session and ordered favorably
reported the bill H.R. 354 with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 26,
1999, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported
favorably the bill H.R. 354 with one amendment, by a voice
vote, a quorum being present, H.R. 354 was reported, amended,
by the Committee on Judiciary on September 30, 1999 (H. Rept.
106-349, Part I).
Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act, H.R. 850
Introduced Representative Bob Goodlatte, for himself, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Archer, Mr. Armey, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Baird, Mr. Baker, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Barcia, Mr.
Barr, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr.
Barton, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehner,
Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Bonior, Ms. Bono, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Brady of
Texas, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Brown, Mr. Brown, Mr.
Bryant, Mr. Burr, Mr. Burton, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Camp, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Cannon, Ms. Capps, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Chambliss, Ms.
Chenoweth-Hage, Ms. Christensen, Ms. Clayton, Mr. Clement, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Coble, Mr. Collins, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cook, Mr.
Cooksey, Mr. Cox, Mr. Crane, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Cubin, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Davis of
Virginia, Mr. Deal, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Ms.
DeLay, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Dickey,
Mr. Dooley, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Duncan,
Ms. Dunn, Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Emerson, Mr. Engel, Mr. English, Ms.
Eshoo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Fletcher, Mr. Foley, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Ford, Mr. Fossella, Mr.
Frank, Mr. Franks, Mr. Frost, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr.
Gekas, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Goode, Mr.
Goodling, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Green, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Hall of
Texas, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Ms. Hayes, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr.
Hilliard, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Hoeskstra,
Mr. Holt, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Horn, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. Inslee, Mr. Istook, Mr. Jackson, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr.
Jefferson, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Ms. Johnson of Connecticut,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Kasich, Ms. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy,
Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Kind, Mr. King, Mr. Kingston, Mr.
Knollenberg, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Largent,
Mr. Latham, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. Linder, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Luther, Mr.
Maloney, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Markey, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Matsui,
Ms. McCarthy, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McInnis, Mr.
McIntosh, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Meehan, Ms. Meek, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Metcalf, Mr. Mica, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Gary Miller of
California, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Minge, Mr.
Moakley, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Ms.
Morella, Ms. Myrick, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Napolitano, Mr. Neal, Mr.
Nethercutt, Mr. Ney, Ms. Northrup, Ms. Holmes-Norton, Mr.
Norwood, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Olver, Mr. Ose, Mr. Packard, Mr.
Pallone, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Pease, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Pickering,
Mr. Pombo, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Price, Ms. Pryce, Mr. Quinn, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Riley,
Ms. Rivers, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr.
Rush, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Salmon, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Sanford, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Schaffer, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shays, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shows, Ms. McIntosh-Slaughter, Mr.
Smith of Washington, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Smith of
Texas, Mr. Souder, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stark, Mr. Stenholm, Mr.
Sununu, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Talent, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Tanner, Ms.
Tauscher, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Terry, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Tierney,
Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Underwood,
Mr. Upton, Mr. Vento, Mr. Walden, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Wamp, Ms.
Waters, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Watt, Mr. Watts, Mr. Weldon, Mr.
Weller, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wise, Ms.
Woolsey, and Mr. Wu, H.R. 850 makes a series of changes to U.S.
encrption policy which will facilitate the use of encryption.
Current policy does not restrict the domestic use, sale, or
import of encryption. Section 2 of H.R. 850 generally codifies
that policy by affirmatively prohibiting restrictions on the
domestic use and sale of encryption. It also prohibits the
government from imposing a mandatory key escrow system,
allowing voluntary systems to develop in the marketplace, and
provides criminal penalties for the knowing and willful use of
encryption to avoid detection of other federal felonies. At the
same time, however, the export of strong encryption products is
tightly restricted under the export control laws. Section 3 of
H.R. 850 significantly relaxed those export controls. In
addition, section 4 requires that the Attorney General compile
statistics on instances in which these new policies may
interfere with the enforcement of federal criminal laws.
On Thursday, March 4, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing
on H.R. 850. The following individuals testified: William
Reinsch, Undersecretary of Commerce for Export Administration,
United States Department of Commerce; Ronald D. Lee, Associate
Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice;
Barbara McNamara, Deputy Director, National Security
Adminstration; Tom Parenty, Data and Communications Security,
Sybase, Incorporated; Craig McLaughlin, Chief Technology
Officer, Privada, Incorporated; Grover Norquist, President,
Americans for Tax Reform; Professor Dorothy E. Denning,
Georgetown, University; Alan B. Davidson, Staff Counsel, Center
for Democracy and Technology; Ed Gillespie, Executive Director,
Americans for Computer Privacy; and Dave McCurdy, President,
Electronic Industries Alliance.
On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and
orderly favorably reported the bill H.R. 850, by voice vote, a
quorum being present. On March 24, 1999, the Committee met in
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 850,
by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 850 was reported by
the Committee on Judiciary on March 27, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-117,
Part I). The bill was also referred to the Committees on
International Relations, Armed Services, Commerce and
Intelligence. Due to the legislation the Administration
revisited their encryption policy to be more in line with the
bill, thereby obviating the need for the legislation.
Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999, H.R. 1858
Representative Tom Bliley introduced H.R. 1858 It was
referred to the Committees on Commerce and Judiciary. It was
held at full Committee for purposes of markup and floor
consideration. On September 30, 1999, the Committee on Commerce
reported on H.R. 1858 (H. Rept. 106-350). On October 8, 1999,
the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from considering
the bill. No further action was taken on the bill.
Oversight Activities
U.S. Patent and trademark Office
On March 9, 2000, the Subcommittee conducted an oversight
hearing on the administration and operations of the Patent and
Trademark Office. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
following witnesses: The Honorable Q. Todd Dickinson, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks; Charles Van Horn, Board of Directors, American
Intellectual Property Law Association; Kim Muller, President,
International Trademark Association; Ronald Myrick, President,
Intellectual Property Owners; Colleen M. Kelley, National
President, National Treasury Employees Union; Ronald J. Stern,
President, Patent Office Professional Association; Kina
Lamblin, Vice President and General Counsel, VISX, Inc.;
Gregory J. Maier, Chair, Section of Intellectual Property Law,
American Bar Association; Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss,
Director, Engelberg Center for Innovation Law and Policy, New
York University School of Law.
U.S. Copyright Office
On May 25, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing
on the administration and operation of the Copyright Office of
the United States. The Subcommittee received testimony from The
Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright
Office of the United States.
Article III Courts
On July 22, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on the Structural Alternatives for the United States
Court of Appeals. The Subcommittee received testimony from: The
Honorable Tom Campbell, Member of Congress, 15th District of
California; Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska; Senator Slade Gorton
of Washington; Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona; Senator Dianne
Feinstein of California; Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska;
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; The Honorable Procter Hug, Jr.,
Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; The Honorable
Charles E. Wiggins, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit; The Honorable Pamela Ann Rymer, Circuit
Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; The Honorable Diarmuid
O'Scannlain, Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, The
Honorable William D. Browning, District Judge For the District
of Arizona; The Honorable David R. Thompson, Circuit Judge,
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Eleanor Acheson, Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Policy development Department of
Justice; Arthur Hellman, Professor of Law, University of
Pittsburgh School of Law; Ronald L. Olson, Esq., Munger, Tolles
& Olson; and William N. LaForge, Chairman, Committee on
Government Relations Federal Bar Association.
Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's decision to bypass the random case
assignment system in six politically sensitive cases
After reviewing a July 31, 1999 Associated Press report
that the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia bypassed the normal random case assignment
system in two politically sensitive cases, the Committee asked
the Chief Judge about this matter in an August 26, 1999,
letter. When she failed to respond to the legitimate concerns
of the Subcommittee, she was again contacted by letter on
November 3, 1999. When it became clear that she would not
respond, investigative staff were directed to look into the
matter further. The Subcommittee discovered that the Chief
Judge made four additional special assignments of campaign
finance related cases for a total of six.
After conducting an inquiry, the Subcommittee filed a
judicial complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 372(c)(1) on
January 10, 2000. The Subcommittee supplemented its complaint
with more information on February 16, 2000. On March 28, 2000,
the Clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals informed the
Subcommittee that the complaint (Judicial Complaint 00-1) was
referred to a special committee on judges for investigation.
The special committee then hired outside counsel to conduct
fact finding in this matter. At the time of this writing, no
decision has been issued by the Judicial Council. In response
to the Subcommittee's oversight, the District Court for the
District of Columbia abolished its policy that allowed the
court's chief judge to bypass the traditional random assignment
process. They substituted a system in which protracted cases
would be assigned on a random basis.
The Subcommittee did not file its complaint lightly. The
Subcommittee felt compelled to determine whether or not these
unusual special assignments were proper. It was done in the
most judicious manner possible--by seeking review first by the
Judicial Council. The Subcommittee is hopeful that the current
Judicial Council investigation will answer the concerns laid
out in the Subcommittee's complaint. In addressing the
Subcommittee's concerns, the Judicial Council should seek to
establish confidence in our courts, the impartial
administration of justice, and the principle of judicial
independence. This can only be done by a thorough, fair, and
honest review of the facts and the law.
The Subcommittee is concerned about the length of time it
has taken to review this matter. The Subcommittee understands
that the investigative phase of this investigation was
completed by mid-September, 2000. Furthermore, the Subcommittee
is concerned generally about the perception that judges are
unwilling to vigorously pursue complaints against other judges.
The proper operation of the Judicial Councils Reform and
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 372,
depends on the willingness of judges to police their
colleagues. The Subcommittee may, in the next Congress, review
the operation and effectiveness of this statute to determine
whether thorough reviews of credible complaints are vigorously
pursued and whether appropriate disciplinary measures are taken
when warranted.
Copyrighted webcast programming on the Internet
On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on ``Copyrighted Webcast Programming on the Internet.''
The Subcommittee received testimony from the following: The
Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyright, Copyright
Office of the United States, Library of Congress; Jack Valenti,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Motion Picture
Association of America on behalf of the Copyright Assembly;
Thomas J. Ostertag, General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner
of Baseball; Jonathan Potter, Executive Director, Digital Media
Association; Ian Mccallum, Cofounder, iCraveTV.com; Peggy
Miles, Chairman, International Webcasting Association and
President, Intervox Communication; Hilary Rosen, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Association of
America, Inc.; Edward O. Fritts, President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Association of Broadcasters; Dean Kay,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Lichelle Music Company
on behalf of the American Society of Composers, Authors and
Publishers; Charles P. Moore, Vice President, Business
Development, RadioAMP.com; and Scott Purcell, President and
Chief Executive Officer, WWW.com.
Summary of Oversight Plan and Implementation
Pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule X of the House, the
Committee on the Judiciary submitted, in February, 1999, an
oversight plan including matters to be referred to the
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. Following is
a summary of the portions of that plan relating to the
Subcommittee and a summary of the Subcommittee's activities to
implement the oversight plan.
Article III Courts
In its oversight plan, the Subcommittee proposed to
continue to devote considerable time and resources to improving
the delivery of justice by Article III Federal courts through
its oversight responsibility for (1) the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts; (2) the Federal Judicial Center; (3) the
Judicial Conference of the United States; and (4) United States
Attorneys within the Department of Justice.
Subcommittee hearings and legislation focused on the needs
and recommendations of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts
and the federal judiciary, recommended changes under the Rules
Enabling Act, judicial reform and discipline, and prosecutorial
policies of U.S. Attorneys.
The U.S. Copyright System
The Subcommittee also proposed to continue to devote
considerable time to oversee the operation of the copyright
system in a world or ever changing technology, recognizing that
it is vital to the protection of our copyright industry that
the Subcommittee be vigilant in its exercise of its
jurisdiction to carry out its constitutional mandate to
``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right
to their respective writings and discoveries;'' (Art. I, Sec.
8, cl. 8).
Subcommittee hearings and legislation focused on the
operation of the U.S. Copyright Office, which is part of the
Library of Congress, greater protection for copyrighted
information that could be accessed by users of the Internet,
and annual losses of U.S. property to domestic and
international piracy.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Systems
The Subcommittee proposed to exercise its oversight
responsibilities for the operation of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.
Subcommittee hearings and legislation focused on government
corporation status for the USPTO, the cost to U.S. companies
and inventors of applying for and obtaining separate patents in
each of 150 or more countries, the fairness and status of
reexamination procedures for applicants, the implementation of
trademark treaties, and the effects of the new patent term.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BILL McCOLLUMN, Florida
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts MARY BONO, California \1\
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \2\
----------
\1\ Mary Bono, California, reassigned from the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims to the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law on March 24, 1999.
\2\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, assigned to the Subcommittee on March 24,
1999.
Tabulation of Subcommittee legislation and activity
Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.......................... 195
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.............. 14
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee.............. 0
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee. 0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee.... 4
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee...................... 22
Legislation pending before the full Committee..................... 6
Legislation discharged from the Committee......................... 17
Legislation reported to the House................................. 17
Legislation pending in the House.................................. 8
Legislation passed by the House................................... 26
Legislation pending in the Senate................................. 5
Legislation included in Appropriations bill....................... 1
Legislation vetoed by the President............................... 0
Legislation enacted into public law............................... 21
Legislation on which hearings were held........................... 20
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)...................... 27
Private Bills:
Claims bills referred to Subcommittee......................... 34
Immigration bills referred to Subcommittee.................... 93
Bills on which hearings were held............................. 0
Claims bills heard/reported favorably to the full Committee... 5
Immigration bills heard/reported favorably to the full
Committee................................................... 19
Claims bills ordered reported to the House.................... 5
Immigration bills ordered reported to the House............... 19
Claims bills which passed the House........................... 5
Immigration bills which passed the House...................... 18
Claims bills pending in the House............................. 0
Immigration bills pending in the House........................ 1
Claims bills pending in the Senate............................ 2
Immigration bills pending in the Senate....................... 0
Claims bills which became law................................. 3
Immigration bills which became law............................ 18
Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims has legislative
and oversight jurisdiction over matters involving: immigration
and naturalization, admission of refugees, treaties,
conventions and international agreements, claims against the
United States, federal charters of incorporation, private
immigration and claims bills, and other appropriate matters as
referred by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Public Legislation Enacted Into Law
immigration
Driver's license standards
Section 355 of title III (general provisions) of H.R. 2084,
the ``Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000'', which the President signed into law
on October 9, 1999 (Public Law 106-69), repealed section 656(b)
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996. Section 656(b) had provided that a federal agency
could accept for any identification-related purpose a driver's
license, or other comparable identification document, issued by
a State on or after October 1, 2000, only if the application
process and form of the document met certain security
standards.
H.R. 441, the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999
H.R. 441 creates a new temporary registered nurse visa
program designated ``H-1C'' that would provide up to 500 visas
a year and that would sunset in four years. To be able to
petition for an alien, an employer would have to meet four
basic conditions. First, the employer would have to be located
in a health professional shortage area as designated by the
Department of Health and Human Services. Second, the employer
would have to have at least 190 acute care beds. Third, a
certain percentage (35%) of the employer's patients would have
to be Medicare patients. Fourth, a certain percentage (28%) of
patients would have to be Medicaid patients. The bill contains
the most important safeguards found in the expired H-1A
temporary registered nurse visa program and has added ones of
its own.
The legislation requires the Attorney General to grant a
national interest waiver on behalf of an alien physician if the
alien works full time as a physician for five years in an area
or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or
at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs. A federal agency or a department
of public health in a state must have previously determined
that the alien physician's work in such an area or at such
facility was in the public interest.
The legislation also makes a clarification regarding the
acceptable organizational structure for purposes of L visas and
employment based visas for multinational executives and
managers of firms providing accounting or management consulting
services.
On February 2, 1999, Representative Bobby Rush introduced
H.R. 441.
On March 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims reported H.R. 441 to the Judiciary Committee by voice
vote.
On March 24, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 441
reported by voice vote to the House.
On May 12, 1999, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 441
(H. Rept. 106-135).
On May 24, 1999, the House passed H.R. 441 under suspension
of the rules by voice vote.
On June 24, 1999, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered
H.R. 441 favorably reported to the Senate.
On October 22, 1999, H.R. 441 passed the Senate as amended
by unanimous consent.
On November 2, 1999, the House passed H.R. 441 as amended
by the Senate by voice vote.
On November 12, 1999, the President signed H.R. 441 into
law (Public Law 106-95).
H.R. 3061, to extend the S-Visa Program and Refugee Resettlement
Funding
H.R. 3061 reauthorizes the S-visa program, which provides
250 visas per year to be issued by the Justice Department to
informants in international organized crime cases, through
September 13, 2001. The bill also reauthorizes funding of the
refugee resettlement program through September 30, 2002.
On October 12, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith
introduced H.R. 3061.
On October 26, 1999, the House passed H.R. 3061 under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On November 8, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 3061 by
unanimous consent.
On November 13, 1999, the President signed H.R. 3061 into
law (Public Law 106-104).
Discipline of INS employees
Title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2000,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113), directs the
Attorney General to impose disciplinary action, including
termination of employment, pursuant to policies and procedures
applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
for any employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
who violates policies and procedures set forth by the
Department of Justice relative to the granting of citizenship
or who willfully deceives the Congress or department leadership
on any matter.
Shortage of health care professionals waiver
Section 117 of the general provisions (Department of
Justice) of Title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2000,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113). The
legislation requires the Attorney General to grant a national
interest waiver on behalf of an alien physician if the alien
works full time as a physician for five years in an area or
areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services
as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a
health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs. A federal agency or a department of public
health in a state must have previously determined that the
alien physician's work in such an area or at such facility was
in the public interest.
Prohibition of fund use for countries refusing to accept return of
their nationals
Section 627 of the general provisions of Title VI of the
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,'' contained in
H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000'',
which the President signed into law on November 29, 1999
(Public Law 106-113), prohibits the use of funds appropriated
in the Act for the purpose of granting either immigrant or
nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals,
or residents of countries that the Attorney General has
determined deny or unreasonably delay accepting the return of
their citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents under section
243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Prohibition of fund use regarding involuntary return of refugees
Section 251 of Title II, the Department of State
Authorities and Activities, of the ``Admiral James W. Nance and
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113), prohibits
the use of funds made available to effect the involuntary
return by the United States of any person to a country in which
the person has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion, except on grounds recognized as
precluding protection as a refugee under the United Nations
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of July 28, 1951,
and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of January
31, 1967, subject to the reservations contained in the United
States Senate Resolution of Ratification. Also, no funds may be
used to effect the involuntary return of any person to any
country unless the Secretary of State first notifies the
appropriate congressional committees, except that in the case
of an emergency involving a threat to human life, the Secretary
of State shall notify the appropriate congressional committees
as soon as practicable.
Guidelines for overseas refugee processing
Section 253 of Title II, the Department of State
Authorities and Activities, of the ``Admiral James W. Nance and
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113), requires
the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney
General, to issue guidelines to ensure that persons with
potential biases against any refugee applicant, including
persons employed by, or otherwise subject to influence by,
governments known to be involved in persecution on account of
religion, race, nationality, membership in a particular group,
or political opinion, shall not in any way be used in
processing determinations of refugee status, including
interpretation of conversations or examination of documents
presented by such applicants.
Gender-related persecution task force and report
Section 254 of Title II, the Department of State
Authorities and Activities, of the ``Admiral James W. Nance and
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113), requires
the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney
General and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a
task force with the goal of determining eligibility guidelines
for women seeking refugee status overseas due to gender-related
persecution. The Secretary of State must also prepare and
submit a report to Congress outlining the guidelines determined
by the task force.
Eligibility for in-country refugee processing in Vietnam
Section 255 of Title II, the Department of State
Authorities and Activities, of the ``Admiral James W. Nance and
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', was signed into law by the
President on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113). It
provides that for purposes of eligibility for in-country
refugee processing for nationals of Vietnam during fiscal years
2000 and 2001, an alien who is the son or daughter of a
qualified national, is 21 years of age or older, and was
unmarried as of the date of acceptance of the alien's parent
for resettlement under the Orderly Departure Program or through
the United States Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City, shall
be considered to be a refugee of special humanitarian concern
to the United States and shall be admitted to the United States
for resettlement if the alien would be admissible as an
immigrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act. A
``qualified national'' is a national of Vietnam who: (1) was
formerly interned in a re-education camp in Vietnam by the
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or is the widow
or widower of an individual so interned, (2) qualified for
refugee processing under the Orderly Departure Program re-
education subprogram and on or after April 1, 1995, is or has
been accepted under the Orderly Departure Program or through
the United States Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City for
resettlement as a refugee or for admission to the United States
as an immediate relative immigrant, and (3) is presently
maintaining a residence in the United States or was approved
for refugee resettlement or immigrant visa processing and is
awaiting departure formalities from Vietnam.
Inadmissibility of foreign nationals engaged in forced abortion or
sterilization
Section 801 of Title VIII, the Miscellaneous Provisions of
the ``Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001,'' contained in
H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000'',
was signed into law by the President on November 29, 1999
(Public Law 106-113). It prohibits the Secretary of State from
issuing a visa to, and the Attorney General from admitting to
the United States, any foreign national whom the Secretary
finds, based on credible and specific information, to have been
directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of
population control policies forcing a woman to undergo an
abortion against her free choice or forcing a man or woman to
undergo sterilization against his or her free choice, unless
the Secretary has substantial grounds for believing that the
foreign national has discontinued his or her involvement with,
and support for, such policies. The prohibitions described
above do not apply in the case of a foreign national who is a
head of state, head of government, or cabinet level minister.
The Secretary of State may waive the above prohibitions if the
Secretary determines that it is important to the national
interest of the United States to do so and provides written
notification to the appropriate congressional committees
containing a justification for the waiver.
H.R. 2886, to provide that an adopted alien who is less than 18 years
of age may be considered a child if adopted with or after a
child sibling
Under prior law, a foreign-born child who has been adopted
by a United States citizen parent was classified as an
immediate relative child for purposes of immigration to the
United States if the child was under the age of 16 at the time
the adoptive U.S. citizen parent(s) filed an immigrant visa
petition on the child's behalf. However, in cases involving
siblings, adoptive parents frequently wish to adopt older
children in order to keep a family group intact. H.R. 2886
allows an alien child age 16 or 17 to qualify as an immediate
relative child if the U.S. citizen adoptive parent(s) has also
adopted a sibling of that child who is under the age of 16.
On September 21, 1999, Representative Stephen Horn
introduced H.R. 2886.
On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims reported H.R. 2886 to the Judiciary Committee by voice
vote.
On October 5, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R.
2886 reported by voice vote.
On October 14, 1999, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R.
2886 (H. Rept. 106-383).
On October 18, 1999, the House passed H.R. 2886 under
suspension of the rules by a vote of 404-0.
On October 19, 1999, the Senate Judiciary Committee was
discharged from consideration of H.R. 2886 and the Senate
passed the bill by unanimous consent.
On December 7, 1999, the President signed H.R. 2886 into
law (Public Law No. 106-139).
H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000, and H.R. 5234
The Hmong are a mountain people from southern China and
parts of Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Hmong soldiers
fought the Communist Pathet Lao movement in Laos, and many
Hmong later assisted U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. After
the war ended in 1975, the Pathet Lao gained control of Laos
and persecuted and imprisoned many of the Hmong allies of the
United States. Between 130,000 and 150,000 Laotian Hmong have
entered the U.S. as refugees since 1975. Many Hmong refugees
have found it difficult to naturalize because of their
difficulty in learning English (because their language did not
have a written form until recent decades). In order to
naturalize, permanent residents must generally demonstrate an
understanding of the English language, including an ability to
read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English
language.
H.R. 371 exempts naturalization applicants from the English
requirement if they served with special guerilla units or
irregular forces operating from bases in Laos in support of the
United States during the Vietnam War (or were spouses such
persons on the day on which such persons applied for admission
as refugees) and who came to the United States as refugees from
Laos. The legislation also provides these aliens with special
consideration as to the civics requirement for naturalization
(Naturalization applicants must demonstrate a knowledge and
understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the
principles and form of government, of the United States.). H.R.
5234 clarifies that these benefits are also available to
refugees from Laos who are the surviving spouses of guerilla
fighters who had died in Laos, Thailand or Vietnam.
Aliens are required to submit documentation of their, or
their spouse's, service with a special guerilla unit, or
irregular forces which the Attorney General shall evaluate. A
maximum of 45,000 permanent residents can take advantage of the
benefits provided. This provision was added as an anti-fraud
measure, given the extreme difficulty in determining which
Hmong actually served in guerilla units.
On January 19, 1999, Representative Bruce Vento introduced
H.R. 371.
On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims was discharged from consideration of H.R. 371.
On March 30, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 371
reported as amended by voice vote to the House.
On April 6, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 371
(H. Rept. 106-563).
On May 2, 2000, the House passed H.R. 371 as amended under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On May 18, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered
H.R. 371 as amended favorably reported to the Senate.
On May 18, 2000, H.R. 371 passed the Senate as amended by
unanimous consent.
On May 23, 2000, the House passed H.R. 371 as amended by
the Senate by unanimous consent.
On May 26, 2000, the President signed H.R. 371 into law
(Public Law 106-207).
On September 20, 2000, Representative George Radanovich
introduced H.R. 5234.
On September 25, 2000, the House passed H.R. 5234 under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On October 19, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 5234 by
unanimous consent.
On November 1, 2000, the President signed H.R. 5234 into
law (Public Law 106-415).
H.R. 4489, Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management
Improvement Act of 2000
H.R. 4489 modifies the requirements of section 110 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 that the INS collect data on every alien entering and
exiting the United States with a requirement that the Attorney
General implement an integrated electronic data system
regarding the entry and exit of aliens into and from the United
States using available data. Section 110 will place no new
documentary or data collection requirements on any alien. The
bill contains staggered deadlines for implementing the system
at the three types of ports of entry: airports, seaports and
land border ports.
Once the INS implements the entry/exit data system at a
defined group of ports of entry, the Attorney General is
required to submit an annual fiscal year report to the
Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate. These reports
will contain and analyze the following information: (1) the
number of aliens for whom departure data was collected,
including country of nationality; (2) the number of departing
aliens whose departure data was successfully matched to the
alien's arrival data, including country of nationality and an
alien's classification as an immigrant or nonimmigrant; (3) the
number of aliens who arrived with a nonimmigrant visa or under
the visa waiver program for whom no matching departure date was
obtained as of the end of the alien's authorized stay,
including the country of nationality and date of arrival in the
U.S.; and (4) the number of nonimmigrants identified as having
overstayed their visas, including the country of nationality.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, will determine which officers and employees of the
Justice and State Departments may enter data into and have
access to the data contained in the entry/exit data system.
Likewise, the Attorney General has the discretion to permit
other federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to
have access to the data for law enforcement purposes.
The Attorney General is expected to continuously update and
improve the integrated entry and exit data system as technology
improves and using the recommendations of the task force
established by this legislation. The task force is to be
chaired by the Attorney General and composed of government and
private sector representatives. The task force is instructed to
evaluate: (1) how the Attorney General can efficiently and
effectively carry out the data system, (2) how the U.S. can
improve the flow of traffic at airports, seaports and land
border ports of entry by, among other things, enhancing systems
for data collection and data sharing by better use of
technology, resources, and personnel, and (3) the cost of
implementing each of its recommendations. The task force is to
submit an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on
the Judiciary containing its findings, conclusions and
recommendations. The Attorney General shall make such
legislative recommendations as he or she deems appropriate to
implement the task force's recommendations and to obtain
authorization for the appropriation of funds to implement the
recommendations.
Finally, H.R. 4489 contains a sense of Congress regarding
international border management cooperation.
On May 18, 2000, Representative Lamar Smith introduced H.R.
4489.
On May 23, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4489 under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On May 25, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4489 by unanimous
consent.
On June 15, 2000, the President signed H.R. 4489 into law
(Public Law 106-215).
H.R. 2909, the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000
This legislation implements the ``Hague Convention on
Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect to
Intercountry Adoption,'' which was signed by the U.S. in 1994.
The purpose of the Convention is to streamline
international adoptions by providing a standard framework for
intercountry adoptions between countries that have ratified the
Convention. The Convention sets standards designed to protect
the rights and interests of children, birth parents and
adoptive parents and to prevent abuses of the intercountry
adoption process, such as the illegal trafficking in children.
The Convention provides that each signatory country establish a
national Central Authority to oversee the Convention's
implementation in that country. Among other responsibilities,
the Central Authority will monitor both cases involving
children immigrating to the country and of children being
adopted abroad. Convention signatories must also establish a
process for accreditation of adoption service providers to
ensure that every provider meets minimal standards.
H.R. 2909 makes the minimum changes to the Immigration and
Nationality Act necessary to facilitate adoptions under the
Convention. Principally, the legislation allows children under
the age of 16 who are adopted under the provisions of the
Convention to qualify as immediate relatives under the INA if
(1) the Attorney General is satisfied that proper care will be
furnished the child if admitted to the United States, (2) the
child's natural parents (or parent, in the case of a child who
has one sole or surviving parent because of the death or
disappearance of, or abandonment or desertion by, the other
parent), or other persons or institutions that retain legal
custody of the child, have freely given their written
irrevocable consent to the termination of their legal
relationship with the child, and to the child's emigration and
adoption, (3) in the case of a child having two living natural
parents, the natural parents are incapable of providing proper
care for the child, and (4) the Attorney General is satisfied
that the purpose of the adoption is to form a bona fide parent-
child relationship, and the parent-child relationship of the
child and the natural parents has been terminated (and in
carrying out both obligations the Attorney General may consider
whether there is a petition pending to confer immigrant status
on one or both of such natural parents).
On September 22, 1999, Representative Benjamin Gilman
introduced H.R. 2909.
On March 22, 2000, the International Relations Committee
ordered H.R. 2909 reported to the House by a vote of 28-0.
On June 22, 2000, the Judiciary, Education and the
Workforce, and Ways and Means Committees were discharged from
consideration of H.R. 2909.
On July 18, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2909 as amended
under suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
On July 27, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 2909 as amended by
unanimous consent.
On September 18, 2000, the House further amended and passed
by unanimous consent H.R. 2909 as amended by the Senate.
On September 20, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 2909 as
amended by the House by unanimous consent.
On October 6, 2000, the President signed H.R. 2909 into law
(Public Law 106-279).
S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act
of 2000, and H.R. 5362
Background
The H-1B Nonimmigrant Worker Program Prior to S. 2045 and H.R. 5362
``H-1B'' visas are available for workers coming temporarily
to the United States to perform services in a specialty
occupation. Such an occupation is one that requires ``(A)
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly
specialized knowledge, and (B) attainment of a bachelor's or
higher degree in the specific speciality (or its equivalent) as
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.''
The total number of aliens who could be issued visas or
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status as H-1B workers during
fiscal year 2000 was 115,000. The period of authorized
admission was up to 6 years. An earlier 65,000 annual quota was
raised by the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998 (``ACWIA)'' after it began to be
reached before the end of the fiscal year in 1997. Under ACWIA,
the cap was to drop to 107,500 in fiscal year 2001 and 65,000
in following years.
Because of the need of employers to bring H-1B aliens on
board in the shortest possible time, the H-1B program's
mechanism for protecting American workers is not a lengthy pre-
arrival review of the availability of suitable American workers
(such as the labor certification process necessary to obtain
most employer-sponsored immigrant visas). Instead, an employer
files a ``labor condition application'' with the Department of
Labor making certain basic attestations (promises) and the
Department then investigates complaints alleging noncompliance.
There are six attestations a petitioning employer must
make:
The employer will pay H-1B aliens wages that are
the higher of the actual wage level paid by the employer to all
other individuals with similar experience and qualifications
for the specific employment in question or the prevailing wage
level for the occupational classification in the area of
employment, and the employer will provide working conditions
for H-1B aliens that will not adversely affect those of workers
similarly employed. Pursuant to ACWIA, an employer must offer
an H-1B alien benefits and eligibility for benefits on the same
basis, and in accordance with the same criteria, as the
employer offers to American workers, and universities and
certain other employers onlyhave to pay the prevailing wage
level of employees at similar institutions.
There is no strike or lockout in the course of a
labor dispute in the occupational classification at the place
of employment.
At the time of the filing of the application, the
employer has provided notice of the filing to the bargaining
representative of the employer's employees in the occupational
classification and area for which the H-1B aliens are sought,
or if there is no such bargaining representative, the employer
has posted notice in conspicuous locations at the place of
employment.
The application will contain a specification of
the number of aliens sought, the occupational classification in
which the aliens will be employed, and the wage rate and
conditions under which they will be employed.
Pursuant to ACWIA, two attestations--the no-lay
off/non-displacement attestation and the recruitment
attestation--apply to job contractors/shops, defined in the
bill (for larger companies) as H-1B dependent employers 15% or
more of whose workforces are composed of H-1B nonimmigrants and
to employers who have been found to have willfully violated the
rules of the H-1B program. The H-1B dependent employers (+15%)
are subject to these attestations in those instances where they
petition for aliens without masters degrees in their
specialties or who will not be paid at least $60,000 a year.
The no-lay off attestations prohibits an employer
from laying off an American worker from a job that is
essentially the equivalent of the job for which an H-1B alien
is sought (involves essentially the same responsibilities, was
held by a United States worker with substantially equivalent
qualifications and experience, and is located in the same areas
of employment) during the period beginning 90 days before and
ending 90 days after the employer files a visa petition for the
alien. Additionally, if an H-1B dependent employer places an H-
1B nonimmigrant with another employer and the alien works at
the other employer's worksite and there are indicia of an
employment relationship between the alien and the other
employer, the H-1B dependent employer must inquire with the
other employer as to whether the other employer will displace
any American workers with the alien (and receive assurances
that it will not). Regardless of this inquiry, if it turns out
that the other employer has so laid off an American worker, the
placing employer is subject to penalty (not the ``other''
employer with which the nonimmigrant is placed).
The recruitment attestation requires an employer to have
taken good faith steps to recruit American worker (using
industry-wide standards) for the job an H-1B alien will perform
and to offer the job to any American worker who applies and is
equally or better qualified than the alien.
These two attestations created by ACWIA have never been
implemented because the Office of Management and Budget has yet
to approve final regulations written by the Labor Department.
Departmental investigations as to whether an employer has
failed to fulfill its attestations or has misrepresented
material facts in its application are triggered by complaints
filed by aggrieved persons or organizations (including
bargaining representatives). Investigations can be conducted
where there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has
occurred. Pursuant to ACWIA, the Labor Department can
investigate an employer using the H-1B program without having
received a complaint from an aggrieved party in certain
circumstances where it receives specific credible information
that provides reasonable cause to believe that the employer has
committed a willful failure to meet conditions of the H-1B
program, has shown a pattern or practice of failing to meet the
conditions, or has substantially failed to meet the conditions
in a way that affects multiple employees. In addition, ACWIA
allows the Labor Department to subject an employer to random
investigations for up to five years after the employer is found
to have committed a willful failure to meet the conditions of
the H-1B program.
The Labor Department enforces all aspects of the program
except in instances where an American worker claims that a job
should have been offered to him or her instead of an H-1B
alien. In such cases, an arbitrator appointed by the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service will decide the issue.
An employer is subject to penalties for failing the
attestations and for making a misrepresentation of material
fact in an application. Potential penalties include back pay,
civil monetary penalties of up to $1,000 per violation (up to
$5,000 per willful violation, and up to $35,000 per violation
where a willful violation was committed along with the improper
layoff of an American worker), and debarment from the H-1B
program for from one to three years. Whistleblower protection
is provided to employees.
Pursuant to ACWIA, a $500 fee per alien is charged to all
employers except universities and certain other institutions.
The funds go principally for scholarship assistance for low-
income students studying mathematics, computer science, or
engineering, for federal job training services, and for
administrative and enforcement expenses.
Labor Department Concerns About the H-1B Program
In 1995, then Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that:
Our experience with the practical operation of the H-
1B program has raised serious concerns * * * that what
was conceived as a means to meet temporary business
needs for unique, highly skilled professionals from
abroad is, in fact, being used by some employers to
bring in relatively large numbers of foreign workers
who may well be displacing U.S. workers and eroding
employers' commitment to the domestic workforce. Some
employers * * * seek the admission of scores, even
hundreds of [H-1B aliens], especially for work in
relatively low-level computer-related and health care
occupations. These employers include ``job
contractors,'' some of which have a workforce composed
predominantly or even entirely of H-1B workers, which
then lease these employees to other U.S.companies or
use them to provide services previously provided by laid off U.S.
workers.
The State of the Labor Market for Information Technology Workers
The INS has found that almost 62% of H-1B aliens now work
in computer-related occupations. There is a widespread belief
that the United States is facing a severe shortage of workers
who are qualified to perform skilled information technology
jobs. This belief has been fostered, in part, by a number of
studies designed to document a shortage of information
technology workers, including Help Wanted: The IT Workforce Gap
at the Dawn of a New Century (by the Information Technology
Association of America), America's New Deficit: The Shortage of
Information Technology Workers (by the U.S. Commerce
Department), and Help Wanted 1998: A Call for Collaborative
Action for the New Millennium (by ITAA).
These studies estimated that there were up to 346,000
vacancies in information technology professions. However, in
March of 1998, the U.S. General Accounting Office issued a
report criticizing the methodology of Help Wanted and America's
New Deficit. GAO found that ``Commerce's report has serious
analytical and methodological weaknesses that undermine the
credibility of its conclusions that a shortage of [information
technology] workers, exists.''
Late in 1999, a study sponsored by the United Engineering
Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation assessed the
demand for information technology workers. The study concluded
that ``spot shortages may exist, and strong demand can be seen
for some kinds of people, but on the whole there is no
compelling evidence to suggest a national shortage of
[information technology] workers, either now or in the near
future,''
The report looked at indicators such as the facts that
unemployment among experienced information technology
professionals has been rising since 1997 and that there was a
lack of any consistent evidence of unusually strong wage growth
for such workers that would be consistent with a shortage.
It is possible that there currently exists a significant
shortage of information technology workers. The evidence for
such a shortage is inconclusive. However, because the success
of our economy is so indebted to advances in computer
technology, the industry should be given the benefit of the
doubt. Claims that there is a shortage and that it can only be
alleviated through an increase of foreign workers through the
H-1B program should be accepted for the time being.
Fraud in the H-1B Program
The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held a hearing
on May 5, 1999, in which it was found that widespread fraud
exists in the H-1B program. Inspector General Jacquelyn
Williams-Bridgers of the State Department testified that ``[w]e
have been increasingly faced with more [fraud] allegations and
cases recently in the H-1B areas.''
Cases were disclosed at the hearing in which H-1B petitions
were filed on behalf of paper or front companies and in which
falsified educational credentials or claims of job experience
were submitted on behalf of unqualified applicants. INS field
investigations of suspect H-1B petitioners have identified
``mail drop'' addresses where no legitimate business activity
takes place and numerous instances of companies that filed
fraudulent petitions in exchange for payments by unqualified
applicants. In many cases, H-1B nonimmigrants turn out not to
be highly skilled workers. Inspector General Williams-Bridgers
states that ``[w]hat we are increasingly seeing are cases where
* * * individual * * * enter the U.S. on the premise that they
will assume a highly technical job only to find that the
individuals are low skilled workers, slated for employment as
janitors or nurse's aides or store clerks in companies that
have handsomely paid the brokers.''
H.R. 4227, the Technology Worker Temporary Relief Act of 2000
H.R. 4227, as reported by the House Judiciary Committee,
removed the cap on H-1B visas for fiscal years 2000 through
2002.
The bill added a number of safeguards for American workers
to the H-1B program. It provided that the additional visas made
available over and above current law in fiscal years 2001 and
2002 would only be available to employers who could demonstrate
that they had increased the median wage paid to their American
workers over the previous year. The bill provided that
employers must pay H-1B aliens at least $40,000 a year unless
working at universities or public or private elementary or
secondary schools (new college graduates in 1999 with degrees
in computer engineering started out earning a median of $46,200
($45,000 with degrees in electrical and electronics
engineering, $45,000 with degrees in computer science and
$40,300 with degrees in computer programming)). The bill also
required the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of
the measures taken by employers using the H-1B program to
recruit for these jobs qualified American workers from
underrepresented groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics,
women, and individuals with a disability and to conduct a study
on the measures taken by employers using the H-1B program to
continually train and update the existing skills of their
present employees, and to promote these employees whenever
possible.
H.R. 4227 added a number of anti-fraud measures to the H-1B
program. Among these were provisions to require a college
degree for all petitioned-for aliens, to require petitioning
employers to pay a fee of $100 which will be earmarked for H-1B
anti-fraud work at INS and the State Department, to require
non-governmental petitioning employers without assets of at
least $250,000 to provide documentation of their business
activity and to require that employers utilizing the H-1B
program provide to the Department of Labor in electronic for
specified information about each H-1B alien employed (including
country of origin, academic degree, job title, start date and
salary level).
S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act
of 2000
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century
Act of 2000, as enacted into law, increases the H-1B visa quota
to 195,000 in fiscal years 2001-03. To ensure that an
accumulated backlog of petitions does not count against these
limits, the legislation provides thatpetitions received before
the end of fiscal year 2000 are to be counted against that year's cap
(which is to be accordingly increased). The quotas for 2001-03 do not
apply to H-1B aliens who are employed at or have received offers from
institutions of higher education or affiliated nonprofit entities or at
nonprofit research organizations or governmental research
organizations. If an alien who was counted against the visa cap is
found to have been issued a visa or provided status by fraud or
willfully misrepresenting a material fact and the visa or status is
revoked, then one number shall be restored to the cap in the fiscal
year in which the petition is revoked.
S. 2045 provides that aliens employed under H-1B visas can
accept new employment upon the filing by the prospective
employer of a new H-1B petition (employment authorization will
continue until the petition is denied). Prior law required the
prospective employer's petition to be first approved. The
legislation also provides that if a petition for an employment
based immigrant visa has been filed for an alien working under
an H-1B visa and a year or more has elapsed since the filing of
the visa (or a labor certification request on the alien's
behalf), the alien can continue to work under the H-1B visa
beyond the normal six year limit until such time as the INS has
made a final decision on the petition.
Provision of ACWIA due to expire at the end of fiscal year
2001 are extended through the end of fiscal year 2003.
S. 2045 makes a number of changes to employment based
immigrant visa program. First, the per-country limitation on
the distribution of visas each year in the five employment
based preference categories is essentially repealed. Second, if
an employer's immigrant visa petition for an alien worker has
been filed and remains unadjudicated for at least 180 days, the
petition shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the
alien changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same
or a similar occupational classification as the job for which
the petition was filed. In addition, an approved labor
certification will remain valid with respect to such an alien.
Third, unused employment based visas in fiscal years 1999 and
2000 will be made available in future fiscal years.
The legislation modifies the allocation of the $500 per
alien fee charged to petitioning employers, including setting
aside some funding for private-public partnerships in K-12
education. It also modifies the program requirements of the
fee-funded demonstration programs that provide technical skills
training for workers.
The legislation authorizes $20 million in each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2006 for the ``KIDS 2000 Crime Prevention
and Computer Education Initiative'' that will provide grants to
the Boys and Girls Clubs to fund after-school technology
programs. It also requires that the National Science Foundation
conduct a study on the ``digital divide''.
Finally, S. 2045 includes the ``Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000.'' This legislation
requires the INS to take such measures as may be necessary to
reduce the backlog in the processing of immigration benefits
applications, with the objective of the total elimination of
the backlog within one year of enactment and with no
reoccurrence. Within 90 days after enactment, the Attorney
General must submit a report to Congress concerning her backlog
reduction plan. Progress reports (that also describe the
additional resources and process changes needed) are required
after each fiscal year in which monies authorized under this
legislation are appropriated.
H.R. 5362
This legislation increases the per alien fee on H-1B
petitions from $500 to $1,000 and extends the fee's life
through fiscal year 2003. It also extends the fee exemption to
employers that are primary or secondary educational
institutions and certain other entities.
Procedural history
On February 9, 2000, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S.
2045.
On March 9, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S.
2045 favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
On April 11, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported
S. 2045 (S. Rept. 106-260).
On April 11, 2000, House Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith
introduced H.R. 4227.
On April 12, 2000, the House Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims ordered H.R. 4227 reported as amended by voice vote.
On May 17, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H.R.
4227 reported as amended to the House by a vote of 18-11.
On June 23, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee reported
H.R. 4227 (H. Rept. 106-692).
On October 3, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2045 as amended by
a vote of 96-1.
On October 3, 2000, the House passed S. 2045 under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On October 3, 2000, Representative David Dreier introduced
H.R. 5362.
On October 6, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was discharged
from consideration of H.R. 5362 and the house passed H.R. 5362
by unanimous consent.
On October 10, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 5362 by
unanimous consent.
On October 17, 2000, the President signed S. 2045 into law
(Public Law 106-313) and signed H.R. 5362 into law (Public Law
106-311).
H.R. 4681, to provide for the adjustment of status of certain Syrian
nationals
H.R. 4681 expedites adjustment of status to permanent
residence for up to 2,000 Syrian Jews who arrived in the United
States after 1991 and were granted asylum. To accommodate the
Syrian Government, the U.S. initially admitted the aliens as
visitors and then granted asylum rather than initially
admitting them as refugees. This arrangement resulted in long
delays in their adjustment to lawful permanent resident status,
because of the 10,000 annual cap on asylee adjustments of
status.
On June 15, 2000, Representative Rick Lazio introduced H.R.
4681.
On July 11, 2000, the House suspended the rules and passed
H.R. 4681, as amended, by voice vote.
On October 13, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4681 by
unanimous consent.
On October 27, 2000, the President signed H.R. 4681 into
law (Public Law 106-378).
H.R. 3244, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
H.R. 3244 combats trafficking of persons, especially into
the sex trade and slavery in the United States and countries
around the world through prosecution of traffickers and through
protection and assistance to victims of trafficking.
H.R. 3244 creates a new nonimmigrant ``T'' visa for persons
who: (1) are victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons
(sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by
force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to
perform such acts has not attained 18 years of age or the
recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining
of a person for labor or services, through the use of force,
fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary
servitude, peonage, debt bondage or slavery), (2) are in the
United States or at a United States port of entry on account of
such trafficking, (3) have complied with any reasonable request
for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of
trafficking or have not attained 15 years of age, and (4) would
suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon
removal from the United States. H.R. 3244 also permits the
Attorney General to grant a ``T'' visa, if necessary to avoid
extreme hardship, to the victim's spouse, children, and parents
if the victim is under 21 years of age, and the victim's spouse
and children if the victim is 21 years of age or older.
H.R. 3244 precludes anyone from receiving a ``T'' visa if
there is substantial reason to believe that the person has
committed an act of a severe form of trafficking in persons. It
also places an annual cap of 5,000 on ``T'' visas for
trafficking victims. The legislation permits the Attorney
General to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility.
H.R. 3244 requires the Attorney General to grant a
trafficking victim authorization to engage in employment in the
United States during the period the alien is in lawful
temporary resident status as a trafficking victim. H.R. 3244
states that the INS is not prohibited from instituting removal
proceedings against an alien admitted with a ``T'' visa for
conduct committed after the alien's admission into the United
States, or for conduct or a condition that was not disclosed to
the Attorney General prior to the alien's admission.
H.R. 3244 permits the Attorney General to adjust the status
of a ``T'' visa holder to that of a permanent resident if the
alien: (1) has been physically present in the United States for
a continuous period of at least three years since the date of
admission, (2) has throughout such period been a person of good
moral character, and (3) has, during such period, complied with
any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or
prosecution of acts of trafficking, or would suffer extreme
hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal from
the United States. H.R. 3244 also permits the Attorney General
to adjust the status of the victim's spouse, parent, or child,
if admitted with a ``T'' visa, to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence. The Attorney General may
waive certain grounds of inadmissibility. An annual cap of
5,000 is placed on adjustments of status for trafficking
victims.
Finally, H.R. 3244 excludes significant traffickers,
persons who knowingly assist them, and their spouses, sons, or
daughters who knowingly benefit from the proceeds of their
trafficking activities from entry into the United States. A son
or daughter who was a child at the time he or she received the
benefit is exempt from such exclusion from the United States.
On November 8, 1999, Representative Chris Smith introduced
H.R. 3244.
On November 8, 1999, the International Relations Committee
ordered H.R. 3244 reported by voice vote.
On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims reported H.R. 3244 as amended to the Judiciary Committee
by voice vote.
On April 4, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 3244
as amended reported to the House by voice vote.
On April 13, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R.
3244 (H. Rept. 106-487, part II).
On April 14, 2000, the Banking and Financial Services
Committee was discharged from consideration of H.R. 3244.
On May 9, 2000, the Ways and Means Committee's time for
consideration expired.
On May 9, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3244 as amended under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On July 27, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 3244 as amended by
unanimous consent and appoints conferees.
On September 14, 2000, the House agreed to conference and
instructed conferees by voice vote regarding immigration
provisions.
On September 14, 2000, the Speaker appointed House
conferees.
On October 5, 2000, the conference report was filed (H.
Rept. 106-939) and conferees agreed to conference report.
On October 6, 2000, the House passed a rule and agreed to
the conference report by a vote of 371-1.
On October 11, 2000, the Senate agreed to the conference
report by a vote of 95-0.
On October 28, 2000, the President signed H.R. 3244 into
law (Public Law 106-386).
H.R. 3244, the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000
H.R. 3244 creates the term ``intended spouse,'' which is
defined as the spouse of a United States citizen or lawful
permanent resident whose marriage is not legitimate because of
bigamy by the United States citizen or lawful permanent
resident. Intended spouses who have been battered or abused may
self-petition for visas.
H.R. 3244 allows an alien whose United States citizen or
lawful permanent resident spouse, intended spouse, or parent
has died, lost citizenship or resident status due to domestic
abuse, or divorced within the past two years, to self-petition
for visas and cancellation of removal, without adversely
affecting the classification of the alien. The legislation also
permits abused spouses, intended spouses, and children of
United States citizens and lawful permanent residents living
abroad to self-petition for visas. It permits the Attorney
General to find that a self-petitioner has good moral character
if the petitioner's act or conviction for domestic abuse was
connected to thepetitioner having been abused. It also allows
an applicant who filed a self-petition before reaching 21 years of age
to continue to pursue the application after turning 21 years old. Such
applicants may also receive work authorization and deferred action.
H.R. 3244 permits abused aliens who were married to United
States citizens, but divorced, to naturalize in three years. It
also requires the Attorney General to parole into the United
States a child of an abused alien granted suspension of
deportation or cancellation of removal and a parent of an
abused alien child granted such relief.
H.R. 3244 creates a waiver for aliens unlawfully present in
the United States after previous immigration violations if an
alien has been granted a self-petition and there was a
connection between the abuse of the alien and the alien's
removal, departure from the United States, reentry or reentries
into the United States, or attempted reentry into the United
States.
H.R. 3244 permits the Attorney General to waive the
application of a crime of domestic abuse if the abused alien
was not the primary perpetrator of violence, did not commit
serious bodily injury, and there was a connection between the
abused alien's crime and the alien having been abused. It also
extends the waivers for misrepresentation, health-related
grounds, and certain crimes for battered spouses of United
States citizens and lawful permanent residents who have self-
petition visas.
The legislation requires the Attorney General to submit an
annual report to Congress detailing the INS policy regarding
abused aliens and removal proceedings, the number of requests
filed under the policy, the number of requests granted, and the
average length of time an abused alien must wait before
appearing before an immigration judge to apply for relief from
deportation.
H.R. 3244 enables abused aliens eligible to self-petition
for permanent residence to adjust their status, regardless of
whether they are illegal aliens. In removal cases of abused
aliens, the legislation ends using the notice to appear date in
terminating continuous physical presence. It also eliminates
time limitations on motions to reopen removal and deportation
proceedings for victims of domestic abuse. It eliminates
remarriage of an abused alien with a self-petition visa as a
basis for revocation of the visa.
H.R. 3244 allows abused alien spouses and children of Cuban
Adjustment Act, Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
Relief Act, and Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act
applicants to self-petition for the respective relief.
Finally, the legislation creates a new ``U'' nonimmigrant
visa classification for victims of domestic abuse who are
helpful to authorities investigating or prosecuting such
criminal activity. The Attorney General is given the discretion
to convert the status of nonimmigrants to that of permanent
residents for humanitarian grounds, family unity, or when it is
in the public interest.
On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 3083, the ``Battered Immigrant
Women Protection Act of 1999''. Testimony was received from
Representative Janice Schakowsky; Barbara Strack, Acting
Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning,
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Dwayne ``Duke'' Austin,
Former INS Senior Spokesman; Jackie Rishty, Staff Attorney,
Catholic Charities; Leslye Orloff, Director, Immigrant Women
Program, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Maria Ortiz,
Shelter for Abused Women; Bree Buchanan, Director of Public
Policy, Texas Council on Family Violence.
On October 5, 2000, the ``Violence Against Women Act of
2000'' was included as Division B of the conference report for
H.R. 3244, the ``Trafficking Victims Protection Act''. Title V
of Division B was the ``Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act
of 2000''.
[See above entry for H.R. 3244]
H.R. 2883, the Adopted Citizenship Act of 2000
Under prior law, a child born abroad to two U.S. citizen
parents was considered a U.S. citizen at birth as long as one
of the parents had had a residence in the United States prior
to the birth of the child. In addition, a child born abroad to
a U.S. citizen and an alien parent was considered a U.S.
citizen at birth if the U.S. citizen parent was, prior to the
birth of the child, physically present in the United States for
a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least
two of which were after attaining the age of 14. However, if
American parents adopted a foreign child, or if a child born
abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) was not considered a citizen
at birth, the child arrived in the United States a permanent
resident and a parent had to apply for a certificate of
naturalization for the child to become a citizen.
H.R. 2883 provides for automatic citizenship for foreign-
born adopted children when they enter the United States--but
not retroactively to birth. The bill provides the same
automatic citizenship upon entry to the United States for
foreign-born children of a U.S. citizen(s) who are not
considered citizens at birth under current law. And the bill
utilizes this same process for children receiving citizenship
on the basis of a parent(s) naturalizing.
The bill provides that a child automatically becomes a U.S.
citizen when the following conditions are met: (1) at least one
parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether
by birth or naturalization, (2) the child is under 18, and (3)
the child is residing in the United States in the legal and
physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful
admission for permanent residence. In the case of an adopted
child, the adoption must meet the requirements of current
immigration law. The bill does reserve a certificate of
naturalization process when the foreign-born will reside
outside of the United States.
The bill also provides a limited class of aliens with
exemptions from the penalties in the Immigration and
Nationality Act and title 18 of the United States Code
governing illegal voting in federal, state, or local elections
and false claims of citizenship by aliens for the purpose of
registering to vote or to procure benefits under the
Immigration and Nationality Act or any other federal or state
laws. In some cases, individuals may have a reasonable--if
mistaken--belief that they were citizens of the United States.
This could have occurred with foreign-born children brought to
the United States at a young age whose parents did not realize
that the children did not become citizens automatically. The
enactment of H.R. 2883 and its expansion of automatic
citizenship to more foreign-born children of U.S. citizens will
greatly reduce in the future the number of cases in which such
a mistake can be made.
If an alien can show that (1) each natural or adoptive
parent of the alien is or was a citizen of the United States,
(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to
attaining the age of 16, and (3) the alien reasonably believed
at the time of voting or falsely claiming citizenship (to
obtain an immigration or other benefit under federal or state
law) that he or she was a citizen of the United States, the
alien is protected against a finding that the alien was not of
good moral character (among other things, a bar to
naturalization), and is protected against being considered
inadmissible or deportable. In addition, an alien who meets
this standard shall not be subject to prosecution under
sections 611 and 1015 of title 18.
On September 21, 1999, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 2883, which dealt
solely with foreign-born adopted children and provided that
once brought to the United States by their U.S. citizen
parent(s) they would be considered citizens at birth.
On February 15, 2000, Representative William Delahunt
introduced H.R. 3667.
On February 17, 2000, The Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2883. Testimony was received from
Gerri Ratliff, Director of Business Process and Reengineering
Immigration Services Division and Acting Director of the Office
of Congressional Relations, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service; Edward A. Betancourt, Director of the Office of Policy
Review and Interagency Liaison, Overseas Citizens Services,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. State Department; Susan Soon-
Keum Cox, Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs,
Holt International Children's Services; and Ms. Maureen Evans,
Executive Director, Joint Council on International Children's
Services.
On July 11, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims reported H.R. 2883 to the Judiciary Committee by voice
vote.
On July 26, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 2883
reported to the House as amended by voice vote.
On September 14, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported
H.R. 2883 (H. Rept. 106-852).
On September 19, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2883 under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On October 12, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 2883 by
unanimous consent.
On October 30, 2000, the President signed H.R. 2883 into
law (Public Law 106-395).
H.r. 3767, the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act
The Visa Waiver Pilot Program allows aliens traveling from
certain designated countries to come to the United States as
temporary visitors for business or pleasure without having to
obtain the nonimmigrant visa normally required to enter the
United States. There are currently 29 countries participating
in this program. The Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, has the authority to designate countries to
the program. To qualify for admission to the program, a country
must extend reciprocal visa-free entry privileges to U.S.
citizens, have a low (less than 3 percent) nonimmigrant visa
refusal rate and have or be developing a machine readable
passport. Finally, the admission of the country to the program
must not compromise U.S. law enforcement interests.
Since its initial enactment as a temporary program in 1986,
the Visa Waiver Pilot Program has been regularly extended by
Congress. The latest extension expired on April 30, 2000. H.R.
3767 makes the visa waiver program permanent. The program is of
great importance to the U.S. travel and tourism industry and
provides benefits to American citizens (through reciprocity)
who travel abroad. Additionally, without the program, U.S.
taxpayers would have to bear the burden of restaffing
Department of State consular offices to issue visas to the
millions of visitors who currently enter through the program.
H.R. 3767 makes certain changes to the program that will
ensure that it in the future not pose a threat to the safety
and well-being of the United States or allows large numbers of
aliens to use the program to circumvent immigration laws
The legislation strengthens the requirement that
participating countries develop a program to issue machine
readable passports to its citizens by establishing a October 1,
2003, date certain by which all countries currently in the
program to implement a machine readable passport (meeting
internationally-set criteria). Additionally, beginning on
October 1, 2007, all aliens seeking admission under the program
must have a valid unexpired machine-readable passport. A
machine readable passport allows INS officials to use their
limited time to evaluate aliens seeking admission rather than
simply inputting data.
The legislation requires that the INS check the
identity of aliens seeking admission under the program with
automated electronic databases containing information about
inadmissible aliens. The INS and State Department must develop
a system that permits them to share data in electronic form
from their respective records systems.
The legislation requires the INS to develop a
fully automated system for tracking the entry and departure of
visa waiver travelers entering by air and sea.
The legislation establishes procedures for
periodic reviews of countries already in the program and for
suspending a country's participation in the program during
emergency situations such as the overthrow of a democratically
elected government, war on the country's territory, economic
collapse, or a breakdown in law and order. Such procedures are
designed to ensure that the visa waiver program does not pose a
threat to the law enforcement and security interests of the
United States and to minimize the possibility that aliens
admitted under the program do not leave the United States at
the conclusion of their authorized terms of stay.
H.R. 3767 allows corporate aircraft to utilize the visa
waiver program under the same conditions and with the same
safeguards as may commercial air carriers. And it requires that
the State Department provide Congress with visa refusal data
regarding countries under consideration for inclusion in the
visa waiver program that has not been manipulated by consular
officers so as to favor a country's qualification.
H.R. 3767 includes additional provisions not relating to
the visa waiver program. The first deals with the immigration
law consequences of the privatization of INTELSAT, the
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization. Prior
to privatization, foreign INTELSAT employeesin the United
States received ``G-4'' nonimmigrant visas which are available to
officers and employees (and their family members) of international
organizations. Such employees (and their family members) are eligible
for permanent residence upon retirement (and under certain other
circumstances) pursuant to the special immigrant visa program.
Without legislative action, INTELSAT's foreign employees
would be forced to leave the United States upon the entity's
privatization. H.R. 4767 provides that foreign employees (and
their family members) who worked for INTELSAT in the United
States for at least six months prior to privatization can
continue to use their G-4 visas for as long as they work for
INTELSAT or a successor or separated entity. The legislation
further provides that these foreign employees (and their
families) can continue to make use of the special immigrant
visa program despite INTELSAT's privatization. Finally, it
provides that those qualifying foreign employees of INTELSAT
who work in a managerial or executive capacity may seek
permanent residence under the multinational executive and
manager employment based immigrant visa program.
H.R. 3767 extends the lengths of the regional center pilot
program of the employment creation immigrant visa program
through October 1, 2003. This pilot program sets aside 3,000
visas a year for aliens investing in regional centers that
promote economic growth. Under the pilot as amended by this
bill, qualifying regional centers may create jobs indirectly
through revenues generated from increased exports, improved
regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic
capital investment.
H.R. 3767 modifies the program set up under the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to
collect information on alien post-secondary students and
exchange visitors. IIRIRA required the implementation (first as
a pilot program) of a system which would collect electronically
information from schools on foreign students including identity
and address, current academic status and any disciplinary
action taken by a school against a student as a result of the
commission of a crime. The system is soon to go into effect
nationwide. The legislation clarifies that the fee funding this
program shall be collected by the Attorney General prior to the
issuance of a visa, and not by the institution of higher
education or exchange visitor program when the alien registers
or first commences activities. In addition, it provides that
aliens subject to the program who are admitted under ``J''
exchange visas as au pairs, camp counselors, or participants in
summer work travel programs shall pay a fee of no more than $40
[later reduced to $35; see H.R. 4942].
Finally, H.R. 3767 provides that employers utilizing the H-
1B program do not have to file amended petitions for alien
workers as a result of their being involved in corporate
restructurings, including but not limited to mergers,
acquisitions, or consolidations, where new corporate entities
succeed to the interest and obligations of the original
employers and where the terms and conditions of employment
remain the same.
On March 1, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 3767.
On April 4, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 3767
reported to the House as amended by voice vote.
On April 6, 2000, the Judiciary Committed reported H.R.
3767 (H. Rept. 106-564).
On April 11, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3767 as amended
under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On October 3, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 3767 as amended
by unanimous consent.
On October 10, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3767 as amended
by the Senate under suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
On October 30, 2000, the President signed H.R. 3767 into
law (Public Law 106-396).
H.R. 2961, the International Patient Act of 2000
H.R. 2961 creates a three year pilot program under which
the Attorney General may extend the period of voluntary
departure in the case of certain aliens who require medical
treatment in the United States and were admitted under the visa
waiver program.
Under the visa waiver program, a visit cannot exceed 90
days, and no extensions are available. The only relief that the
INS can offer an alien admitted under the visa waiver program
who has a compelling need to remain in the U.S. for more than
90 days is to authorize the alien to depart voluntarily after a
specified period of time pursuant to section 240B of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. This section allows the
Attorney General to permit an alien who otherwise is no longer
authorized to remain in the United States to depart voluntarily
at the alien's own expense in lieu of being placed in removal
proceedings or prior to the completion of such proceedings.
However, the period of time after which the alien must depart
can not exceed 120 days. Thus, an alien admitted under the visa
waiver program who faces an emergency situation can be
authorized to remain in the United States only for 120 days
beyond the initial 90-day admission.
H.R. 2961 establishes a pilot program authorizing the
Attorney General to waive the 120-day cap on voluntary
departure for a limited number of patients and attending family
members who enter the U.S. under the visa waiver program. An
alien seeking a waiver would be required to provide a
comprehensive statement from the attending physician detailing
the treatment sought and the alien's anticipated length of stay
in the U.S. In addition, the alien and attending family members
would be required to provide proof of their ability to pay for
the treatment and their daily living expenses. The bill caps
the total number of waivers at 300 annually and limits the
number of family members who can enjoy the benefits of a
waiver. The bill also requires the INS to provide Congress with
an annual report detailing the number of waivers granted each
fiscal year and provides for the suspension of the Attorney
General's authority to authorize such waivers during any period
in which an annual reports is past due.
On September 28, 1999, Representative Ken Bentsen
introduced H.R. 2961.
On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims reported H.R. 2961 to the Judiciary Committee by voice
vote.
On October 5, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R.
2961 reported to the House by voice vote.
On July 11, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R.
2961 (H. Rept. 106-721).
On July 18, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2961 under
suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
On October 19, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 2961 by
unanimous consent.
On November 1, 2000, the President signed H.R. 2961 into
law (Public Law 106-406).
H.R. 4068, the Religious Workers Act of 2000
``Special immigrant'' visas (9,940 each year) are available
for a number of different categories of aliens. One such
category is religious worker. An alien (along with spouse and
children) can qualify for a special immigrant visa if the alien
has been a member for the immediately preceding two years of a
religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious
organization in the United States and seeks to enter the United
States to (1) Serve as a minister, (2) serve in a professional
capacity in a religious vocation or occupation at the request
of the organization, or (3) serve in a religious vocation or
occupation at the request of the organization, and in each case
has been carrying out such work continuously for at least the
prior two years. The two non-minister categories are limited to
5,000 visas a year and were set to sunset on October 1, 2000.
H.R. 4068, the ``Religious Workers Act of 2000,'' extends the
sunset date to October 1, 2003.
On March 23, 2000, Representative Edward Pease introduced
H.R. 4068.
On September 19, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4068 under
suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
On October 19, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4068 by
unanimous consent.
On November 1, 2000, the President signed H.R. 4068 into
law (Public Law 106-409).
Indochinese Adjustment Act
The ``Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2001,'' which the President signed
into law on November 6, 2000 (Public Law 106-429), permits
Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians who were paroled into the
United States by October 1, 1997, to apply for adjustment of
status. The provision waives certain grounds of
inadmissibility. The number of adjustments is limited to 5,000.
S. 2812, waiver of oath of renunciation and allegiance for
naturalization of aliens having certain disabilities
The Act provides a waiver of the oath of renunciation and
allegiance for naturalization if in the opinion of the Attorney
General the applicants are unable to understand, or to
communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of
physical or developmental disabilities or mental impairments.
On June 29, 2000, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 2812.
On July 12, 2000, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
introduced H.R. 4838, an identical bill to S. 2812.
On July 20, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S.
2812 reported to the Senate.
On July 21, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2812 by unanimous
consent.
On October 10, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4838 as amended
under suspension of the rules by voice vote, inserted the
language into S. 2812 in lieu of its Senate-passed language,
and then passed S. 2812 by unanimous consent.
On October 19, 2000, the Senate agreed to the House
amendment to S. 2812 by unanimous consent.
On November 6, 2000, the President signed S. 2812 into law
(Public Law 106-448).
S. 484, the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000
S. 484 requires the Attorney General to provide refugee
status to any alien (and his or her parent, spouse, or child)
who is a national of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, or any of
the independent states of the former Soviet Union, who
personally delivers into the custody of the U.S. government a
living American prisoner of war from the Vietnam War. It grants
similar status to any alien and his or her family members who
are nationals of North Korea, China, or the independent states
of the former Soviet Union, who delivers a living American
prisoner of war from the Korean War.
On February 25, 1999, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
introduced S. 484.
On May 18, 2000 the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S.
484 favorably reported to the Senate.
On May 24, 2000, the Senate passed S. 484 as amended by
unanimous consent.
On May 25, 1999, Representative Joel Hefley introduced a
similar bill (H.R. 1926).
On October 24, 2000, the House Judiciary and International
Relations Committees were discharged from consideration of S.
484.
On October 24, 2000, the House passed S. 484 by unanimous
consent.
On November 9, 2000 the President signed into law (Public
Law 106-484).
S. 3239, to provide special immigrant status for certain United States
international broadcasting employees
S. 3239 makes available 100 special immigrant visas a year
for broadcasters at the Voice of America, Radio Liberty, Radio
Free Europe, Radio Marti, Radio Free Iraq, Radio Free Asia and
other international broadcasting services of the Broadcasting
Board of Governors.
On October 25, 2000, Senator Jesse Helms introduced S.
3239.
On October 25, 2000, the Senate passed S. 3239 by unanimous
consent.
On October 31, 2000, the House passed S. 3239 under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On November 22, 2000, the President signed S. 3239 into law
(Public Law 106-536).
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act
Title XI of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2001'', contained in H.R. 4942, the ``District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2001'', which the President signed into law
on December 21, 2000 (Public Law 106-554), as modified by title
XV of division B of the ``Miscellaneous Appropriations Act,
2001,'' contained in H.R. 4942, includes the Legal Immigration
Family Equity Act.''
There are more than one million spouses and minor children
of permanent resident aliens who are on a waiting list for the
limited number of immigrant visas available to them each year.
Currently, they must wait for up to six years for visas to
become available, making them endure longseparations from their
loved ones (as they generally cannot visit the United States while on
the waiting list).
The LIFE Act creates a new nonimmigrant ``V'' visa for such
spouses and children who have waited at least three years for
their immigrant visas that they can continue their wait while
living in the United States with their husbands or wives and
their parents. A V visa is available if (1) An immigrant visa
petition (filed on or before the date of enactment) has been
pending for three years, (2) an immigrant visa petition (filed
on or before the date of enactment) has been approved but the
alien is still on the waiting list for an immigrant visa, or
(3) an immigrant visa petition (filed on or before the date of
enactment) has been approved but an application for an
immigrant visa is still pending. The Attorney General may grant
V visa holders work authorization.
If the immigrant's visa petition, application for immigrant
visa, or adjustment of status application is denied, a V visa
holder's period of authorized admission ends 30 days after the
denial. Entry without admission, unlawful presence, and certain
other grounds of inadmissibility do not apply to V visa
applicants.
Even though an unlimited number of visas are available each
year for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens,
citizens who marry foreigners overseas must wait for up to 18
months before their spouses can join them in the United States
while the INS processes the applications. To remedy this
hardship, the LIFE Act makes available ``K'' nonimmigrant visas
to aliens (and their minor children) who have concluded valid
marriages with United States citizens, are the beneficiaries of
visa petitions, and seek to enter the U.S. to await approval of
the visa petitions. If the immigrant visa petition or the
adjustment of status application based on such petition is
denied, the alien's period of authorized admission ends 30 days
after the denial.
About 400,000 ``late amnesty'' aliens claim that they met
the conditions set out for amnesty under the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986 and yet were wrongly prevented by the
INS from receiving amnesty. After the IRCA application deadline
for amnesty passed, these aliens filed class action lawsuits
claiming that the INS wrongly refused to accept their
applications or discouraged them from applying for amnesty even
though they met the amnesty's requirements. The LIFE Act allows
those aliens who were members of the Catholic Social Services
v. Reno, LULAC v. INS, and Zambrano v. INS class action
lawsuits to apply anew for the IRCA amnesty during the one year
period following the issuance of final regulations implementing
this provision. If such aliens can show that they meet IRCA's
requirements for amnesty (primarily, that they entered the U.S.
before January 1, 1982, and resided continuously as unlawful
aliens through May 4, 1988, have not been convicted of any
felony or of three or more misdemeanors in the United States,
and possess basic citizenship skills), they will be granted
permanent residence. The LIFE Act requires the Attorney General
to establish a process for eligible applicants to apply from
abroad. The Act also grants spouses and unmarried children (who
entered the U.S. before December 1, 1988, and resided in the
U.S. on such date) relief from certain grounds of removal and
authorizes them to work. The Attorney General shall establish
an application process for eligible spouses and unmarried
children living abroad.
The LIFE Act also restores ``section 245(i)'' for a
temporary period. Section 245(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act was adopted on a temporary basis in 1994. It
allowed aliens who were eligible for an immigrant visa but who
were illegally present in the United States to adjust their
status in the United States upon payment of a penalty fee. In
the absence of section 245(i), such aliens must pursue their
visa applications at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the
United States and are potentially subject to the three and 10
year bars on admissibility instituted by section 301(b) of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-119) sunsetted section 245(i) as of January 14,
1998. However, it allowed aliens who had applications for
immigrant visas filed on their behalf before this date to be
processed under section 245(i) regardless of the date of
processing. The LIFE Act further extends this ``grandfather''
clause. The LIFE Act permits aliens who are present in the
United States by its date of enactment and who have an
immigrant visa petition filed on their behalf on or before
April 30, 2001, to utilize section 245(i). This requirement
will ensure that section 245(i) will not encourage further
illegal immigration. The LIFE Act also provides that 245(i)
fees received on behalf of aliens grandfathered under the Act
shall (after up to $200 is deducted for the alien's processing
costs) be equally split between the Breached Bond/Detention
Fund and the Immigration Examinations Fee Account.
The LIFE Act also makes minor modifications to immigration
law regarding aliens eligible for relief under the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 and the
Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998. The LIFE Act
provides that Nicaraguan, Cubans and Haitians eligible for
adjustment of status to permanent residence under NACARA and
HRIFA may receive this relief despite having been previously
removed under an order of removal and may make one motion to
reopen exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings to apply
for such adjustment notwithstanding time and number limitations
on motions to reopen. The LIFE Act also provides that aliens
(primarily from El Salvador and Guatemala) who were the
beneficiaries of special rules for suspension of deportation
and cancellation of removal under NACARA may also receive
relief despite having been previously removed under an order of
removal and may make one motion to reopen deportation or
removal proceedings to apply for such relief notwithstanding
time and number limitations on motions to reopen.
Program to collect information relating to nonimmigrant foreign
students and other exchange program participants
Section 110 of the general provisions--Department of
Justice of title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001,'' contained in H.R. 4942, ``District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2001'', which the President signed into law
on December 21, 2000 (Public Law 106-554), modifies the program
set up under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 to collect information on alien
post-secondary students and exchange visitors. The provision
provides that aliens subject to the program who are admitted
under ``J'' exchange visas as au pairs, camp counselors, or
participants in summer work travel programs shall pay a fee of
no more than $35.
Genealogy fee
Section 112 of the general provisions--Department of
Justice of title I of the ``Departmentsof Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2001,'' contained in H.R. 4942, ``District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 2001'', which the President signed into law on December 21, 2000
(Public Law 106-554), establishes a genealogy fee for providing
genealogy research and information services.
Premium fee for employment-based petitions and applications
Section 112 of the general provisions--Department of
Justice of title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001,'' contained in H.R. 4942, ``District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2001'', which the President signed into law
on December 21, 2000 (Public Law 106-554), authorizes the
Attorney General to establish a $1,000 fee (in addition to any
normal petition/application fee) that will be used to provide
premium processing services to employers submitting employment-
based petitions and applications who meet certain criteria.
CLAIMS
H.R. 456
H.R. 456 would make $100,000 payments to each of the
survivors of the Americans who were killed on April 14, 1994,
when two United States helicopters were shot down over Iraq, so
as to provide those survivors with payments similar to the
payments already made by the Department of Defense to the
survivors of foreign nationals killed in the same incident.
On April 14, 1994, two American Blackhawk helicopters on a
humanitarian mission in the no-fly zone of Iraq were shot down
by two American F-15 fighter planes when the helicopters were
mistakenly identified as Iraqi helicopters. There were 15
Americans (14 active military and one State Department
employee) and 11 foreign nationals aboard the helicopters.
There were no survivors. The Kurd foreign nationals killed in
the shootdown were employed by the United States. Therefore,
their families received compensation under the Federal
Employees Compensation Act. A decision was made by the
Secretary of Defense, under authority provided in 10 U.S.C.
127, to provide compensation beyond those benefits that when
combined with their FECA benefits would total $100,000. The
foreign military families received an ex gratia payment of
$100,000 from the Secretary of Defense with no offset for any
other benefits. No such payments was made to the families of
the Americans killed in the shootdown. The law does not provide
a mechanism for this type of payment to the American families
of active military personnel. The Military Claims Act provides
that a claim for personal injury or death is not allowed by or
on behalf of U.S. active duty personnel if that injury or death
is incident to service. Further, suit by or on behalf of active
duty personnel against the Government for damages arising from
government action or inaction is precluded because of the
doctrine of Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950).
There has been no other situation where both American
government employees (military and civilian) and foreign
nationals were killed in the same incident and the Secretary
has made ex gratia payments to the families of the foreign
nationals. The Committee thoroughly reviewed the arguments put
forth by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice
concerning need for uniformity of benefits for all Americans
serving their country and the setting of a precedent that would
lead to bills in the future based on friendly fire incidents.
While respecting the need to provide uniform treatment to all
our military and government employees, the Committee found that
this standard was compromised by the Secretary of Defense when
he made the ex gratia payments. The Committee concluded that
this case was unique because it is the only friendly fire
incident where the Secretary of the Defense Department chose to
make ex gratia payments to the families of the foreign
nationals killed in the same incidents with Americans. The
Committee provided this remedy based solely on the fact ex
gratia payments were made from the Secretary of Defense's
discretionary funds to the foreign nationals' survivors.
On February 2, 1999, Representative Mac Collins introduced
H.R. 456.
On May 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
held a hearing on H.R. 456 (The Subcommittee also held hearings
in the 105th and 106th Congresses.). Testimony was received
from U.S. Representative Mac Collins; U.S. Representative Mark
Udall; Captain Elliott L. Bloxom, Director of Compensation,
Military Personnel Policy, Office of Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness), Department of Defense; Donald M.
Remy, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Justice; and Mrs. Georgia Bergmann.
On June 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims reported H.R. 456 as amended to the Judiciary Committee
by voice vote.
On July 20, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered reported
H.R. 456 to the House as amended by voice vote.
On July 29, 1999, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 456
(H. Rept. 106-270).
The text of the bill was enacted into law as part of H.R.
3194, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000'',
which the President signed into law on November 29, 1999
(Public Law 106-113).
S. 1515--Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000
The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 was enacted
to affirm the responsibility of the federal government to
compensate individuals who were harmed by radioactive fallout
from atomic testing, or were harmed by being a test site
participant, or in the mining of the uranium necessary for the
production of nuclear weapons. S. 1515 amends the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act to revise eligibility requirements
for claims relating to: (1) leukemia contracted as a result of
atmospheric nuclear testing as well as expansion of the areas
in States affected, (2) uranium mining as it pertains to
individuals employed in the milling and transport of uranium
ore or vanadium-uranium ore and the States in which they are
eligible, (3) written documentation of pertinent diagnoses and
modification of the diseases which constitute a condition
covered under the Act, (4) determination and payment of claims,
(5) application of Native American law and Native American
consideration to claims, and (6) resubmittal of previously
denied claims. It also revises the limitations on attorney fees
for services rendered in connection with a claim. The ten
percent maximum fee included in the original Act is replaced
with an applicable percentage consisting of two percent for the
filing of an initial claim and ten percent for any claim for
which a service contract had already been entered into prior to
enactment or for any resubmittal of a denied claim. The General
Accounting Office is directed to periodically submit a status
report to Congress on the implementation of the Act. The Public
Service Health Service Act is amended to establish aprogram of
grants to Federal, State or local medical centers, or nonprofit
organizations for education, prevention, and early detection of
radiogenic cancers and diseases. Appropriations are authorized for FY
2000-2010.
On August 5, 1999, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 1515.
On November 2, 1999, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered
S. 1515 reported as amended to the Senate.
On November 19, 1999, S. 1515 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
On May 24, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee ordered S.
1515 reported as amended by voice vote.
On June 26, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee reported S.
1515 (H. Rept. 106-697).
On June 27, 2000, the House passed S. 1515 as amended under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On June 28, 2000, the Senate passed S. 1515 as amended by
the House by unanimous consent.
On July 10, 2000, the President signed S. 1515 into law
(Public Law 106-245).
Action on Other Public Legislation
legislation passed by the house and the senate
H. Con. Res. 122, recognizing the United States Border Patrol's
seventy-five years of service since its founding
On May 27, 1999, Representative Silvestre Reyes introduced
H. Con. Res. 122, recognizing the United States Border Patrol's
seventy-five years of service since its founding.
On November 10, 1999, the House suspended the rules and
passed H. Con. Res. 122 by voice vote.
On November 19, 1999, the Senate passed H. Con. Res. 122 by
unanimous consent.
Legislation Passed by the House
immigration
H.R. 3879, the Sierra Leone Peace Support Act of 2000
Section 8 of this bill as introduced would have granted
nationals of Sierra Leone who had been continuously physically
present in the United States since January 1, 1998, temporary
protected status under section 244 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act until such time as the President certified that
conditions were sufficiently improved to allow them to return.
The bill as passed by the House did not contain this provision.
On March 9, 2000, Representative Sam Gejdenson introduced
H.R. 3879.
On April 13, 2000, the International Relations Committee
ordered H.R. 3879 reported as amended to the House.
On May 3, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was discharged from
consideration of H.R. 3879.
On May 3, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3879 as amended under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000
H.R. 4678 was designed to improve the collection and
distribution of child support payments, and for other purposes.
Section 604 provided that nonimmigrant aliens would be
inadmissible if they had child support arrearages of greater
than $2,500 (subject to waiver by the Attorney General). In
addition, immigration officers would have been authorized to
serve on any alien who was an applicant for admission legal
process with respect to any action to enforce or establish a
child support obligation.
On June 15, 2000, Representative Nancy Johnson introduced
H.R. 4678.
On July 26, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was discharged
from consideration of H.R. 4678.
On September 7, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4678 by a vote
of 405-18.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4678 in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 5062, to establish the eligibility of certain aliens for
cancellation of removal
Legal permanent residents may apply for cancellation of
removal if they have been in this status for five years, have
continuously resided in the U.S. for seven years, and have not
committed any offense classified as an ``aggravated felony.''
It is in the Attorney General's sole and unreviewable
discretion whether to grant cancellation of removal in
particular cases. In 1996, Congress through the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act retrospectively
expanded the aggravated felony definition to include additional
offenses and provided that legal permanent residents convicted
of aggravated felonies are ineligible for cancellation of
removal. Legal permanent residents who committed such now-
aggravated felonies before 1996 are still deportable and
ineligible for relief.
H.R. 5062 would have provided that criminal offenses
committee before 1996 that were retrospectively classified as
``aggravated felonies'' in 1996 (except for rape or sexual
abuse of a minor) would not bar cancellation of removal. Legal
permanent residents already removed because of such offenses
would have been able to reopen their removal proceedings to
apply for cancellation of removal.
On July 27, 2000, Representative Bill McCollum introduced
H.R. 5062.
On September 19, 2000, the House passed H.R. 5062 under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5062 in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 238, to increase penalties for alien smuggling
Under current law, individuals convicted of alien smuggling
crimes often receive lenient sentences. The General Accounting
Office has found that convicted smugglers, including those
responsible for death or serious injury, receive an average
sentence only 10 months, which may be suspended, plus an
average fine of about $140.
H.R. 238 would have directed the United States Sentencing
Commission to double terms of imprisonment and fines for alien
smuggling crimes, except those committed on behalf of a close
family member, to render emergency assistance, or for a purpose
other than profit. The bill would also have enhanced penalties
in cases involving use of a firearm, serious injury, or death.
Finally, H.R. 238 would have increased the number of INS
investigators assigned to alien smuggling by 50 in each of the
fiscal years 2001-2005.
On January 6, 1999, Representative James Rogan introduced
H.R. 238.
On May 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
held a hearing on H.R. 238. Testimony was received from
Representative Rogan and from Mr. Bo Cooper, Acting General
Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
On March 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered H.R. 238 as amended reported to the Judiciary
Committee by voice vote.
On July 25, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 238
as amended favorably reported to the House by voice vote.
On September 14, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported
H.R. 238 (H. Rept. 106-850).
On October 3, 2000, the House passed H.R. 238 as amended
under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 238 in the 106th
Congress.
Legislation Rejected by the House of Representatives
H.R. 4892--the Scouting for All Act
H.R. 4892 would have repealed the Federal charter granted
to the Boy Scouts of America.
On July 19, 2000, Representative Lynn Woolsey introduced
H.R. 4892.
On September 12, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4892.
On September 13, 2000, the House failed to pass the bill
under suspension of the rules by a vote of 12-362 (with 51
present).
CLAIMS
H.R. 3485, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act
The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act would have amended
the Federal judicial code to revise the definition of ``agency
of instrumentality of a foreign sate'' for purposes of
provisions regarding exceptions to: 1) the jurisdictional
immunity of a foreign state where money damages are sought
against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was
caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft
sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support
or resources for such an act, and 2) the immunity from
attachment or execution where the judgment relates to a claim
for which the foreign state is not immune. H.R. 3485 directed
that monies due from or payable by the United States to any
State against which a judgment is pending under the
jurisdictional provisions be subject to attachment and
execution in like manner and to the same extent as if the
United States were a private person. The bill authorized the
President, upon determining on an asset-by-asset basis that a
waiver is necessary in the national security interest, to waive
attachment provisions in connection with any judicial order
directing attachment in aid of execution against the premises
of a foreign diplomatic mission to the United States, or any
funds held by or in the name of such foreign diplomatic mission
determined by the President to be necessary to satisfy actual
operating expenses of such foreign diplomatic mission. The bill
specified that a waiver shall not apply to the proceeds of such
use if the premises of the foreign diplomatic mission have been
used for any non-diplomatic purpose, or a sale or transfer if
any asset of a foreign diplomatic mission is sold or otherwise
transferred for value to a third party. All assets of any
agency or instrumentality of a foreign state were considered
assets of that foreign state.
On November 18, 1999, Representative Bill McCollum
introduced H.R. 3485.
On April 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 3485. Testimony was received from
Terry A. Anderson; Stephen M. Flatow; and Maggie A. Khuly.
On June 21, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 3485
as amended reported to the House by voice vote.
On July 13, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R.
3485 (H. Rept. 106-733).
On July 18, 2000, the Judiciary Committee filed a
supplemental report (H. Rept. 106-733, Part 2).
On July 25, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3485 under
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
Similar legislative language to H.R. 3485 was subsequently
placed in H.R. 3244 by the conference committee. On October 5,
2000, the conference report on H.R. 3244 was filed (H. Rept.
106-939) and conferees agreed to the conference report.
On October 6, 2000, the House passed a rule and agreed to
the conference report on H.R. 3244 by a vote of 371-1.
On October 11, 2000, the Senate agreed to the conference
report on H.R. 3244 by a vote of 95-0.
On October 28, 2000, the President signed H.R. 3244 into
law (Public Law 106-386).
Legislation Passed by the Judiciary Committee
H.R. 1520, the Child Status Protection Act of 1999
Immediate relatives (spouses, unmarried children under age
21, and parents) of United States citizens are eligible for
permanent residence without numerical limitation. Other
relatives of U.S. citizens and certain relatives of alien
permanent residents may enter as family-based preference
immigrants, which are subject to numerical limitations. To
ensure that only the authorized numberof visas are issued each
fiscal year, the Department of State's Visa Office sets a constantly
updated ``cutoff date'' for each preference category.
Subject to reasonable time for processing, the spouses,
children and parents of U.S. citizens should receive their
visas without delay. Unfortunately, many children of U.S.
citizens are in jeopardy of losing their entitlement to a visa
as an immediate relative because of the enormous backlog of
adjustment of status cases that has developed at the INS.
According to the INS, the backlog of unprocessed adjustment of
status applications approaches one million and the servicewide
average processing time for adjustment of status applications
has approached three years.
Because of these delays, many immediate relative children
will reach age 21 before they have a chance to receive a visa.
When a child of a U.S. citizen ``ages out'' by turning 21, the
child's application automatically shifts to the family first
preference category. Depending on when the child's petition was
initially filed and how quickly the cutoff date advances, the
child can face a wait of anywhere from eighteen months to two
years in addition to the adjustment of status processing delay.
Because of the per-country limitation, the wait for some
nationalities is much longer. For applicants from Mexico, the
cutoff date is April 22, 1994. For applicants from the
Philippines, it is May 1, 1988.
H.R. 1520 would have addressed the predicament of these
children who, through no fault of their own, lose the
opportunity to obtain a visa before they reach age 21. Under
the bill, they still would have been processed in the family
first preference category. However, they would no longer have
had to wait for a visa based on the date of their petition but
would have gone to the head of the line.
On April 22, 1999, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 1520.
On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered H.R. 1520 reported to the Judiciary Committee by
voice vote.
On October 5, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R.
1520 reported to the House by voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1520 in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 1788, the Nazi Benefits Termination Act of 1999
H.R. 1788 would have rendered individuals who were
determined to have been participants in Nazi persecution
ineligible for federal public benefits. The Department of
Justice's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) is responsible
for investigating former Nazi persecutors who entered and
established residence in the United States under false
pretenses after the Second World War. In many cases OSI
investigations lead to formal denaturalization and deportation
proceedings that result in loss of federal public benefits, but
in some cases former Nazi persecutors, once discovered, leave
the United States voluntarily for fear of public disclosure and
deportation. Those who leave voluntarily may continue to
receive federal public benefits. Records indicate that 44
individuals who were charged as former Nazi persecutors had
continued thereafter to collect Social Security benefits, and
eight such individuals continued to receive such benefits as of
June 1999. In addition, OSI continues to pursue hundreds of
additional individuals who are believed to have participated in
Nazi persecution and are still living in the United States.
Former Nazi persecutors who evade final deportation orders may
continue to receive federal public benefits for many years.
Under H.R. 1788, an immigration judge would have been able
to hold a hearing to determine whether an individual was a
participant in Nazi persecution, and the immigration judge's
determination would have been subject to review by the Attorney
General. If an individual was found to have been a participant
in Nazi persecution, an immigration judge (or the Attorney
General) would have issued an order prohibiting the individual
from receiving federal public benefits. The individual would
have been able to appeal such an order to the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.
On May 13, 1999, Representative Bob Franks introduced H.R.
1788.
On June 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered H.R. 1788 reported to the Judiciary Committee by
voice vote.
On July 20, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 1788
reported to the House by voice vote.
On July 21, 1999, the Government Reform Committee's
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and
Technology ordered H.R. 1788 favorably reported to the
Government Reform Committee by voice vote.
On September 14, 1999, the Judiciary Committee reported
H.R. 1788 (H. Rept. 106-321, Part 1).
On September 30, 1999, the Government Reform Committee
ordered H.R. 1788 reported to the House as amended by voice
vote.
On October 6, 1999, the Government Reform Committee
reported H.R. 1788 (H. Rept. 106-321, Part 2).
No further action was taken on H.R. 1788 in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 2121, the Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 1999
H.R. 2121 would have eliminated the Alien Terrorist Removal
Court and generally prevented the Justice Department from
continuing its longstanding practice of using classified or
confidential evidence in selected national-security-related
immigration proceedings.
Under H.R. 2121, in removing an alien who is a national
security threat, opposing an application for admission, or
opposing an application for discretionary relief from removal,
the Department would have had to request that a federal
district court judge prepare an unclassified summary of
classified information for use in the proceeding. In other
immigration proceedings, such as removal of illegal or criminal
aliens, or applications for refugee status, asylum, permanent
residence, or citizenship, neither the classified or
confidential evidence, nor any unclassified summary thereof,
would have been available to the Department.
To request an unclassified summary in the three types of
cases described above, the Department would first have had to
certify that the information could not be developed from open
sources. The district court would have decided what, if any,
classified summary could be providedto the alien, to the
alien's attorney, and to the immigration judge adjudicating the
proceeding. The immigration judge would not have seen the classified
evidence, only the summary, and would have decided whether the summary
should be used.
Outside that limited context, the bill would have
prohibited the use of classified or confidential information in
removal proceedings, bond proceedings relating to detention,
proceedings to exclude aliens arriving in the United States,
and adjudications of immigration benefits.
On June 10, 1999, Representative David Bonior introduced
H.R. 2121.
On February 10, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2121. Testimony was received from
Representative Bonior; U.S. Representative Campbell; Professor
David Cole of Georgetown University Law Center; Ms. Nahla Al-
Arian; and Mr. Larry Parkinson, General Counsel, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, with additional material submitted by six
individuals and organizations.
On May 23, 2000, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on
H.R. 2121. Testimony was received from Representatives Bonior
and Campbell; Mr. Parkinson; Mr. Bo Cooper, General Counsel,
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mr. Gregory Nojeim, the
American Civil Liberties Union; Professor Cole; Mr. Hany
Kiareldeen; Ms. Al-Arian; Mr. Bruce Ramer, the American Jewish
Committee; Mr. Thomas Homburger, the Anti-Defamation League;
Mr. Steven Emerson; and Mr. Stephen Flatow.
On September 26, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R.
2121 as amended reported to the House by voice vote.
On October 17, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R.
2121 (H. Rept. 106-981).
No further action was taken on H.R. 2121 in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 4548, the Agricultural Opportunities Act
Background
The Fruit, Vegetable, and Horticultural Specialty Industry and Labor
Force
The branch of agriculture that relies most heavily on hired
farmworkers, and hired immigrant farm workers, is that composed
of fruit, vegetable, and horticultural specialty crops
(``FVH''). As the Commission on Agricultural Workers states,
``many farmers with several hundred acres of land raise crops
which can be mechanically planted, tended and harvested, and
need only one or two `hired hands' to maintain their
operations. In contrast, FVH-producing farmers are likely to
need hundreds of seasonal employees to accomplish the same
tasks.'' Many fruits and vegetables are still hand harvested
and packed because they are so perishable and easily bruised.
FVH farmers rely on seasonal hiring that employs between 1
and 2 million workers annually. The average wage in 1998 for
hired farmworkers was $6.18. In 1998-99, 52% of seasonal
agricultural workers admitted to being illegal, up from 7% in
1989. Some estimate that the figure is up to 80%.
A FVH representative has stated that ``The combination of
increased INS enforcement activity, the verification programs
of the Social Security Administration, shortages of legal U.S.
workers of unprecedented proportions and an unworkable program
for the legal admission of alien workers are having serious
negative consequences on the agricultural industry and the
agricultural work force. * * * [There is an] increasing
frequency of farm labor shortages and crop losses and
precipitated a problem which is rapidly reaching crisis
proportions.'' On the other hand, the Department of Labor
believes there is an oversupply of farm labor. In a 1997
report, the General Accounting Office stated that ``[t]here
appears to be no national agricultural labor shortage now,
although localized labor shortages may exist for individual
crops and in specific geographical areas.'' The GAO based its
conclusion that major shortages will not develop on the theory
that future INS enforcement efforts are unlikely to
significantly reduce the number of illegal alien farmworkers.
However, even if this prediction proves true, it is not good
public policy to endorse a labor supply mechanism that relies
on illegal labor.
The H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Program
The ``H-2A'' temporary agricultural worker program allows
for aliens to come to perform agricultural labor or services of
a temporary or seasonal nature. The Attorney General can
approve an employer's petition for an alien only after the
employer has applied to the Secretary of Labor for a
certification that:
(A) there are not sufficient workers who are able,
willing, and qualified, and who will be available at
the time and place needed, to perform the labor or
services involved in the petition, and
(B) the employment of the alien in such labor or
services will not adversely affect the wages and
working conditions of workers in the United States
similarly employed.
A certification cannot be issued by the Secretary (1)
during a strike or lockout, (2) if the employer has in the
previous two year period substantially violated a material term
or condition of a labor certification, (3) where the worker
will not be covered under worker's compensation unless the
employer has given assurances that it will provide adequate
insurance, or (4) if the employer has not made positive
recruitment efforts within a region of traditional or expected
labor supply where the Secretary finds that there are a
significant number of qualified United States workers, who, if
recruited, would be willing to work (this is in addition to the
circulation through the interstate employment service system of
the employer's job offer). The employer's job offer to U.S.
workers shall offer no less than the same benefits, wages, and
working conditions offered to H-2A workers.
Among additional requirements, (1) charges for food cannot
exceed $5.26 per day, (2) free transportation must be provided
between living quarters and worksites, (3) the employer shall
guarantee to offer H-2As work for at least three fourths of the
workdays of the period the work contract is in effect, (4) free
housing must be provided to the H-2As meeting applicable
standards, (5) wages, if paid by the hour, must be at least the
adverse effect wage rate (the annual weighed average hourly
wage rate for field and livestock workers for the region as
determined by the Department of Agriculture), the prevailing
hourly rate, or the minimum wage, whichever is highest, and (6)
wages, if paid at a piece rate, must be supplemented if
necessary to equal at least what theworker would have to be
paid if he were paid hourly and must also not be less than the
prevailing piece rate.
The Labor Department cannot require that applications be
filed more than 60 days before the first date that the H-2As
are needed. Applications must be approved not later than 20
days before the date the aliens are needed if the employer has
met the certification criteria and the employer ``does not
have, or has not been provided with referrals of, qualified
eligible individuals who have indicated their availability to
perform such labor or services. * * *'' Normally, an alien's
stay can be for up to one year.
Expedited procedures are provided for denials or
revocations of certifications.
Expectations were that applications would be made for
200,000 or more aliens each year. In 1996, only 9,635 aliens
were admitted under the program. While utilization has
increased somewhat since 1996 (the Department of Labor
certified 41,827 workers in 1999, compared with 17,557 in
1996), it has never reached expectations.
Why the low numbers? A grower representative has testified
that:
The current H-2A temporary agricultural worker
program is not working for three principal reasons. One
is the structural problems built into the program. [The
Department of Labor] ignored some of the most important
of the H-2A streamlining provisions of the Immigration
Reform and Control [Act. Second, t]he program is
administered in a highly adversarial fashion. DOL
regards H-2A applicants as potential, if not actual,
lawbreakers and acts as though its mission is to keep
employers out of the program rather than to help them
use this program which Congress provided. The third
reason the program is not working has to do with
compliance enforcement and litigation. So-called
farmworker advocates have for years strongly opposed
the H-2A program. They have made both DOL and H-2A
users targets for harassment and litigation. They have
attempted to accomplish in the courts what they were
unable to accomplish in Congress.
The General Accounting Office has found that ``a large
number of Labor's certifications are issued too late to ensure
that employers will be able to get workers by the specified
date of need.'' The Department of Labor ``has acknowledged
problems with the current H-2A program and is working
administratively * * * to reengineer and streamline the program
to better assure growers an adequate, predictable labor supply.
* * *''
H.R. 4548, the Agricultural Opportunities Act
H.R. 4548 would have created a three year pilot program for
agricultural guest workers using a new ``H-2C'' visa, with no
cap on the number of visas available annually. Each visa would
have been valid for up to ten months, plus an additional two-
month extension if necessary. The bill would have created a
central registry of American agricultural workers maintained by
the Labor Department. When qualified American workers were not
available from the registry, growers would have been allowed to
recruit and employ alien labor under the H-2C program. As a
grower representative has noted:
The registry mechanism offers significant
improvements over the current labor certification
system. One of the most important of these is
timeliness. Currently, employers seeking H-2A workers
are required to file a labor certification application
a minimum of 45 days in advance of the date workers are
needed. This is followed by the cumbersome procedures
for processing job orders and recruiting U.S. workers.
* * *
The registry mechanism is based on searching a
computerized data bank of workers who have already
indicated their interest in agricultural employment.
At least twenty-eight days before workers were needed, a
grower would have had to apply for American workers from the
registry before he could bring in H-2C workers. The grower's
application would have had to include assurances that the work
was temporary or seasonal, that he would advertise locally for
American workers and contact former workers, and that he was
not using aliens as strikebreakers.
The Labor Department would then have referred a sufficient
number of qualified American workers from the registry by seven
days before the grower's date of need, or, if there was a
shortfall, notified the Departments of Justice and State of the
number of H-2C visas that would have to be issued to eligible
aliens to make up the difference. If the Labor Department
failed to process the application in time, the grower could
have applied directly to the State and Justice Departments for
issuance of the necessary visas. The bill also provided
expedited emergency procedures for obtaining H-2C workers if
American workers referred from the registry were unwilling or
unable to perform the job, of if a grower encountered
unexpected and urgent labor requirements.
The Attorney General would have been required to establish
a verification system to ensure that growers who hire H-2C
workers did not also hire illegal aliens.
The bill would also have required growers to pay H-2C
workers prevailing wages, provide them with housing (or a
housing allowance under certain circumstances), and reimburse
them for transportation costs. Each H-2C worker would have been
given a reliable identification document that was counterfeit-
resistant, tamper-resistant, and compatible with federal law
enforcement databases. The Attorney General would have been
required to verify that H-2C workers departed from the United
States after the expiration of their visas.
On May 25, 2000, Representative Richard W. Pombo introduced
H.R. 4548.
On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 4548. Testimony was received from
Representative Pombo; Mr. John R. Fraser, U.S. Department of
Labor; Ms. Cindy Fagnoni, U.S. General Accounting Office; Dr.
James S. Holt, National Council of Agricultural Employers; Mr.
Robert Dolibois, American Nursery and Landscape Association;
Mr. Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies; Mr. Marcos
Camacho, United Farmworkers Union; Ms. Michelle Williamson,
Williamson Berry Farms; Mr. Dewey L. Hukill, Texas Farm Bureau;
Mr. William Buchanan, American Council for Immigration Reform;
and Ms. Cecilia Munoz, National Council of La Raza, with
additional material submitted by five individuals and
organizations.
On July 27, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered H.R. 4548 as amended reported to the Judiciary
Committee by a vote of 7-0.
On September 20, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R.
4548 as amended reported to the House by a vote of 16-11.
On October 17, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R.
4548 (H. Rept. 106-982, Part 1).
No further action was taken on H.R. 4548 in the 106th
Congress.
Legislation Passed by the Ways and Means Committee
H.R. 984, the Caribbean and Central America Relief and Economic
Stabilization Act
Section 401 of this trade liberalization legislation would
have authorized $80,000,000 to be used by the INS to support
increased detention requirements for criminal aliens from
Central America held in detention and to address an expected
influx of illegal immigrants from Central America.
On March 4, 1999, Representative Philip Crane introduced
H.R. 984.
On June 10, 1999, the Ways and Means Committee ordered H.R.
984 reported as amended by voice vote.
On June 7, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was discharged
from consideration of H.R. 984.
No further action on H.R. 984 was taken in the 106th
Congress.
Language similar to H.R. 984 was placed in H.R. 434, the
``African Growth and Opportunity Act'', which the President
signed into law on May 18, 2000 (Public Law 106-200). The
language contained in section 401 was not included in H.R. 434.
Legislation Passed by the Subcommittee
H.R. 3918, Immigration Reorganization and Improvement Act of 1999
H.R. 3918 would have replaced the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) with two separate bureaus--the
Bureau of Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement. The bill responded to the recommendations made by
the Commission on Immigration Reform, which stated that
separating immigration enforcement and service functions would
lead to more effective enforcement and improved service to the
public. H.R. 3918 would have eliminated the mission conflict
and overload of the current INS. The enforcement bureau would
have been a true law enforcement agency that would remove
illegal and criminal aliens, not release them back into our
communities. The service bureau would have processed
applications quickly and thoroughly.
In the established Bureau of Immigration Services, H.R.
3918 would have created the position of Director as the head of
the Service Bureau. The Director would have reported directly
to the Attorney General or her delegate. H.R. 3918 would have
transferred from the Commissioner of the INS to the Director of
the Bureau of Immigration Services all functions, personnel,
infrastructure, and funding related to adjudications of
nonimmigrant and immigrant visa petitions, naturalization
petitions, asylum and refugee applications, adjudications
performed at Service centers, and all other adjudications under
the Immigration and Nationality Act performed by the INS. H.R.
3918 also would have created the position of Chief Financial
Officer for the Bureau of Immigration Services within that
bureau.
H.R. 3918 would have created the position of Director as
the head of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. The Director
would have reported directly to the Attorney General or her
delegate. H.R. 3918 would have transferred from the
Commissioner of the INS to the Director of the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement all functions, personnel,
infrastructure, and funding related to the Border Patrol,
detention and deportation, intelligence, investigations, and
inspections. A Chief Financial Officer for the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement would also have been created.
H.R. 3918 would have required the Attorney General to
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report on the proposed
division and transfer of funds between the Bureau of
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement,
the proposed division of personnel between such bureaus, and a
plan to carry out this Act.
H.R. 3918 also would have required the Attorney General to
submit a plan to transfer the detention operations of the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement to the Federal Prison System.
On July 15, 1999, Representative Harold Rogers introduced
H.R. 2528.
On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2528. Testimony was received from
Inspector General Michael Bromwich, Department of Justice;
Richard M. Stana, Associate Director, Administration of Justice
Issues, General Government Division, General Accounting Office;
Ernesto Hernandez; Margarita Muzzall; Jean Campbell, District
Director, Office of U.S. Representative Dick Armey; Elizabeth
Vuna, Director of Constituent Services, Office of U.S.
Representative Stephen Horn; Beatriz Mancilla, District
Representative, Office of U.S. Representative Peter Hoekstra;
John Wood, Constituent Liaison, Office of U.S. Representative
Bob Clement; U.S. Representative Harold Rogers; U.S.
Representative Silvestre Reyes; Doris Meissner, Commissioner,
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Susan Martin, Former
Director, Commission on Immigration Reform; Paul Berg,
President, United States Border Patrol Chiefs' Association;
Richard Gallo, President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association; T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol
Council; Dennis Smith, Executive Vice President, National
Immigration and Naturalization Service Council, American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; Mark Hetfield,
Director, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
On November 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered H.R. 2528 as amended reported to the Judiciary
Committee by voice vote.
On March 14, 2000, Representative Harold Rogers introduced
H.R. 3918, a bill identical to the original version of H.R.
2528.
On March 22, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered H.R. 3918 favorably reported to the Judiciary
Committee by voice vote.
No further action on H.R. 3918 was taken in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 5285, Serious Human Rights Violators Accountability Act of 2000
H.R. 5285 would have defined ''serious human rights
violators'' as aliens who were persecutors, violators of
religious freedom, war criminals, those involved in committing
genocide, torturers, and those who committed other serious
crimes for political, religious, or discriminatory purposes.
H.R. 5285 would have amended the Immigration and
Nationality Act to make serious human rights violators
inadmissible and removable and to bar them from receiving
immigration benefits, including refugee status, asylum,
cancellation or withholding of removal, adjustment of status,
and United States citizenship. H.R. 5285 would also have
provided criminal penalties for serious human rights violators
who re-entered the United States illegally and for those who
assisted serious human rights violators to enter the United
States.
Under H.R. 5285, when the Justice Department found serious
human rights violators living in the United States, the INS
would have had to arrest and detain them and begin removal
proceedings. United States Attorneys would also have had to
investigate to determine whether they should be criminally
prosecuted. To ensure accountability, the Justice Department
would have had to report to Congress every six months on its
removal and prosecution efforts.
H.R. 5285 would also have created a right of action for
U.S. individuals who identified serious human rights violators
in the United States. Upon being informed by a U.S. citizen or
legal permanent resident, by sworn statement under penalty of
perjury, of an alleged serious human rights violator in the
United States, the INS would have had to investigate the
allegation and either remove the alien or issue a written
determination that the alien was not a serious human rights
violator. If the INS failed to act, the complainant would have
been able to bring a civil action in federal court for
injunctive relief and also receive reimbursement for reasonable
attorneys fees and costs if successful.
H.R. 5285 would also have required the Attorney General to
revise the regulations implementing the Convention Against
Torture to render ineligible for withholding or deferral of
removal under the Convention aliens who were ``serious human
rights violators,'' particularly serious criminals, had
committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United
States before arriving in the U.S., or were a danger to the
security of the U.S.
On September 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 5285.
On September 28, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 5285. Testimony was received from
U.S. Representative Mark Foley; Mr. Kevin Rooney, Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review; Mr. Bo Cooper, General
Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Ms. Genevieve
Augustin; Mr. Dan Stein, Executive Director, Federation for
American Immigration Reform; and Ms. Elisa Massimino,
Washington Office Director, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered H.R. 5285 favorably reported to the Judiciary
Committee, as amended, by voice vote.
No further action on H.R. 5285 was taken in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 5377, extension of 212(h) waiver limitation
Currently, a lawful permanent resident who has an
aggravated felony conviction is barred from applying for a
waiver of inadmissability granted under section 212(h) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. However, an alien with no
lawful status and an aggravated felony conviction can apply for
such a waiver. H.R. 5377 would have extended the limitation on
waivers under section 212(h) to aliens unlawfully present in
the United States with aggravated felony convictions.
On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered an original bill reported to the Judiciary
Committee by voice vote.
On October 4, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced the text of the bill as H.R.
5377.
No further action on H.R. 5377 was taken in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 5378 clarification of continuous physical presence
H.R. 5378 would have amended the Immigration and
Nationality Act to clarify the special rule relating to
continuous residence or physical presence under section 240A(d)
of the Act, relating to cancellation of removal.
On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered an original bill reported to the Judiciary
Committee by voice vote.
On October 4, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced the bill as H.R. 5378.
No further action on H.R. 5378 was taken in the 106th
Congress.
H.R. 5379, clarification of mandatory detention provisions
Currently, section 236(c) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act provides that ``the Attorney General shall take
into custody and alien who is'' inadmissible or deportable for
various crimes ``when the alien is released, without regard to
whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, or
probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be
arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense.'' H.R. 5379
would have clarified that the Attorney General is required to
detain certain criminal aliens during removal proceedings,
regardless of whether the INS arrests the alien immediately
upon release from a criminal sentence.
On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims ordered an original bill reported to the Judiciary
Committee by voice vote.
On October 4, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced the bill as H.R. 5379.
No further action on H.R. 5379 was taken in the 106th
Congress.
Hearings on Public Legislation Not Processed
immigration
H.R. 1745
On May 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
held a hearing on H.R. 1745, a bill introduced by
Representative Robert Andrews that would have amended the
Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the removal of
aliens who associate with known terrorists. Testimony was
received from Representative Andrews; Michael J. Wildes; and Bo
Cooper, Acting General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
H.R. 945, to deny to aliens the opportunity to apply for asylum in Guam
On May 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
held a hearing on H.R. 945, a bill introduced by Representative
Robert Underwood that would have responded to a growing influx
of illegal aliens into Guam by preventing aliens from applying
for asylum in Guam. Testimony on H.R. 945 was received from
Representative Underwood and from Captain Anthony S. Tangeman,
U.S. Coast Guard.
H.R. 3058, the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act
On February 17, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 3058, a bill introduced by
Representative Mark Foley that would have made aliens who have
committed acts of torture inadmissible and removable. It would
also have established the U.S. Justice Department's Office of
Special Investigations (OSI), which was created in 1979 as a
temporary agency to track down Nazi war criminals in the U.S.,
as a permanent agency responsible for investigating, removing,
denaturalizing, or prosecuting aliens guilty of Nazi
persecutions, genocide, or torture. Testimony was received from
Representative Foley; Mr. James Costello, Associate Deputy
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; and Mr. Richard
Krieger, President, International Educational Missions, Inc.
claims
H.R. 1371 and H.R. 3295
On June 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
held hearings on H.R. 1371, a bill introduced by Representative
Eleanor Holmes Norton, that would amended the Federal tort
claims provisions of title 28, United States Code, to repeal
the exception for claims arising outside the United States, and
for other purposes, and H.R. 3295, a bill introduced by
Representative Sam Farr, that would have provided for the
payment of compensation to the families of the Federal
employees who were killed in the crash of a United States Air
Force CT-43A aircraft on April 3, 1996, near Dubrovnik,
Croatia, carrying Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown and 34
others. Testimony on H.R. 1371 was received from Representative
Holmes Norton and Robin E. Jacobsohn, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice. Testimony on H.R. 3295 was
received from Representative Farr, Kenneth and Maureen Dobert,
Darrell W. Darling, and Nora Poling.
H.R. 675, H.R. 3418, H.R. 3478, H.R. 3495, H.R. 4263, and H.R. 4398
On September 21, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held hearings on H.R. 675, a bill introduced by
Representative Paul E. Kanjorski, that would have provided
jurisdiction and procedures for affording relief for injuries
arising out of exposure to hazards involved in the mining and
processing of beryllium, H.R. 3418, a bill introduced by
Representative Paul Kanjorski, that would have established a
compensation program for employees of the Department of Energy,
its contractors, subcontractors, and beryllium vendors, who
sustained a beryllium-related illness due to the performance of
their duty, to establish a compensation program for certain
workers at the Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion plant, to
establish a pilot program for examining the possible
relationship between workplace exposure to radiation and
hazardous materials and illnesses or health conditions, and for
other purposes, H.R. 3478, a bill introduced by Representative
Marcy Kaptur, that would have established a compensation
program for the contractors of the Departments of Energy and
Defense and beryllium vendors who sustained a beryllium-related
illness due to the performance of their duty, and for other
purposes, H.R. 3495, a bill introduced by Representative Ted
Strickland, that would have established a compensation program
for Department of Energy employees injured in Federal nuclear
activities, H.R. 4263, a bill introduced by Representative Tom
Udall, that would have established a compensation and health
care program for employees and survivors at the Department of
Energy facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico who have sustained
beryllium, radiation-related, asbestos, and hazardous
substances injury, illness, or death due to the performance of
their duties, and for other purposes, and H.R. 4398, a bill
introduced by Representative Ed Whitfield, that would have
established a compensation and health care program for
employees of the Department of Energy, its contractors,
subcontractors, and certain vendors, who have sustained
beryllium and radiation-related injury, illness, or death due
to the performance of their duties, and for other purposes.
Testimony was received from U.S. Senator George Voinovich,
Representative Kanjorski, Representative Kaptur, Representative
Strickland, Representative Whitfield, Representative Mark
Udall, Representative Zach Wamp, Representative Tom Udall, Bill
Richardson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. David
Michaels, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environment
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy; Lisa Ledwidge,
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research; Steve
Markowitz, Director, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems;
Richard D. Miller, Policy Analyst, Paper, Allied-Industrial,
Chemical and Energy Workers International Union; Ken Rosenman,
M.D., Michigan State University; Dan Guttman, Esquire, former
Executive Director, President's Advisory Committee on Human
Radiation Experiments, Lawrence Repsher, M.D.; Donald Elisburg,
Esquire, former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment
Standards; Ann Orick; Sam Ray; Clara Harding; Ray Slaughter;
and Pete Lopez.
Federal Charters
Subcommittee policy on new Federal charters
On March 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims adopted the following policy concerning the granting of
new federal charters:
The Subcommittee will not consider any legislation to
grant new federal charters because such charters are
unnecessary for the operations of any charitable, non-
profit organization and falsely imply to the public
that a chartered organization and its activities carry
a congressional ``seal of approval,'' or that the
Federal Government is in some way responsible for its
operations. The Subcommittee believes that the
significant resources required to properly investigate
prospective chartered organizations and monitor them
after their charters are granted could and should be
spent instead on the Subcommittee's large range of
legislative and other substantive policy matters. This
policy is not based on any decision that the
organizations seeking federal charters are not
worthwhile, but rather on the fact that federal
charters serve no valid purpose and therefore ought to
be discontinued.
This policy represented a continuation of the
Subcommittee's informal policy, which was put in place at the
start of the 101st Congress and continued through the 102nd,
103rd, 104th, and 105th Congress, against granting new federal
charters to private, non-profit organizations.
A federal charter is an Act of Congress passed for private,
non-profit organizations. The primary reasons that
organizations seek federal charters are to have the honor of
federal recognition and to use this status in fundraising.
These charters grant no new privileges or legal rights to
organizations. At the conclusion of the 104th Congress,
approximately 90 private, non-profit organizations had federal
charters over which the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction.
About half of these had only a federal charter, and were not
incorporated in any state and thus not subject to any state
regulatory requirements.
Those organizations chartered more recently are required by
their charters to submit annual audit reports to Congress,
which the Subcommittee sends to the General Accounting Office
to determine if the reports comply with the audit requirements
detailed in the charter. The GAO does not conduct an
independent or more detailed audit of chartered organizations.
H.R. 604--to amend the Charter of the Amvets Organization
H.R. 604 would amend the federal charter for the American
Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam (AMVETS). In 1998,
at the AMVETS annual convention, the delegates voted for an
official name change from American Veterans of World War II,
Korea, and Vietnam to American Veterans to more accurately
reflect the membership of AMVETS. Additionally, the AMVETS have
voted to change the structure of their governing body. H.R. 604
contains language to reflect the structural change. Finally,
the organization has changed the location of their headquarters
from the District of Columbia to Lanham, Maryland. Therefore,
the ``Headquarters and principal place of business'' section of
their charter needs to be changed to indicate they are now
located in Maryland. In order for these changes to be
recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs the AMVETS
federal charter has to be amended.
On February 4, 1999, Representative Bob Stump introduced
H.R. 604.
On September 20, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R.
604 as amended reported to the House by voice vote.
On September 27, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported
H.R. 604 (H. Rept. 106-904).
On December 15, 2000, the House passed H.R. 604 as amended
without objection.
No further action on H.R. 604 was taken in the 106th
Congress.
Private Claims and Private Immigration Legislation
During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims received referral of 34 private claims bills and 93
private immigration bills. The Subcommittee held no hearings on
these bills. The Subcommittee recommended 5 private claims
bills and 19 private immigration bills to the full Committee.
The Committee ordered 5 private claims bills and 19 private
immigration bills reported to the House.
The House passed 5 private claims bills and 18 private
immigration bills reported by the Committee. Of the 5 private
claims bill and 18 private immigration bills, 3 private claims
bill and 18 private immigration bills were passed by the Senate
and signed into law by the President. Two bills were still
pending in the Senate at the close of the 106th Congress.
One private bill ordered reported by the full Committee was
not approved by the full House prior to the close of the 106th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
Immigration
Recent INS Decisions Impacting the Agency's Ability to Control Criminal
and Illegal Aliens
On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Recent INS Decisions
Impacting the Agency's Ability to Control Criminal and Illegal
Aliens. Testimony was received from U.S. Representative
Silvestre Reyes; Doris Meissner, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service; Dan Stein, Executive Director,
Federation for American Immigration Reform; Norman Rabkin,
Director, accompanied by Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director,
Administration of Justice Issues, General Accounting Office;
Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, Auxiliary Bishop, Newark, NJ;
and Professor Frank Bean, Ashbel Smith Professor of Sociology
and Public Affairs, Population Research Center, University of
Texas at Austin.
Issues Arising from Past Designations of Temporary Protected Status and
Fraud in Prior Amnesty Programs
On March 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Issues Arising from Past
Designations of Temporary Protected Status and Fraud in Prior
Amnesty Programs. Testimony was received from Paul Virtue,
General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mark
Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies;
Daniel Stein, Executive Director, Federation for American
Immigration Reform; Elisa Massamino, Director, Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights; Professor Monica Heppel, Mount
Vernon College and Research Director, Inter-American Institute
on Migration and Labor; and John F. Shaw, Former Assistant
Commissioner for Investigations, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
The Impact of Immigration on Recent Immigrants and Black and Hispanic
Citizens
On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on the Impact of Immigration
on Recent Immigrants and Black and Hispanic Citizens. Testimony
was received from Dr. L. Randall Wray, Senior Scholar, The
Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College; Professor
George Borjas, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University; Dr. Steve Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies;
Dr. Frank Morris; Dr. William Spriggs, Director of Research and
Public Policy, National Urban League; Roy Beck; Professor
Vernon Briggs, School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Cornell University; Dr. Georges Vernez, Director, Center for
Research on Immigration Policy, RAND; Stephen Moore, Director,
Fiscal Policy Studies, CATO Institute; Professor Mark
Partridge, Department of Economics, St. Cloud (Minnesota) State
University; and Professor Julian Betts, Department of
Economics, University of California, San Diego.
Illegal Immigration Issues
On March 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Illegal Immigration Issues.
Testimony was received from Margaret Bianculli, Director,
Sachem Quality of Life Organization; David J. Stoddard;
Professor Peter Kwong, Director of Asian-American Studies,
Hunter College; Dan Stein, Executive Director, Federation for
American Immigration Reform; Elisa Massimino, Director, Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights; Selena Walsh, Director of Policy
and Communications, LULAC (League of United Latin American
Citizens); Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice; Michael Cronin, Associate Commissioner
for Programs, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service;
Donna Hamilton, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Louis Nardi,
Director of Investigations for Field Operations, U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service; William R. Brownfield,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of
State; and Amy Dale, Administrator of Detention Services,
Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Benefits to the American Economy of a More Educated Workforce
On March 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on the Benefits to the
American Economy of a More Educated Workforce. Testimony was
received from Professor Barry Chiswick, Department of
Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago; Dr. James R.
Edwards, Jr.; Richard W. Judy, Director, Center for Workforce
Development, Hudson Institute; Rebecca Burdette, Quan, Burdette
and Perez; Randel K. Johnson, Vice President-Labor & Employee
Benefits, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; William Archey, President
and CEO, American Electronics Association; Kersi Shroff and
Stephen Clarke, Senior Legal Specialists, Directorate of Legal
Research, Western Law Division, Law Library of Congress; and
Laura Reiff, Baker and McKenzie.
Law Enforcement Problems at the Border Between the United States and
Canada, Focusing on the Issues of Drug Smuggling, Illegal
Immigration and Terrorism
On April 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Law Enforcement Problems at
the Border Between the United States and Canada, Focusing on
the Issues of Drug Smuggling, Illegal Immigration and
Terrorism. Testimony was received from Michael Pearson,
Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations, U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Eugene Davis, Deputy
Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, Blaine, Washington, U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service; Michael Bromwich, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Justice; Robert Trotter, Assistant
Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service; Dale Brandland, Sheriff,
Whatcom County, Washington; Mark Hall, President, National
Border Patrol Council Local 2599, Detroit, Michigan; David
Harris, President, INSIGNIS Strategic Research; and Demetrios
G. Papademetriou, Senior Associate, International Migration
Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Nonimmigrant Visa Fraud
On May 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
held an oversight hearing on Nonimmigrant Visa Fraud. Testimony
was received from Michael Bromwich, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice; Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of State; William Yates, Director of
Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service; Gary Bradford, Assistant Director, Texas Service
Center, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Nancy
Sambaiew, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, Bureau
of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Jill Esposito,
Post Liaison Division, Visa Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs,
U.S. Department of State; John Ratigan, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison; Lynn Shotwell, American Council on
International Personnel; and Mark Mancini, Wasserman, Mancini,
& Chang.
Illegal Immigration Issues
On June 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Illegal Immigration Issues.
Testimony was received from Tobin Armstrong; Larry Vance,
Chairman, Cochise County Concerned Citizens; Angie Morfin,
Mothers Taking Action Against Gang Violence; Carol Joyal; Terry
Anderson; Ezola Foster, Americans for Family Values; Dan
Morris, Americans for an Immigration Moratorium; and Selena
Walsh, Director of Policy and Communications, LULAC (League of
United Latin American Citizens).
Immigration and Naturalization Service's Interior Enforcement Strategy
On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
held an oversight hearing on the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's Interior Enforcement Strategy. Testimony was received
from Robert Bach, Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy
and Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, John
Fraser, Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S.
Department of Labor; Richard Stana, Associate Director,
Administration of Justice Issues, General Government Division,
U.S. General Accounting Office; Robert Hill, Venable, Baetjer,
Howard & Civiletti; Thomas Hammond; Judith Desantis, First Vice
President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; Daniel
Stein, Executive Director, Federation for American Immigration
Reform; David Amick, Sheriff, WoodburyCounty, Sioux City, Iowa;
and Muzaffar Chishti, Director, Immigration Project, Union of
Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE).
Fraudulent Use of Social Security Cards and State and Local Identity
Documents for Immigration Purposes
On July 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Fraudulent Use of Social
Security Cards and State and Local Identity Documents for
Immigration Purposes. Testimony was received from Larry
Stewart, Chief Document Examiner, Forensic Services Division,
U.S. Secret Service; John Hotchner, Director, Office of
Passport Policy, Planning and Advisory Services, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; James Hesse, Chief
Intelligence Officer, Forensic Document Laboratory, U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Richard Stana,
Associate Director, Administration of Justice Issues, General
Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office; Glenna
Donnelly, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Office of Disability
and Income, U.S. Social Security Administration; Detective
Sergeant Robert Derbyshire, Supervisor Economic Crimes,
Criminal Investigation Division, Baltimore County Policy
Department; David Simcox, Chairman, Board of Directors Center
for Immigration Studies; Susan Martin, Director, Institute for
the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University;
Michael Anderson, International Chair, Driver Licensing and
Control, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators;
and Representative (Conn.) Brain Flaherty, National Conference
of State Legislatures.
H-1B Temporary Professional Worker Visa Program and Information
Technology Workforce Issues
On August 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on H-1B Temporary Professional
Worker Visa Program and Information Technology Workforce
Issues. Testimony was received from Austin Fragomen, Chairman,
American Council on International Personnel; David Smith,
Director, Public Policy Department, AFL-CIO; Crystal
Neiswonger, TRW, on behalf of the National Association of
Manufacturers; Gene Nelson; John Miano, the Programmers Guild;
Alison Cleveland, Associate Manager of Labor Policy, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Paul Kostek, President, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA; and Charles Foster,
Tindall & Foster.
Terrorist Threats to the United States
On January 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Terrorist Threats to the
United States. Testimony was received from Ambassador Martin
Collacott, Canadian Department of External Affairs (retired);
Steven Emerson; David Harris, former Chief of Strategic
Planning, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (retired);
Christopher Sands, Fellow and Director, Canada Project, Center
for Strategic and International Studies; Gary Stubblefield,
President, Global Options LLC; John Thompson, Director, the
Mackenzie Institute; and Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox, U.S.
State Department (retired).
Visa Waiver Pilot Program
On February 10, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on the Visa Waiver Pilot
Program. Testimony was received from Robert Ashbaugh, Acting
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice; Ambassador Mary
A. Ryan, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S.
Department of State; Mike Cronin, Acting Associate
Commissioner, Office of Programs, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service; Elisa Liang, Associate Deputy Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice, accompanied by James
McAtamney, Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General for National
Security; Bill Norman, President and CEO, Travel Industry
Association; E. Wayne Merry, Director, Program on European
Societies in Transition, The Atlantic Council of the United
States; and John Ratigan, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison.
The Status of Regulations Implementing the American Competitiveness and
Workforce Improvement Act of 1998
On May 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
held an oversight hearing on the Status of Regulations
Implementing the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998''. Testimony was received from John
Fraser, Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour Division,
Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor;
John Spotila, Administrator, Office of Information Policy and
Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; John
Templeton, Co-Convener, Coalition for Fair Employment in
Silicon Valley (accompanied by Kevin Hinkston, Co-Convener,
Coalition for Fair Employment in Silicon Valley); and Frank
Brehm, the Programmer's Guild.
Evaluating the Religious Worker Visa Programs
On June 29, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Evaluating the Religious
Worker Visa Programs. Testimony was received from Mildred
Patterson, Managing Director, Visa Office, U.S. Department of
State; John Brennan, Consular Office, U.S. Department of State;
Jess Ford, Associate Director, International Relations and
Trade Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; and William A.
Yates, Director of Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Inspector General's Report, ``An Investigation of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service's Citizenship USA Initiative''
On September 7, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims held an oversight hearing on Inspector General's Report,
``An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's Citizenship USA Initiative''. Testimony was received
from Robert L. Ashbaugh, Deputy Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Oversight Regarding Criminal Aliens Released by INS
In 1999, a number of highly-publicized cases highlighted
the problem of criminal aliens whom the INS failed to remove
from the United States or transfer for criminal prosecution.
Instead, the INS released thousands of criminal aliens who
subsequently committed additional serious crimes in the United
States.
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims Chairman Lamar Smith
sent a formal inquiry to Attorney General Janet Reno on July
14, 1999, requesting detailed information on inadmissible or
deportable criminal aliens who were released from INS custody
and then subsequently convicted of additional crimes committed
in the United States. The letter requested information
identifying such criminal aliens and describing their history
of criminal activity. However, the Attorney General failed to
respond in a timely or responsive manner. In addition, the INS
had previously failed to provide two statutorily mandated
reports, due in September 1998 and March 1999, respectively,
regarding the release from INS detention of criminal aliens.
On August 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration voted to
authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain the
requested and overdue information. The subpoena was approved
and signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry H. Hyde.
In response to the subpoena, the INS provided the two
overdue statutorily mandated reports and attempted to negotiate
with the Committee the terms of its response to Chairman
Smith's July 14, 1999 letter. However, the negotiations were
ultimately inconclusive. By letter dated February 9, 2000,
Chairman Hyde and Chairman Smith stated that if requested
information was not provided by February 28, 2000, the
Committee had every intention of enforcing the subpoena
according to its original terms.
In response to the February 9, 2000 letter, the INS
complied with the subpoena. Information provided by the INS
regarding 35,318 criminal aliens released by the agency between
October 1, 1994 and May 31, 1999, indicated that about 37
percent of them had been convicted of another crime in the
United States after their release by the INS.
Oversight Regarding Illegal Immigration Statistics
As of October 2000, the INS had not updated its official
estimates on illegal immigration since its 1996 statistical
report. Beginning in 1997, INS officials indicated on a number
of occasions that new information was available, but none was
released.
On June 21, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Chairman Lamar Smith formally requested an up-to-date
statistical report on illegal immigration by July 5, 2000. The
INS replied that it expected to release revised estimates by
the end of August 2000. However, no information was provided.
In September 2000 the INS stated that it would provide a report
to Congress on September 28, 2000, but then canceled the
release a few hours before it was to occur.
On October 4, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration voted
to authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain
the report prepared but withheld by the INS. The subpoena was
approved and signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J.
Hyde.
In response to the subpoena, the INS provided the requested
report. Data in the report indicated that in the years
immediately following a major amnesty for illegal aliens
enacted in 1986, there was a significant upsurge in illegal
immigration.
Refugee consultations
I. Fiscal year 1999
On June 22, 1999, Members of the Judiciary Committee met
with Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas R.
Pickering and other Administration officials to discuss the
Administration's proposal for an additional 20,000 numbers for
emergency refugee admissions for Kosovar refugees in fiscal
year 1999.
By letter dated July 1, 1999, the Department of State
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to add
3,000 numbers to the East Asia ceiling by transferring 2,000
numbers from the unallocated reserve and 1,000 numbers from the
Latin American allocation.
On August 12, 1999, President Clinton issued Presidential
Determination No. 99-33, which provided an additional 13,000
numbers for emergency refugee admissions for Kosovar refugees
in fiscal year 2000.
By letter dated September 16, 1999, the Department of State
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to add
1,000 numbers to the Africa ceiling and balance that increase
by reducing the East Asia ceiling by 1,000 numbers.
By letter dated September 27, 1999, the Department of State
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to add
250 numbers to the Latin America/Caribbean ceiling, add 250
numbers to the Near East/South Asia ceiling, and balance those
increases by reducing the East Asia ceiling by 500 numbers.
By letter dated October 22, 1999, the Department of State
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that fiscal
year 1999 admissions totaled 85,006.
II. Fiscal year 2000
On September 22, 1999, Members of the Judiciary Committee
met with Deputy Secretary of State Talbott and other
Administration officials to discuss the Administration's
proposal for refugee admissions in fiscal year 2000. That
proposal was as follows:
Areas of Origin:
Proposed Ceiling
Africa.................................................... 18,000
East Asia................................................. 8,000
Europe:
Former Yugoslavia (including 10,000 for Kosovo)....... 27,000
NIS//Baltics.......................................... 20,000
Latin America/Caribbean................................... 3,000
Near East/South Asia...................................... 8,000
Unallocated Reserve....................................... 6,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 90,000
On September 30, 1999, President Clinton issued
Presidential Determination No. 99-45, which put into force a
fiscal year 2000 worldwide refugee ceiling of 90,000. This
final determination was identical to the Administration's
original proposal.
By letter dated July 24, 2000, the Department of State
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to add
1,500 numbers to the Near East/South Asia ceiling, add 500
numbers to the Latin America/Caribbean ceiling, and balance
those increases by reducing the NIS/Baltics ceiling by 2,000
numbers.
By letter dated October 16, 2000, the Department of State
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that fiscal
year 2000 admissions totaled 72,518.
III. Fiscal year 2001
On September 14, 2000, Members of the Judiciary Committee
met with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and other
Administration officials to discuss the Administration's
proposal for refugee admissions in fiscal year 2001. That
proposal was as follows:
Areas of Origin:
Proposed Ceiling
Africa.................................................... 20,000
East Asia................................................. 6,000
Europe:
Former Yugoslavia..................................... 20,000
NIS/Baltics........................................... 17,000
Latin America/Caribbean................................... 3,000
Near East/South Asia...................................... 10,000
Unallocated Reserve....................................... 4,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 80,000
On September 29, 2000, President Clinton issued
Presidential Determination No. 2000-32, which put into force a
fiscal year 2001 worldwide refugee ceiling of 80,000. This
final determination was identical to the Administration's
original proposal.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida,
Chairman
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
MAXINE WATERS, California ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity
Legislation referred to Subcommittee.............................. 132
Legislation reported favorably to full Committee.................. 7
Legislation referred adversely to full Committee.................. 0
Legislation reported without recommendation to full Committee..... 0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee.... 0
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee...................... 3
Legislation pending before the full Committee..................... 0
Legislation reported to the House................................. 9
Legislation discharged from the full Committee.................... 9
Legislation pending in the House.................................. 3
Legislation passed the House...................................... 19
Legislation pending in the Senate................................. 9
Legislation failed passage by the House........................... 2
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).............. 0
Legislation enacted into public law............................... 4
Legislation on which hearings were held........................... 17
Day of hearings (legislative and oversight)....................... 25
Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee has legislative and oversight
responsibility for the Civil Rights Division and the Community
Relations Service of the Department of Justice, as well as the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Office of Government
Ethics. General legislative and oversight jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee includes civil and constitutional rights, civil
liberties and personal privacy, federal regulation of lobbying,
private property rights, federal ethics laws, and proposed
constitutional amendments.
legislation
The ADA Notification Act
A legislative hearing on H.R. 3590, the ``ADA Notification
Act,'' was held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution on May
18, 2000. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Congressman
Mark Foley; Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.; Clint Eastwood;
Donna M. and David Batelaan, Lakeworth, Florida; Steven
Rattner, College Park, Maryland; Terri L. Davis, Rancho Santa
Fe, California; Kyle Glozier, New Freeport, Pennsylvania;
Christine Griffin, Executive Director, Disability Law Center,
Inc., Boston Massachusetts; Joe Fields, Jr., Attorney, West
Palm Beach, Florida; Andy Levy, Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland;
Christopher G. Bell, Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
Frederick A. Shoz, ADA Consulting Associates, Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida; and Tammy K. Fields, Assistant County Attorney, Palm
Beach County, Florida. No further action was taken on the
measure.
Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (``ADA'') became
law a decade ago, it has done much to make public
accommodations more accessible to everyone. That progress,
however, is being threatened by a growing number of lawyers who
are generating huge sums in legal fees for pointing out often
simple fixes that would bring properties into compliance with
the ADA's accessibility standards. This variety of litigation
abuse stems from the lack of any notification provision in the
ADA. This gap in the law now poses the danger that attorneys
who continue to exploit it will needlessly foment ill will
between the disabled community and business owners who would in
good faith bring properties into compliance with the ADA if
only they were alerted to the law's requirements.
H.R. 3590 would amend the ADA by providing that a court
would not have jurisdiction in a case brought under the ADA
unless, before filing the complaint, the plaintiff has provided
to the defendant notice of the alleged violation, by registered
mail or in person, that identifies the specific facts that
constitute the alleged violation, and that 90 days have passed
during which time the defendant has not corrected the alleged
violation. H.R. 3590 also provided that the court may impose
and enforce appropriate sanctions upon attorneys failing to
meet the 90-day notice requirement.
Armed Services Building Used As Polling Places
On September 21, 2000, H.R. 5174, which would remove the
uncertainty regarding the authority of the Department of
Defense to permit buildings located on military installations
and reserve component facilities to be used as polling places
in Federal, State, and local elections for public office, was
referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. On October
12, 2000, H.R. 5174 was considered by the House under a
suspension of the rules and agreed to by the yeas and nays, 297
to 113.
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
On April 13, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Charles T. Canady
introduced the ``BornAlive Infants Protection Act of 2000''
(H.R. 4292), a bill that would firmly establish that, for purposes of
federal law an infant who is completely expelled or extracted from her
mother and who is alive is, indeed, a person under the law--regardless
of whether or not her lung development is believed to be, or is in
fact, sufficient to permit long-term survival, and regardless of
whether the baby survived an abortion. The Committee's Subcommittee on
the Constitution held one day of hearings on H.R. 4292 on July 20,
2000. Testimony was received from several witnesses: Prof. Hadley
Arkes, Edward Ney Professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions,
Amherst College; Allison Baker, Charlottesville, Virginia; Jill L.
Stanek, Mokena, Illinois; Matthew G. Hile, Ph.D., St. Louis, Missouri;
Gianna Jessen, Franklin, Tennessee; Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-
OH); Kenneth Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division,
Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; Prof. Gerard
V. Bradley, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School; Dr. F. Sessions
Cole, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics and Cell Biology and Physiology,
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; Dr.
Watson A. Bowes, Jr., M.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
School of Medicine; and Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of
Jurisprudence, Department of Politics, Princeton University.
On July 26, 2000, the Committee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4292, without
amendment, by a recorded vote of 22 to 1. H.R. 4292 passed the
House on September 26, 2000, by a vote of 380 to 15. Senator
Rick Santorum introduced an identical bill in the Senate on
September 27, 2000 (S. 3127), but no further action was taken
on the measure.
The Bounty Hunter Responsibility Act
The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2964,
the ``Bounty Hunter Responsibility Act of 1999'' on March 30,
2000. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Representative
Asa Hutchinson; Representative Peter Deutsch; Chinelle Moore,
Laurel, Maryland; Theresa Babb, Wilmington, North Carolina;
Pamela Read, Coventry, Rhode Island; Jerry Watson, General
Counsel, National Association of Bail Insurance Companies;
Jonathan Drimmer, Chevy Chase, Maryland; Roger Moore, Attorney
at Law, Roger Moore, P.C.; Sheldon Nahmod, Professor of Law,
Chicago-Kent Law School; Russell Stanford, Detective, Fraternal
Order of Police; Milton Hirsch, Attorney at Law; Tom Nickolich,
AAA Bailbond Company; Armando O. Roche, President, Professional
Bail Agents of the United States; and John Stein, National
Organization for Victim Assistance. No further action was taken
on the measure.
After an arrest but before trial, most defendants hire bail
bondsmen to post a bond with the court to secure the
defendant's release. Bondsmen seeking defendants who either
have fled or have missed a court date generally employ bounty
hunters who are vested with the bondsman's powers. These bounty
hunters are generally considered to have the power to search
for and arrest a defendant on bond similar to those of a law
enforcement official pursuing an escaped prisoner. Thus, bounty
hunters need not obtain, under current law, arrest or search
warrants and they need not ``knock and announce'' before
searching.
H.R. 2964, ``The Bounty Hunter Accountability Act of
1999,'' would have established an incentives structure that
would encourage the licensing of bounty hunters and bolster
their professionalism. The bill is intended to deem bounty
hunters, any surety on a bail bond, and any agent of such
surety, ``state actors'' under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 whose powers
would be consistent with the police powers most analogous to
theirs, that is, those of a police officer pursuing an escaped
offender. Under H.R. 2964, a bounty hunter would retain roughly
the authority that he currently has and would only be liable to
the extent that he exceeds the authority given him under common
law interpretations, such as by utilizing excessive force or by
performing a false arrest. Under the bill, a surety or agent of
a surety is absolved of responsibility for the conduct of a
bounty hunter entirely if the surety or agent takes all
reasonable steps to assure that the bounty hunter is licensed
in a State that requires licenses, or is licensed as a private
investigator in a State requiring such licenses.
Celebrating One America
On June 22, 1999, Representative Rangel introduced
Celebrating One America, a resolution which expresses the sense
of Congress that all people in the United States should reach
out across our differences in ethnicity, race, and religion to
respect each other and to celebrate, in friendship and unity,
one America. The resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on
the Constitution on June 28, 1999. On October 13, 1999, the
Committee on Judiciary discharged H. Con. Res. 141. The House
passed H. Con. Res. 141 by unanimous consent. The Senate
received and referred the resolution to the Committee on
Judiciary on October 14, 1999. H. Con. Res. 141 was ordered to
be reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without amendment
on November 4, 1999. The resolution was agreed to in Senate
without amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent on
November 19, 1999 and sent to the House on November 22, 1999.
Child Custody Protection Act
On March 23, 1999, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
introduced the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' (H.R. 1218), a
bill that would make it a federal offense to transport a minor
across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if
that action circumvents a state law requiring parental
involvement in a minor's abortion. The Committee's Subcommittee
on the Constitution held a hearing on H.R. 1218 on May 27,
1999. Testimony was received from the following witnesses:
Eileen Roberts, Mothers Against Minors' Abortions, Inc.; Billie
Lominick of Newbury, South Carolina; Prof. Lino A. Graglia, A.
Dalton Cross Professor of Law, University of Texas School of
Law; Dr. Jonathon D. Klein, M.D., American Academy of
Pediatrics; and Prof. John C. Harrison, Professor of Law,
University of Virginia School of Law. Additional material was
submitted by Prof. Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor
of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law;
National Right to Life Committee, Inc.; Center for Reproductive
Law and Policy; National Abortion and Reproductive Rights
League; and the American Civil Liberties Union.
On June 8, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met
in open session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 1218,
without amendment, by voice vote. On June 23, 1999,
theCommittee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the
bill, H.R. 1218, without amendment, by a recorded vote of 16 to 13.
H.R. 1218 passed the House on June 30, 1999, by a vote of 270 to 159.
Senator Spencer Abraham introduced an identical bill in the Senate (S.
661) on March 18, 1999. No further action was taken on the measure.
Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act
On March 2, 1999, Representative John Conyers, Jr.
introduced H.R. 906, the ``Civic Participation and
Rehabilitation Act of 1999,'' which was referred to the
Subcommittee on March 16, 1999. The Civic Participation and
Rehabilitation Act of 1999 is designed to secure the federal
voting rights of persons who have been released from
incarceration. On October 21, 1999, the Subcommittee held a
hearing on the bill. Testimony was received from the following
witnesses: Representative Danny K. Davis; Marc Mauer, Assistant
Director, The Sentencing Project; Roger Clegg, Vice President
and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity; Gillian E.
Metzger, Staff Attorney, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU
School of Law; Viet D. Dinh, Associate Professor of Law and
Deputy Director of Asian Law and Policy Studies Program,
Georgetown University Law Center; Todd F. Gaziano, Senior
Fellow in Legal Studies, The Heritage Foundation; and Hilary O.
Shelton, Director to the Washington Bureau of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People. No further
action was taken on the measure.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2000 and the Digital
Privacy Act of 2000
H.R. 5018, the ``Electronic Communication Privacy Act of
2000,'' was introduced on July 27, 2000, by the Chairman of the
Constitution Subcommittee, Charles T. Canady. H.R. 4987, the
``Digital Privacy Act,'' was introduced on July 27, 2000, by
Representative Bob Barr. A legislative hearing on H.R. 5018 and
H.R. 4987 was held on September 6, 2000. Witnesses testifying
at the hearing were Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Associate Attorney
General, Department of Justice accompanied by David Green,
Deputy Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section;
James Dempsey, Senior Staff Counsel, the Center for Democracy
and Technology; Gregory Nojeim, Legislative Council, the
American Civil Liberties Union; Robert Corn-Revere, Hogan &
Hartson; and Marc Rotenberg, Director, Electronic Privacy
Information Center.
H.R. 5018 resulted in part from issues raised during an
oversight hearing on ``Fourth Amendment Issues Raised by the
FBI's `Carnivore' Program'' and ``The Fourth Amendment and the
Internet,'' which were held by the Subcommittee on the
Constitution on April 6, 2000, and July 24, 2000, respectively.
The development of the Internet as a networked global
communications medium, the expansion in the range of
transactions that occur ``on-line,'' and the amount of
information now stored with third party ``Internet service
providers'' have produced a qualitative change in the nature of
communications and, accordingly, in the nature and amount of
information that may be obtained by the government. In light of
these recent developments, many have asked whether existing
statutes protecting citizens from ``unreasonable searches and
seizures'' under the Fourth Amendment appropriately balance the
concerns of law enforcement with individuals' concerns that a
sufficient degree of privacy and the integrity of personal
information are maintained in an age of modern communications
and information storage.
The intent of H.R. 5018 was to balance the need for privacy
and effective law enforcement in the digital age. H.R. 5018,
among other things, sought to raise the standard for the
government's access to the transactional data regarding a
person's communications obtained with so-called pen register or
trap and trace devices; to require the federal government to
report annually on the number of requests it makes to disclose
the contents of stored electronic communications; and to
require high-level Department of Justice approval for
interceptions of electronic communications, as is currently
required for interceptions of wire and oral communications.
H.R. 5018 also would have helped law enforcement capture
criminals in the computer age by allowing electronic
communications service providers to disclose to law enforcement
basic customer records, such as name and address, in certain
emergency situations, allowing law enforcement to use devices
that track the source and destination of criminal
communications without a court order for up to 48 hours in
situations involving national security and ongoing attacks on
computer networks, and by raising the maximum penalty for the
most serious computer violations to ten years in prison.
On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee ordered favorably
reported to the full Committee the bill H.R. 5018 as amended by
a voice vote. On September 26, 2000, the full Committee order
favorably reported (H. Rept. 106-932, filed October 4, 2000)
the bill to the House as amended by a vote of 20 to 1. No
further action was taken on the measure.
To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to reauthorize funding
for the Office of Government Ethics
On September 21, 1999, Representative Joe Scarborough
introduced legislation ``To amend the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978 to reauthorize funding for the Office of Government
Ethics'' (H.R. 2904) through fiscal year 2003. H.R. 2904 was
jointly referred to both the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Government Reform.
The Committee on the Judiciary discharged H.R. 2904 on
November 2, 1999. The Committee on Government Reform reported
the bill on that same date with an amendment to the Federal
criminal code provisions concerning bribery, graft, and
conflicts of interest. That amendment would include within the
definition of ``special Government employee'' a Reserve officer
or officer in the National Guard who is serving voluntarily for
not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive
days. The amendment would also include as an ``officer'' and
``employee'' the following: (1) an individual retained,
designated, appointed, or employed in the U.S. Government or in
the District of Columbia government to perform with or without
compensation and subject to the supervision of the President,
Vice President, Member of Congress, Federal judge, or officer
or employee of the U.S. or District Government a Federal or
District function (as defined in this Act) under authority of
law or executive Act; (2) a Reserve officer or officer in the
National Guard who is serving voluntarily for not to exceed 130
days during any period of 365 consecutive days; and (3) the
President, Vice President, Member ofCongress, or Federal judge
to the extent specified under such provisions. The amendment would
exclude as an officer or employee or special Government employee: (1)
enlisted members of the armed forces; and (2) an individual who is
retained, designated, or appointed without compensation specifically to
act as a representative of an interest on an advisory committee
established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act or any
similarly established committee whose meetings are generally open to
the public. On a motion to suspend the rules, H.R. 2904 passed the
House, as amended, on November 8, 1999 by a vote of 386 to 1.
Senator Fred Thompson introduced similar legislation in the
Senate on August 15, 1999, reauthorizing the Office of
Government Ethics through fiscal year 2003. That bill, S. 1503,
passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1999.
S. 1503 was sent to the House and referred to both the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government
Reform on February 8, 2000. No further action was taken on the
measure.
Flag Protection Amendment
On March 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution
held a hearing on H.J. Res. 33, a joint resolution proposing to
amend the Constitution of the United States to allow Congress
to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United
States. The proposed amendment reads simply: ``The Congress
shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag of the United States.'' The amendment itself does not
prohibit flag desecration. It merely empowers Congress to enact
legislation to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag
and establishes boundaries within which it may legislate.
At the March 23, 1999 hearing, the Subcommittee received
testimony from 13 witnesses: Representative Randy ``Duke''
Cunningham; Representative Steve Buyer; Representative John
Lewis; Representative John Sweeney; Representative Wayne
Gilchrest; Mr. Stephan Ross, concentration camp survivor and
senior staff psychologist for the City of Boston Community
Schools and Centers; Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger, Professor
of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; Major
General Patrick Brady (USA-Ret), Chairman of the Citizen Flag
Alliance's Board of Directors; Bishop Carlton Pearson,
presiding Bishop over the Azusa Interdenominational Fellowship,
Shawntel Smith, former Miss America from Oklahoma; Captain
Joseph F. Rogers, (U.S.N.R.-Ret.), corporate counsel, Alcatel
USA; David Skaggs, former United States Representative and
current Executive Director of the Democracy and Citizenship
Program at the Aspen Institute; and Douglas C. Clifton,
executive editor of the Miami Herald.
On April 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution
held a markup of H.J. Res. 33 and ordered it favorably reported
to the full Committee, without amendment, by a vote of 7 to 4.
On May 26, 1999, the full Committee met in open session and
ordered H.J. Res. 33 favorably reported to the House, without
amendment, by voice vote. (H. Rept. 106-191).
The House passed H.J. Res. 33 on June 24, 1999 by a vote of
305-124. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported an identical
joint resolution, S.J. Res. 14, on April 29, 1999 (S. Rept.
106-246). The Senate voted on S.J. Res. 14 on March 29, 2000,
and it failed to attain the necessary two-thirds majority, 63-
37.
Adding the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday to the Flag Code
On May 19, 1999, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported favorably, without amendment and by voice
vote, H.R. 576 (H. Rept. 106-176). No hearing was held on H.R.
576 prior to the May 9, 1999 Judiciary Committee markup
session. The legislation passed the House by voice vote on
October 12, 1999. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed an
identical version of H.R. 576, S. 322 (no report was filed), on
April 12, 1999. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent
on June 14, 1999. S. 322 was considered under unanimous consent
by the House on October 12, 1999 and it passed without
objection. S. 322 was signed by the President and became Public
Law 106-80 on October 12, 1999.
H.R. 576 amends 4 U.S.C. Sec. 6(d) to add the Martin Luther
King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the flag should
be especially displayed. Currently, all nine other permanent
Federal holidays are listed in the Flag Code to remind
Americans to show respect for the people and events that have
shaped our nation. However, when Congress passed the
legislation creating the King holiday in 1983, it failed to
include additional language to the bill that would have amended
the Flag Code to include this new holiday on the list of days
on which the flag should be especially displayed. H.R. 576 is
simple, straightforward legislation that aims to correct the
oversight that left the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday
off the U.S. Flag Code's list of days on which Americans are
encouraged to display the American flag.
Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000
On July 19, 2000, Representative Ros-Lehtinen introduced
H.R. 4888. The bill was held at the full Committee. The
legislative history of H.R. 4888 is detailed in the full
Committee section in this report.
The Justice in Fair Housing Act
The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2437,
the ``Justice in Fair Housing Enforcement Act of 1999'' on
October 28, 1999. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Len
Tozer, Tozer Builders, Inc., Winterville, North Carolina,
William J. Malleris, President, Maple Court Development, Inc.,
Naperville, Illinois, Mark Ellis Tipton, Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, SMART HOUSE,
Inc. and past President of the National Association of Home
Builders, Brian D. Black, Director of Building Codes and
Standards, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, Buffalo, New
York, Paul E. Myers, Assistant Director of the City of
Cincinnati's Department of Buildings and Inspections,
Cincinnati, Ohio and President of the Building Officials and
Code Administrators International Inc., City of St. Bernard and
the Village of Evendale, Ohio, Kelly J. Buckland, Executive
Director, Idaho State Independent Living Council, Boise, Idaho,
and Theresa L. Kitay, partner, Coughlin & Kitay, P. Co.
Norcross, Georgia. No further action was taken on the measure.
H.R. 2437 would have provided relief from prosecution to
those in the buildingcommunity who may have committed building
design violations under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 at a
time when HUD failed to ensure that novel federal building code
requirements were reflected in local building codes on which builders
have traditionally relied and when HUD's interpretations of those legal
requirements were particularly unclear. H.R. 2437 would exempt from
prosecution under the Act only buildings that were designed for first
occupancy during the period beginning March 13, 1991--the date on which
the Act became effective--and ending on the date of H.R. 2437's
enactment; and that received a building permit or other similar
approval from the relevant State or local building authorities as
meeting the requirements of the applicable building code.
Traditionally, it has been the industry practice for
architects and builders to rely on local building code
authorities for assurances of legal compliance. Many local
jurisdictions had some housing accessibility requirements prior
to 1988, so many builders thought that if they received a local
building permit, the building was in compliance with
accessibility requirements. However, since the federal
accessibility requirements generally go beyond local
accessibility codes, buildings that meet local requirements do
not necessarily meet federal requirements. Currently, however,
architects and builders cannot rely on local building code
agencies to inform them of what accessibility designs are
required under federal law and there is no place for builders,
architects or others to go to get building plans approved for
compliance with these federal accessibility requirements. This
situation has created confusion and the involvement of many
architects, builders, developers, and rental housing owners in
costly prosecutions for fair housing accessibility violations.
The Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act
A legislative hearing on H.R. 4908, the ``Notice of
Electronic Monitoring Act,'' was held by the Subcommittee on
the Constitution on September 6, 2000. Witnesses testifying at
the hearing were Senator Charles Schumer; James Dempsey, Senior
Staff Counsel, The Center for Democracy and Technology; Gregory
Nojeim, Legislative Counsel, the American Civil Liberties
Union; Marc Rotenberg, Director, Electronic Privacy Information
Center; Lewis Maltby, President, National Workrights Institute;
Kenneth Segarnick, Assistant General Counsel, United Messaging;
and Michael Overly, Foley & Lardner. No further action was
taken on the measure.
Individuals and businesses are increasingly using computers
in various capacities to maximize productivity in the
workplace. Specifically, a majority of companies have
implemented electronic mail, or ``e-mail,'' systems to receive
and disseminate information throughout the company. Employer
monitoring of employee e-mail has raised concerns about privacy
in the workplace. An employer should have the right to conduct
business in a self-determined manner. Employees, on the other
hand, have an interest in some degree of privacy. H.R. 4908
provided that an employer who intentionally, by any electronic
means, reads, listens to, or otherwise monitors any wire, oral,
or electronic communication of an employee of the employer, or
otherwise monitors the computer usage of an employee of the
employer, without first having provided the employee notice
meeting certain requirements shall be liable to the employee
for relief. H.R. 4908 also provided that employers shall
provide annual notice to employees regarding its practices
regarding the monitoring of employee electronic communications,
and notice each time such monitoring practices are changed.
Such notice shall include notice of the form of communication
or computer usage that will be monitored; the means by which
such monitoring will be accomplished and the kinds of
information that will be obtained through such monitoring,
including whether communications or computer usage not related
to the employer's business are likely to be monitored; the
frequency of such monitoring; and how information obtained by
such monitoring will be stored, used, or disclosed. H.R. 4908
further provides that an employer may conduct electronic
monitoring without the notice if the employer has reasonable
grounds to believe that a particular employee of the employer
is engaged in conduct that violates the legal rights of the
employer or another person that involves significant harm to
the employer or such other person, and that the electronic
monitoring will produce evidence of such conduct. H.R. 4908
also provided that an employee subject to monitoring without
required notice may seek relief from a federal court, including
actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the
amount of $5,000; punitive damages; reasonable attorneys' fees
and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and such other
preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be
appropriate. The amount of monetary damages awarded an employee
may not exceed 20,000, and the aggregate amount of monetary
damages awarded against an employer for a given violation may
not exceed $500,000.
National Birmingham Pledge Week Resolution
On June 14, 2000, Representative Bachus submitted H.J. Res.
102, a resolution which recognizes that the Birmingham Pledge
is a significant contribution to fostering racial harmony;
commends those involved with the creation of the Pledge,
including Jim Rotch, who authored the Pledge, and those who
have signed it. It expresses the sense of the Congress that a
National Birmingham Pledge Week should be established. The
House passed the resolution on September 12, 2000 and the
Senate passed an amended version of H.J. Res. 102 on October
26, 2000. The House then passed H.J. Res. 102, as amended by
the Senate on October 30, 2000 and the resolution was signed
into law, Public Law 106-483, by the President on November 11,
2000.
National Motto for Religious People
On July 18, 2000, H. Res. 548, expressing the sense of
Congress regarding the national motto for the government of a
religious people, was referred to the Subcommittee on the
Constitution. On July 24, 2000, H. Res. 548 was considered by
the House under a suspension of the rules and agreed to by
voice vote.
Ohio State Motto
On May 9, 2000, H. Res. 494, expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that the Ohio State motto is
constitutional and urging the courts to uphold its
constitutionality, was referred to the Subcommittee on the
Constitution. On June 27, 2000, H. Res. 494 was considered by
the House under a suspension of the rules and agreed to by the
yeas and nays 333 to 27.
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999
On June 17, 1999, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
Henry J. Hyde, introduced the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act of
2000'' (H.R. 2260), a bill to amend the Controlled Substances
Act to promote pain management and palliative care without
permitting assisted suicide. The Subcommittee held a hearing on
June 24, 1999. The following witnesses testified: Samira
Beckwith, President and CEO, Hope Hospice; Ann Jackson,
Executive Director and CEO, Oregon Hospice Association; N.
Gregory Hamilton, M.D., Physicians for Compassionate Care;
David E. Joranson, M.S.S.W., Senior Scientist and Director of
The Pain and Policy Studies Group; Comprehensive Cancer Center,
The University of Wisconsin Medical Group; Richard Doerflinger,
Associate Director for Policy Development, Secretariat for Pro-
Life Activities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops;
Walter R. Hunter, M.D., Associate National Medical Director,
VistaCare Hospice; David Orentlicher, M.D.; J.D., Professor,
Indiana University School of Law--Indianapolis Center for Law
and Health; Thomas Marzen, General Counsel, The National Legal
Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc.
On July 7, 1999, H.R. 2260 was referred to the Commerce
Committee. On October 13, 1999, the Commerce Full Committee
favorably reported the bill, as amended by voice vote. (H.
Rept. 106-378, Part II).
On July 7, 1999, H.R. 2260 was also referred to the
Judiciary Committee. On July 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on the
Constitution ordered favorably reported to the full Committee
the bill H.R. 2260 by voice vote. On September 14, 1999, the
full Committee ordered favorably reported the bill as amended
to the House by a vote of 16-8. (H. Rept. 106-378, Part I). On
October 21, 1999, the Committee on Rules granted a modified
open rule (H. Res. 339) providing for the consideration of H.R.
2260. On October 27, 1999, Rule H. Res. 339 passed the House
and H.R. 2260 was considered under the provisions of Rule H.
Res. 339.
H.R. 2260 passed the House on October 27, 1999, by a vote
of 271-156. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably
H.R. 2260 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. On
October 25, 2000, Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 5544, the Pain
Relief Promotion Act of 2000, which was the text of the Senate
amended version of H.R. 2260. H.R. 5544 was included as one of
the provisions of H.R. 2614, the ``Certified Development
Company Program Improvements Act of 2000''. The House passed
H.R. 2614 on October 26, 2000. On October 26, 2000 the Senate
passed a motion to proceed to consider the conference report to
accompany H.R. 2614 by a vote of 55-40. No further action was
taken on the measure.
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
On February 15, 1999, Representative Canady introduced H.R.
3660. The bill was held at full Committee. The legislative
history of H.R. 3660 and S. 1692 are detailed in the full
Committee section in this report.
The Property Rights Implementation Act
On June 29, 1999, the Chairman of the Constitution
Subcommittee, Charles T. Canady, introduced H.R. 2372, the
``Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999.'' H.R.
2372 would clarify and simplify the procedures by which
property owners may vindicate their Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights in federal court.
The ``Takings Clause'' protects private property owners
from the devaluation of their property caused by excessive
regulation, makes government run more efficiently by requiring
it to internalize the costs of its more burdensome regulations,
and spreads the costs of regulation fairly over its taxpaying
citizenry. In recent years, the manner in which federal courts
have developed the rules by which they decide whether a case is
properly ``teed up'' for a hearing on the merits--the so called
``ripeness doctrine''--has led to the erection of cost
prohibitive and excessively time consuming procedural hurdles
for takings plaintiffs seeking to bring claims to enforce their
federal Fifth Amendment rights against local governments. These
``prudential'' procedural rules, formulated ad hoc and
independent of any grounding in the text of the Constitution,
have failed to clarify when a local government has reached
``final decision'' on the use of private property. Local
governments have taken advantage of this ambiguity by denying
takings plaintiffs a definitive answer, a ``final decision,''
as to precisely how they can use their property if their
initial application for property use is denied. Takings
plaintiffs are then left in a perpetual holding pattern in
which they cannot land in federal court.
H.R. 2372 was designed to address this systematic
suppression of individuals' defenses to property rights
violations by clarifying and simplifying the procedures
governing federal property rights claims in federal court. In
particular, H.R. 2372 clarifies when a ``final decision'' has
been made by a local government regarding the permissible use
of private property. H.R. 2372 also removes the requirement
that property owners litigate the federal takings claims in
state court first and prevents federal judges from abstaining
in cases that involve only federal takings claims, over which
they have always been the ultimate arbiters.
The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on the bill on
September 15, 1999. Witnesses testifying were Richard Reahard,
Bonita Springs, Florida, Dick Goodwin, Goodwin Enterprises,
Joseph Barbieri, Deputy Attorney General of California, Diane
S. Shea, Associate Legislative Director, National Association
of Counties and National League of Cities, and Daniel R.
Mandelker, Howard A. Stamper Professor of Law, Washington
University.
On February 2, 2000, the Subcommittee ordered favorably
reported to the full Committee the bill H.R. 2372 as amended by
a voice vote. On March 9, 2000, the full Committee ordered
favorably reported (H. Rept. 106-518, filed March 13, 2000) the
bill as amended to the full House by the yeas and nays 14 to 7.
On March 15, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary filed a
report, House Report 106-518. On March 15, 2000, the Committee
on Rules granted a modified closed rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 2372. H.R. 2372 passed the House by a
vote of 226 yeas and 182 nays on March 16, 2000.
Religious Liberty Protection Act
On May 5, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Charles T. Canady
introduced the ``Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999''
(H.R. 1691), a bill that would protect religious activities and
practices from being substantially burdened by government
action. H.R. 1691 was introduced, inpart, in response to the
Supreme Court's partial invalidation of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA), which itself was enacted in 1993 in response to
an earlier Court decision.
RFRA was a response to the Supreme Court's decision in
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), holding that
the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of
religion did not extend to religious exercise that is burdened
by a neutral law of general applicability. RFRA restored legal
protection for religious exercise in such situations by
requiring religious freedom claims to be analyzed under the
strict scrutiny standard, evaluating whether the offending law
is the ``least restrictive'' means of furthering a
``compelling'' governmental interest. In 1997, the Supreme
Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997),
invalidated RFRA as applied to infringement of religious
freedom by state and local governments.
The Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998, H.R. 1691's
predecessor, was introduced in the 105th Congress in response
to the Boerne decision. The Subcommittee on the Constitution
held five hearings in the 105th Congress on the need for
federal protection of religious freedom after the Boerne
decision and on the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998.
The hearings examined specific cases of generally applicable
laws and government actions that substantially burden the free
exercise of religion, patterns of religious discrimination by
less-than-generally-applicable laws in the area of land use and
zoning, and the constitutionality and effect of the Religious
Liberty Protection Act of 1998. The Subcommittee reported the
bill favorably with certain amendments and no further action
was taken on the bill.
In the 106th Congress the Committee's Subcommittee on the
Constitution held one day of hearings on H.R. 1691 on May 12,
1999. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: Dr.
Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Prof. Lawrence
G. Sager, Robert B. McKay Professor of Law, New York University
School of Law; Von Keetch, Counsel, The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints; J. Brent Walker, General Counsel, Baptist
Joint Committee on Public Affairs; Dr. Clarence E. Hodges, Vice
President, Seventh-day Adventist Church of North America;
Christopher E. Anders, Legislative Counsel, American Civil
Liberties Union; Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel,
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Prof. Chai Feldblum,
Professor of Law and Director, Federal Legislation Clinic,
Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Douglas Laycock,
Associate Dean of Research, University of Texas Law School;
Oliver S. Thomas, Special Counsel for Religious and Civil
Liberties, National Council of Churches; Reverend C. J. Malloy,
Jr., First Baptist Church of Georgetown; Bradley Jacobs for
Michael P. Farris, President, Home School Legal Defense
Association; Prof. Marci A. Hamilton, Professor of Law,
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Steven T. McFarland,
Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal
Society.
On May, 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill, H.R.
1691, as amended, by a voice vote. On June 15 and 23, 1999, the
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported
the bill, H.R. 1691, with an amendment, by voice vote. On July
15, 1999, H.R. 1691 passed the House by a vote of 306 to 118. A
similar bill was introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch in the
Senate on February 23, 2000 (S. 2081), but no further action
was taken on the measure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000'' (H.R. 4862/S. 2869) for further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
On July 13, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Charles T. Canady
introduced the ``Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000'' (H.R. 4862), a bill that would provide
needed protection for religious liberty in two critical areas.
First, H.R. 4862 would protect houses of worship and other
religious assemblies and institutions from improper
interference by land use authorities. In the recent past,
zoning authorities have used their power to restrict churches'
times of operation and the number of persons who may attend
worship services, and zoning policies have effectively excluded
minority faiths from certain jurisdictions and shut down the
community ministries of houses of worship. H.R. 4862 would
afford houses of worship the level of protection they ought to
receive in a society that values religious liberty. It would
require that in order for any land use regulation to
substantially burden religious exercise, the locality must show
that the regulation serves a compelling state interest by the
least restrictive means. It would also prohibit various forms
of religious discrimination and exclusion in land use matters.
The second area addressed by H.R. 4862 is the religious liberty
afforded to institutionalized persons, such as those confined
in homes for the disabled and chronically ill as well as those
confined in correctional facilities. H.R. 4862 provides that
the government may not impose a substantial burden on the
religious exercise of an institutionalized person unless that
burden is justified by a compelling interest that is furthered
by the least restrictive means.
An identical bill was introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch in
the Senate on July 13, 2000 (S. 2869), and that legislation
passed without amendment in the Senate by unanimous consent on
July 27, 2000. S. 2869 also passed in the House by unanimous
consent on July 27, 2000, and was signed into law as Public Law
106-274 by the President on September 22, 2000.
Settlement of Discrimination Claims Against Department of Agriculture
On March 30, 2000, Representative Jay Dickey introduced H.
Con. Res. 296, expressing the sense of the Congress regarding
the necessity to expedite the settlement process for
discrimination claims against the Department of Agriculture
brought by African-American farmers. H. Con. Res. 296 was
referred to the Subcommittee on April 7, 2000 and was
discharged by the Subcommittee on May 8, 2000. The resolution
was taken up by the House under suspension of the rules on May
8, 2000. On motion to suspend the rules and to agree to the
resolution, H. Con. Res. 296 failed to pass by a vote of 216-
180 (two-thirds vote required).
Tax Limitation Amendments
On March 11, 1999, Representative Joe Barton introduced
H.J. Res. 37, ``Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States with respect to tax limitations,'' which was
referred to the Subcommittee on March 29, 1999. On April 15,
1999, H.J. Res. 37 was considered by the House but failed
passage by a vote of 229-199 (two-thirds vote required).
On April 6, 1999, Representative Pete Sessions introduced a
related joint resolution, H.J. Res. 94, ``Proposing an
amendment to the Constitutioin of the United States with
respect to tax limitation,'' which was referred to the
Subcommittee on April 7, 1999. On April 12, 1999, H.J. Res. 94
was considered by the House but failed passage by a vote of
234-192 (two-thirds vote required).
Unborn Victims of Violence
On July 1, 1999, Representative Lindsey O. Graham
introduced the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999'' (H.R.
2436), a bill that would hold violent criminals liable for the
harm inflicted upon unborn children during the commission of
certain already defined Federal crimes committed against the
unborn child's mother. The bill would make it a separate
offense to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission
of one of the predicate Federal crimes. The Committee's
Subcommittee on the Constitution held one day of hearings on
H.R. 2436 on July 21, 1999. Testimony was received from the
following witnesses: Michael Lenz, Choctaw, Oklahoma; Lt.
Colonel Keith Roberts, Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division,
Air Force Legal Services Agency, Bolling Air Force Base,
Washington, D.C.; Pamela B. Stuart, Attorney; Ronald H. Weich,
Attorney, Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor & Kolker; Terry
M. Dempsey, Judge, District Court, 5th Judicial District, St.
James, Minnesota; Prof. Hadley Arkes, Edward Ney Professor of
Jurisprudence and American Institutions, Amherst College; Juley
Anna Fulcher, Public Policy Director, National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence; Prof. Peter N. Rubin, Visiting
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof.
Gerard V. Bradley, Professor, Notre Dame Law School.
On August 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R.
2436, with an amendment, by a vote of 5 to 2. On September 14,
1999, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably
reported the bill H.R. 2436, with an amendment, by a recorded
vote of 14 to 11. H.R. 2436 passed the House on September 30,
1999, with an amendment, by a vote of 254 to 172. On February
23, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on an
identical bill (S . 1673, introduced by Senator Michael DeWine
on September 30, 1999), but no further action was taken on the
measure.
Victims' Rights Amendment
On August 4, 1999, Representative Steve Chabot introduced
H.J. Res. 64, ``Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States to protect the rights of crime victims.''
H.J. Res. 64, which seeks to bestow certain rights on ``[e]ach
individual who is a victim of a crime for which the defendant
can be imprisoned for a period longer than one year or any
other crime that involves violence,'' was referred to the
Subcommittee on September 24, 1999.
On February 10, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.J. Res. 64. Testimony wasreceived from the following
witnesses: Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Dianne Feinstein; Representative
Steve Chabot; Representative James A. Barcia, Representative Robert C.
Scott; Andrea Rehkamp, Executive Director and Co-founder, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, Southwestern Ohio Chapter; Christine Long,
Member of the Board of Directors and Chairperson of Victims' Rights
Committee, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc., Emmett E. (Bud)
Welch, Member, Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, Marlene A.
Young, Executive Director, National Organization for Victim Assistance;
The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, Member of the Committee on Criminal Law and
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislation, Judicial Conference of the
United States; Steven J. Twist, Member of the Steering Committee,
National Victims' Constitutional Amendment Network, and former Chief
Assistant Attorney General, State of Arizona; Bruce Fein, Former
Associate Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice;
Robert P. Mosteller, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law,
Doug Beloof, Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis &
Clark College. No further action was taken on the measure.
Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act
On July 1, 1999, Representative Rick Lazio introduced H.R.
2442, the ``Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil
Liberties Act,'' which was referred to the Subcommittee on
September 24, 1999. The Wartime Violation of Italian American
Civil Liberties Act is designed to provide for the preparation
of a government report detailing injustices suffered by Italian
Americans during World War II. On October 26, 1999, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2442. Testimony was
received from the following witnesses: Representative Rick
Lazio; Representative Eliot Engel; Rose Viscuso Scudero; Doris
L. Pinza; Colonel Angelo de Guttadauro (Ret.); Dominic
DiMaggio; Lawrence Di Stasi, President, American Italian
Historical Association, Western Regional Chapter, and Project
Director, ``Una Storia Segreta: When Italian Americans Were
`Enemy Aliens' ''; Anthony E. La Pianta, National Italian
American Council; Matthew Di Domenico, Sr., Executive Vice
President, National Italian American Foundation; and Dr. Philip
Piccigallo, National Executive Director, Order Sons of Italy in
America.
H.R. 2442 was taken up by the House under suspension of the
rules on November 10, 1999. The House agreed to the measure
under a suspension of the rules by voice vote.
On September 28, 2000, the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary ordered H.R. 2442 to be reported with amendments
favorably. H.R. 2442 passed the Senate with amendments by
unanimous consent on October 19, 2000.
On October 24, 2000, the House suspended the rules and
passed H.R. 2442 with the Senate amendments by voice vote. H.R.
2442 was signed into law as Public Law 106-451 by the President
on November 7, 2000.
oversight activities
The Application of the ADA to Internet Sites
The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on ``The
Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Private
Internet Sites'' on February 9, 2000. Witnesses testifying at
the hearing were Dennis Hayes, Chairman, U.S. Internet Industry
Association, Gary Wunder, Programer Analyst-Expert, ITS--Hosp
Business Apps, The University of Missouri, Dr. Steven Lucas,
CIO and Sr. Vice President, Privaseek, Inc., Judy Brewer,
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International
Program Office, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Susyn Conway,
Reston, Virginia, Elizabeth K. Dorminey, Wimberly, Lawson,
Steckel, Nelson & Schneider, P.C., Peter D. Blanck, Professor
of Law, The University of Iowa College of Law, Walter Olsen,
Wilton, Connecticut, and Charles J. Cooper, Cooper, Carvin &
Rosenthal.
The Federal government is scheduled to promulgate
handicapped accessibility requirements that will apply to
Federal department and agency Internet sites. These Federal
Standards will likely be used as a model for Internet
accessibility requirements by litigants suing private providers
of Internet web sites and services under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (``ADA''). It is the opinion of the Department
of Justice that the ADA's accessibility requirements do apply
to private Internet web sites and services, and, on November 2,
1999, the National Federation for the Blind filed a class
action lawsuit against America Online--which currently serves
approximately 20 million member customers--claiming the ADA's
accessibility requirements apply to AOL's Internet services and
that the manner in which such services are currently provided
violates the ADA.
These developments raise issues related to the new
significance of the Internet economy to recent economic growth,
the costs that application of the ADA would impose on that
rapidly expanding segment of the economy, and the substantial
First Amendment implications of applying the ADA to private
Internet web sites and services.
Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice
On October 14, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing of the Civil Rights Division of the United States
Department of Justice regarding charter schools. Testimony was
received from the following witnesses: Andy Kopplin, Special
Assistant and Director of Policy, Office of the Governor of
Louisiana; Larry D. Galloway, Parent and Community Activist;
Victor C. Kirk, President, Victor C. Kirk, Inc.; Clint Bolick,
Vice President and Director of Litigation, Institute for
Justice; Dr. Donna Elam, Associate Director; Southeastern
Equity Center; Rolfe McCollister, Jr., Board of Directors,
Children's Charter School; Anita Hodgkiss, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of
Justice.
On July 12, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing of the Civil Rights Division regarding a range of
issues, including (1) recent developments in the United States
v. City of Torrance, California and United States v. City of
Garland, Texas employment discrimination cases, (2) the
Division's handling of charter schools, (3) the status of the
Division's school desegregation cases, (4) the Division's
handling of its lawsuit against the Adam's Mark hotel chain,
and (5) reports on the Division recently issued by the
GeneralAccounting Office. Testimony was received from Acting Assistant
Attorney General Bill Lann Lee.
Constitutional Rights and the Grand Jury
On July 27, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on constitutional rights and the grand jury. Testimony
was received from the following witnesses: James K. Robinson,
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department
of Justice; Loretta Lynch, United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of New York, U.S. Department of Justice; Sara
Sun Beale, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law;
Peter J. Henning, Associate Professor of Law and Director of
Graduate Studies, Wayne State University Law School; Andrew D.
Leipold, Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of
Law.
The First Amendment and Restrictions on Political Speech
On May 5, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing
on ``The First Amendment and Restrictions on Political
Speech.'' This hearing focused on the apparent conflict between
various recent ``campaign finance reform'' proposals and the
freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. Witnesses
testifying were: David M. Mason, Commissioner, Federal Election
Commission; Laura W. Murphy, Director, American Civil Liberties
Union, Washington D.C.; Prof. Richard Briffault, Vice Dean and
Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law
School; Roger Pilon, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional
Studies, Cato Institute; Glenn J. Moramarco, Senior Attorney,
Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law;
Joseph Remcho, Attorney, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell; John C.
Bonifaz, Executive Director, National Voting Rights Institute;
James Bopp, Jr., Attorney, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom.
The Internet and the Fourth Amendment and the FBI's ``Carnivore''
Program
The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on ``Fourth
Amendment Issues Raised by the FBI's `Carnivore' Program'' on
July 24, 2000. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Dr.
Donald M. Kerr, Director, Lab Division, Federal Bureau of
Investigation; Larry R. Parkinson, General Counsel, Federal
Bureau of Investigation; Kevin V. Di Gregory, Deputy Associate
Attorney General, Department of Justice; David Green, Deputy
Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section,
Department of Justice; Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director,
American Civil Liberties Union; Alan Davidson, Staff Counsel,
The Center for Democracy and Technology; Robert Corn-Revere,
Attorney, Hogan & Hartson; Matt Blaze, Research Scientist, AT&T
Labs; Stewart Baker, Attorney, Steptoe & Johnson; Peter William
Sachs, ICONN, L.L.C.; Tom Perrine, Principal Investigator,
Pacific Institute for Computer Security.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's program, named
``Carnivore,'' is an electronic surveillance tool used to
extract data, subject to a court order, from packet-switched
networks. Such data may include transactional information, e-
mail messages, and other information traveling over the
Internet.
The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on ``The Fourth
Amendment and the Internet'' on April 6, 2000. Witnesses
testifying at the hearing were James X. Dempsey, Senior Staff
Counsel, The Center for Democracy and Technology; Gregory
Nojeim, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington National Office; Kevin V. Di Gregory, Deputy
Associate Attorney General, Department of Justice; David Green,
Deputy Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section,
Department of Justice; Stewart Baker, Steptoe & Johnson;
Frederick Juergens Baker, Chair, Internet Engineering Task
Force; Clifford S. Fishman, Professor of Law, Columbus School
of Law, The Catholic University of America; Robert Corn-Revere,
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.; Jeff B. Richards, Executive Director,
Internet Alliance; Nicole Wong, Perkins Coie, San Francisco;
and Jeffrey Rosen, Associate Professor of Law, The George
Washington University Law School.
The development of the Internet as a networked global
communications medium, the expansion in the range of
transactions that occur ``on-line,'' and the amount of
information now stored with third party ``Internet service
providers'' have produced a qualitative change in the nature of
communications and, accordingly, in the nature and amount of
information that may be obtained by the government. In light of
these recent developments, many have asked whether existing
statutes protecting citizens from ``unreasonable searches and
seizures'' under the Fourth Amendment appropriately balance the
concerns of law enforcement with individuals' concerns that a
sufficient degree of privacy and the integrity of personal
information are maintained in an age of modern communications
and information storage.
Telecommunications Policy and Property Rights
The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on ``Private
Property Rights and Telecommunications Policy'' on March 21,
2000. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Steven R.
Rosenthal, Partner, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, Viet D. Dinh,
Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown Law Center, Steven J.
Eagle, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law,
Brent W. Bitz, Executive Vice President of Management Services,
Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty, Timothy R. Graham,
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Winstar
Communications, Inc., John Haring, Principal, Strategic Policy
Research, Inc., and John B. Hayes, Principal, Charles River
Associates, Inc.
In order to make telecommunications services, such as
wireless communications services, more widely available, the
Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') has considered
issuing a rule that would require building owners to provide
access to their properties to telecommunications service
providers under rates, terms, and conditions ``comparable'' to
those they have provided in the past to other
telecommunications providers, such as phone and cable
companies.
The proposals contained in the FCC's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking dated July 7, 1999, would have required real
property owners to acquiesce to the physical presence of
uninvited telecommunications service providers on their private
property in furthering of a public policy promoting the
availability of telecommunications services, the proposals, if
adopted in a final rule, would implicate the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, which requires the government
to pay ``just compensation'' to property owners when it has
``taken'' their property by committing it to a public use. On
October 12, the FCC issued a ruling that did not impose
requirements on property owners, but it left open the
possibility that it may do so in the future.