[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10655-S10659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1070. A bill to amend chapter 30 of title 35, United States Code, 
to afford third parties an opportunity for greater participation in 
reexamination proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the patent reexamination reform act of 1995

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Patent 
Reexamination Reform Act of 1995. This legislation will significantly 
improve the patent reexamination process, making it an inexpensive and 
expeditious alternative to patent validity litigation. More 
importantly, this legislation will not unreasonably increase the cost, 
complexity, or duration of a reexamination proceeding, nor will it 
impose an unreasonable burden on the Patent and Trademark Office, who 
must ultimately process and reexamine the patents. Individual inventors 
and small businesses alike will benefit from this legislation because 
costly and time consuming litigation can now be avoided through the use 
of a more fair reexamination process.
  There are five key elements of this proposed legislation. First, the 
legislation would simplify and shorten procedures governing initiation 
or reexamination proceedings. Second, the legislation would 
significantly increase the opportunity for a third party requester to 
meaningfully participate in a reexamination proceeding. Third, it would 
broaden the basis and scope of reexamination proceedings before the 
Patent and Trademark Office. Fourth, it would prevent the multiple 
requests for patent reexamination. Finally, it would provide a third 
party requester a right to appeal any decisions of the Patent and 
Trademark Office to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  The patent reexamination process was originally designed to provide a 
low-cost administrative procedure to 

[[Page S 10656]]
quickly resolve questions regarding the validity of a patent. 
Unfortunately, patent reexamination has become an unattractive vehicle 
for patent dispute resolution because of the strict limits imposed on 
third parties who seek reexamination. Many critics of our system argue 
the existing reexamination process offers only an illusory remedy for 
inventors because of the limits imposed on these third parties and 
similarly, the issues that can be considered in reexamination. Many 
third parties believe that requesting a reexamination actually impairs 
their later efforts to challenge a patent, preferring to take their 
cases directly to the courts.
  The legislation I am introducing today will permit and encourage the 
meaningful participation by a third party in the reexamination process. 
In turn, this will make the reexamination system an attractive and 
cost-effective alternative to expensive patent litigation. Likewise, it 
will bring more fairness to the reexamination process by allowing a 
third party requestor the right to appeal any decision by the Patent 
and Trademark Office to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
However, to prevent a third party from unreasonably delaying the 
issuance of a patent by relitigating the same issues following the 
reexamination process, this bill prohibits a third party from 
relitigating patent validity concerns that were addressed, or from 
litigating issues that could have been addressed in the reexamination 
proceeding.
  The legislation also expands the grounds for initiating and 
conducting a reexamination hearing. Current reexamination proceedings 
are limited to consideration of patent invalidity in view of existing 
patents and printed publications. This bill would give the Patent and 
Trademark Office greater authority to consider compliance of a patent 
with the existing disclosure and claim requirements.
  There is widespread support in the patent community for this 
legislation and for our efforts to make patent reexamination a more 
efficient process. Many patent groups have voiced their support for the 
changes provided by this legislation. Those supporters of these reforms 
include: the American Intellectual Property Law Association [AIPLA], 
the Intellectual Property Owners [IPO], the National Association of 
Manufacturers [NAM], the Business Software Alliance, and the Software 
Publishers Association. There is also strong industry and bar support 
for these proposed changes.
  Mr. President, my proposed legislation will benefit all patent 
owners, offering them an inexpensive alternative to lengthy and costly 
litigation. It will encourage fuller participation in the reexamination 
process by a third party. I urge my colleagues to support the Patent 
Reexamination Reform Act of 1995. I ask unanimous consent that the full 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1070

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Patent Reexamination Reform 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 100 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) The term `third-party requester' means a person 
     requesting reexamination under section 302 of this title who 
     is not the patent owner.''.

     SEC. 3. REEXAMINATION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Request for Reexamination.--Section 302 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 302. Request for reexamination

       ``Any person at any time may file a request for 
     reexamination by the Office of a patent on the basis of any 
     prior art cited under the provisions of section 301 of this 
     title or on the basis of the requirements of section 112 of 
     this title except for the best mode requirement. The request 
     must be in writing and must be accompanied by payment of a 
     reexamination fee established by the Commissioner of Patents 
     and Trademarks pursuant to the provisions of section 41 of 
     this title. The request must set forth the pertinency and 
     manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which 
     reexamination is requested or the manner in which the patent 
     specification or claims fail to comply with the requirements 
     of section 112 of this title. Unless the requesting person is 
     the owner of the patent, the Commissioner promptly will send 
     a copy of the request to the owner of record of the 
     patent.''.
       (b) Determination of Issue by Commissioner.--Section 303 of 
     title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 303. Determination of issue by Commissioner

       ``(a) Within 3 months following the filing of a request for 
     reexamination under the provisions of section 302 of this 
     title, the Commissioner shall determine whether a substantial 
     new question of patentability affecting any claim of the 
     patent concerned is raised by the request, with or without 
     consideration of other patents or printed publications. On 
     his own initiative, and any time, the Commissioner may 
     determine whether a substantial new question of patentability 
     is raised by patents and publications or by the failure of 
     the patent specification or claims to comply with the 
     requirements of section 112 of this title except for the best 
     mode requirement.
       ``(b) A record of the Commissioner's determination under 
     subsection (a) of this section will be placed in the official 
     file of the patent, and a copy promptly will be given or 
     mailed to the owner of record of the patent and to the third-
     party requester, if any.
       ``(c) A determination by the Commissioner pursuant to 
     subsection (a) of this section will be final and 
     nonappealable. Upon a determination that no substantial new 
     question of patentability has been raised, the Commissioner 
     may refund a portion of the reexamination fee required under 
     section 302 of this title.''.
       (c) Reexamination Order by Commissioner.--Section 304 of 
     title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 304. Reexamination order by Commissioner

       ``If, in a determination made under the provisions of 
     section 303(a) of this title, the Commissioner finds that a 
     substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim 
     of a patent is raised, the determination will include an 
     order for reexamination of the patent for resolution of the 
     question. The order may be accompanied by the initial Office 
     action on the merits of the reexamination conducted in 
     accordance with section 305 of this title.''.
       (d) Conduct of Reexamination Proceedings.--Section 305 of 
     title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 305. Conduct of reexamination proceedings

       ``(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, 
     reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures 
     established for initial examination under the provisions of 
     sections 132 and 133 of this title. In any reexamination 
     proceeding under this chapter, the patent owner will be 
     permitted to propose any amendment to the patent and a new 
     claim or claims thereto. No proposed amended or new claim 
     enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent will be 
     permitted in a reexamination proceeding under this chapter.
       ``(b)(1) This subsection shall apply to any reexamination 
     proceeding in which the order for reexamination is based upon 
     a request by a third-party requester.
       ``(2) With the exception of the reexamination request, any 
     document filed by either the patent owner or the third-party 
     requester shall be served on the other party.
       ``(3) If the patent owner files a response to any Office 
     action on the merits, the third-party requester may once file 
     written comments within a reasonable period not less than 1 
     month from the date of service of the patent owner's 
     response. Written comments provided under this paragraph 
     shall be limited to issues covered by the Office action or 
     the patent owner's response.
       ``(c) Unless otherwise provided by the Commissioner for 
     good cause, all reexamination proceedings under this section, 
     including any appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and 
     Interferences, will be conducted with special dispatch within 
     the Office.''.
       (e) Appeal.--Section 306 of title 35, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:
     ``Sec. 306. Appeal

       ``(a) The patent owner involved in a reexamination 
     proceeding under this chapter may--
       ``(1) appeal under the provisions of section 134 of this 
     title, and may appeal under the provisions of sections 141 to 
     144 of this title, with respect to any decision adverse to 
     the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new 
     claim of the patent, or
       ``(2) be a party to any appeal taken by a third-party 
     requester pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
       ``(b) A third-party requester may--
       ``(1) appeal under the provisions of section 134 of this 
     title, and may appeal under the provisions of sections 141 to 
     144 of this title, with respect to any final decision 
     favorable to the patentability of any original or proposed 
     amended or new claim of the patent, or
       ``(2) be a party to any appeal taken by the patent owner, 
     subject to subsection (c) of this section.
       ``(c) A third-party requester who, under the provisions of 
     sections 141 to 144 of this title, files a notice of appeal 
     or who participates as a party to an appeal by the patent 
     owner is estopped from later asserting, in any forum, the 
     invalidity of any claim determined to be patentable on appeal 
     on any ground which the third-party requester raised or could 
     have raised during the reexamination proceedings. A third-
     party requester is deemed not to have participated as a party 
     to an appeal by the patent owner unless, within 20 days after 
     the patent owner has filed notice 

[[Page S 10657]]
     of appeal, the third-party requester files notice with the Commissioner 
     electing to participate.''.
       (f) Reexamination Prohibited.--(1) Chapter 30 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding the following 
     section at the end thereof:

     ``Sec. 308. Reexamination prohibited

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, once 
     an order for reexamination of a patent has been issued under 
     section 304 of this title, neither the patent owner nor the 
     third-party requester, if any, nor privies of either, may 
     file a subsequent request for reexamination of the patent 
     until a reexamination certificate is issued and published 
     under section 307 of this title, unless authorized by the 
     Commissioner.
       ``(b) Once a final decision has been entered against a 
     party in a civil action arising in whole or in part under 
     section 1338 of title 28 that the party has not sustained its 
     burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim in suit, 
     then neither that party nor its privies may thereafter 
     request reexamination of any such patent claim on the basis 
     of issues which that party or its privies raised or could 
     have raised in such civil action, and a reexamination 
     requested by that party or its privies on the basis of such 
     issues may not thereafter be maintained by the Office, 
     notwithstanding any provision of this chapter.''.
       (2) The table of sections for chapter 30 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding the following at the 
     end thereof:
``308. Reexamination prohibited.''.

     SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.--The first 
     sentence of section 7(b) of title 35, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows: ``The Board of Patent Appeals and 
     Interferences shall, on written appeal of an applicant, or a 
     patent owner or a third-party requester in a reexamination 
     proceeding, review adverse decisions of examiners upon 
     applications for patents and decisions of examiners in 
     reexamination proceedings, and shall determine priority and 
     patentability of invention in interferences declared under 
     section 135(a) of this title.''.
       (b) Patent Fees; Patent and Trademark Search Systems.--
     Section 41(a)(7) of title 35, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(7) On filing each petition for the revival of an 
     unintentionally abandoned application for a patent, for the 
     unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing each 
     patent, or for an unintentionally delayed response by the 
     patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, $1,210 unless the 
     petition is filed under sections 133 or 151 of this title, in 
     which case the fee shall be $110.''.
       (c) Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and 
     Interferences.--Section 134 of title 35, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 134. Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and 
       Interferences

       ``(a) An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has 
     been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the 
     primary examiner to the Board of Patent Appeals and 
     Interferences, having once paid the fee for such appeal.
       ``(b) A patent owner in a reexamination proceeding may 
     appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary 
     examiner to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, 
     having once paid the fee for such appeal.
       ``(c) A third-party requester may appeal to the Board of 
     Patent Appeals and Interferences from the final decision of 
     the primary examiner favorable to the patentability of any 
     original or proposed amended or new claim of a patent, having 
     once paid the fee for such appeal.''.
       (d) Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.--
     Section 141 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
     amending the first sentence to read as follows: ``An 
     applicant, a patent owner, or a third-party requester, 
     dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the 
     Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences under section 134 
     of this title, may appeal the decision to the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.''.
       (e) Proceedings on Appeal.--Section 143 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended by amending the third sentence to 
     read as follows: ``In ex parte and reexamination cases, the 
     Commissioner shall submit to the court in writing the grounds 
     for the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office, 
     addressing all the issues involved in the appeal.''.
       (f) Civil Action To Obtain Patent.--Section 145 of title 
     35, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by 
     inserting ``(a)'' after ``section 134''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply 
     to all reexamination requests filed on or after that 
     effective date.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 1071. A bill to eliminate the National Foundation on the Arts and 
the Humanities, to establish a National Endowment for Arts, Humanities, 
and Museum Services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources.


            the national endowment restructuring act of 1995

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill that Senator Robert Bennett 
and I are introducing today redefines the Federal role in providing 
assistance to the arts.
  We believe there is an excellent case to be made for continued 
Federal arts and humanities funding. But past experience has shown 
clearly that the role of the Federal Government in artistic endeavor 
must be focused on more citizen involvement--and more common sense.
  At the heart of this bill we have introduced is a belief that culture 
counts. Mr. President, the students on Tianamen Square in 1989 who 
created a statue of freedom in the likeness of our Statue of Liberty 
had no difficulty identifying the unifying themes of American culture.
  We Americans, on the other hand, are immersed in--and sometimes 
overexposed to--its more contentious aspects. As a result, we sometimes 
see it less clearly. We debate whether we have a common culture and if 
so, what it is and who it represents.
  Federal support for the arts is a case in point. Most federally 
supported arts projects promote mainstream excellence and the widest 
possible public enjoyment.
  But by allocating tax dollars to a few outrageous and patently 
offensive projects that claimed to have cornered the market on American 
culture, the National Endowment for the Arts has managed to alienate 
legions of Americans--voters and policymakers alike. Its excesses have 
led many to conclude that Federal support for the arts should be 
terminated. That, I believe, would be an unfortunate policy, one that 
would dim the light of American culture to an even greater degree.
  Committed as I am to a balanced Federal budget, I think that Federal 
funding for the arts and humanities should be continued as a national 
policy to preserve an American heritage--if we can return to our 
original purpose in creating these programs, and if we can ensure that 
no more Federal funds end up in the hands of those who are willfully 
offensive.
  Our bill redirects Federal support for the arts, humanities and 
museum activities away from the self-indulgently obscene and the safely 
mediocre and toward the creation and support of community-based 
programs. By this I mean locally and regionally based theater, dance, 
opera, and museums.
  To accomplish this we propose combining the National Endowment for 
the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute 
of Museum Services into one agency. This new joint endowment would 
devolve as much of its decisionmaking authority as possible to the 
States--and to the people whose tax dollars support it.
  The new endowment would continue to make direct grants to support 
nationally significant endeavors in the arts and humanities. However, 
the bulk of public resources would go directly to the States to promote 
greater access to the arts in our schools and communities, to continue 
worthy public projects in the humanities, and to strengthen local 
museums.
  The consolidation we propose would streamline the existing endowment 
apparatus. This new endowment would be headed by three deputy 
directors--one each for the arts, for the humanities and for museum 
services. The current 52-member advisory board would be replaced by a 
national council comprised of 18 members selected for their knowledge 
and achievements.
  One of the primary objectives of this bill is to reduce the size of 
the existing endowment bureaucracy in Washington, and to return 
resources and decisionmaking responsibilities to cities, regional 
groups, and currently underserved areas.
  Our bill provides that no more than 9 percent of appropriated funds 
go to administrative functions, and it defines two basic grant 
categories: 40 percent earmarked for grants of national significance 
and 60 percent allocated for grants to the States. A portion of the 
States' grants would be dedicated to strengthening primary and 
secondary education in the arts, humanities, and museum activities. We 
put special emphasis on communities which, for geographic or economic 
reasons, cannot otherwise sustain arts education programs.

[[Page S 10658]]

  Let me make this very clear: Our bill prohibits any money 
appropriated under this act from being used to fund projects which 
violate standards of common decency. Nor may any of these resources be 
used, directly or indirectly, for lobbying.
  In our bill, we focus on accountability, on ensuring that allocations 
are cost-effective--and that they are made in a way that emphasizes 
merit and excellence.
  The thrust of this bill is to conserve and showcase our State and 
National treasures, those great cultural institutions that are our 
legacy to our children--our world class museums, libraries, dance 
companies, orchestras, theater companies, and university presses. With 
the financial support of private donors, and of the States and the 
Federal Government, these intellectual and cultural power centers will 
have the potential to spin off a host of other creative activities that 
will enrich the lives of all of our people.
  Our country will benefit, culturally, spiritually and economically, 
from appropriately delineated Federal support for the arts. Americans 
rightly demand an end to obscenity and outrage, but not withdrawal of 
all Government support for the cream of our culture.
  There are those who argue that all cultures, and all levels of 
culture, are equal, and that there is no real American culture at all, 
but rather only an amalgam of diverse cultures.
  But this deliberate balkanization of American culture ignores our 
singular heritage which has drawn from many sources to create a body of 
American arts and letters what is uniquely our own. E pluribus unum--
out of many, one. It is a living tradition worth sustaining.
  Mr. President, I believe that the bill we have presented today 
contains a formula for arts funding, and the encouragement of our 
native culture, that can regain the confidence and support of the 
American people.
                                 ______

      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 1072. A bill to redefine ``extortion'' for purposes of the Hobbs 
Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                freedom from union violence act of 1995

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to 
amend the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court 
decision in United States versus Enmons, and to address a serious, long 
term, festering problem under our Nation's labor laws. The United 
States regulates labor relations on a national basis and our labor-
management policies are national policies. These policies and 
regulations are enforced by laws such as the National Labor Relations 
Act that Congress designed to preempt comparable State laws.
  Although labor violence is a widespread problem in labor management 
relations today, the Federal Government has not moved in a meaningful 
way to address this issue. I believe it is time for the Government to 
act and respond to what the Supreme Court did when it rendered its 
decision in the case of United States versus Enmons in 1973. It is this 
decision's unfortunate result which this bill is intended to rectify.
  The Enmons decision involved the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act which is 
intended to prohibit extortion by labor unions. It provides that: 
``Whoever in any way * * * obstructs, delays, or affects commerce in 
the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or 
extortion or attempts or conspires to do so or commits or threatens 
physical violence to any person or property * * *'' commits a criminal 
act. This language is very clear. It outlaws extortion by labor unions. 
It outlaws violence by labor unions.
  Although this language is very clear, the Supreme Court in Enmons 
created an exemption to the law which says that as long as a labor 
union commits extortion and violence in furtherance of legitimate 
collective bargaining objectives, no violation of the Act will be 
found. Simply put, the Court held that if the ends are correct, the 
means to that end, no matter how horrible or reprehensible, will not 
result in a violation of the Act.
  The Enmons decision is wrong. This bill will make it clear that the 
Hobbs Act is intended to punish the actual or threatened use of force 
or violence to obtain property irrespective of the legitimacy of the 
extortionist's claim to such property and irrespective of the existence 
of a labor-management dispute.
  Let me discuss the Enmons case.
  In that case, the defendants were indicted for firing high-powered 
rifles at property, causing extensive damage to the property, owned by 
a utility company--all done in an effort to obtain higher wages and 
other benefits from the company for striking employees. The indictment 
was, however, dismissed by the district court on the theory that the 
Hobbs Act did not prohibit the use of violence in obtaining 
``legitimate'' union objectives. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed.
  The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not proscribe violence 
committed during a lawful strike for the purpose of achieving 
legitimate collective bargaining objectives, like higher wages. By its 
focus upon the motives and objectives of the property claimant, who 
uses violence or force to achieve his
 goals, the Enmons decision has had several unfortunate results. It has 
deprived the Federal Government of the ability to punish significant 
acts of extortionate violence when they occur in a labor-management 
context. Although other Federal statutes prohibit the use of specific 
devices or the use of channels of commerce in accomplishing the 
underlying act of extortionate violence, only the Hobbs Act proscribes 
a localized act of extortionate violence whose economic effect is to 
disrupt the channels of commerce. Other Federal statutes are not 
adequate to address the full effect of the Enmons decision.

  The Enmons decision affords parties to labor-management disputes an 
exemption from the statute's broad proscription against violence which 
is not available to any other group in society. This bill would make it 
clear that the Hobbs Act punishes the actual or threatened use of force 
and violence which is calculated to obtain property without regard to 
whether the extortionist has a colorable claim to such property, and 
without regard to his status as a labor representative, businessman, or 
private citizen.
  Mr. President, attempts to rectify the injustice of the Enmons 
decision have been before the Senate on several occasions. Shortly 
after the decision was handed down, a bill was introduced which was 
intended to repudiate the decision. Over the next several years, 
attempts were made to come up with language which was acceptable to 
organized labor and at the same time restored the original intent of 
the Hobbs Act.
  In 1978, S. 1437, a bill which was substantially the same as the bill 
I am introducing today, passed the Senate; however, the bill died in 
the House. In the 100th Congress, I introduced S. 2036, a bill which is 
identical to this legislation, yet no substantial action was taken on 
the bill. It is time for the Senate to re-examine this issue and to 
restate its opposition to violence in labor disputes. Encouraged by 
their special exemption from prosecution for acts of violence committed 
in pursuit of ``legitimate'' union objectives, union officials who are 
corrupt routinely use terror tactics to achieve their goals.
  From January 1975 to December 1993, the National Right to Work 
Committee has documented more than 7,800 reported cases of union 
violence. This chilling statistic gives clear testimony to the 
existence of a pervasive national problem.
  Mr. President, violence has no place in our society, regardless of 
the setting. Our national labor policy has always been directed toward 
the peaceful resolution of labor disputes. It is ironic that the Hobbs 
Act, which was enacted in large part to accomplish this worthy goal, 
has been virtually emasculated. The time has come to change that. I 
think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share a common 
concern that violence in labor disputes, whatever the source, should be 
eliminated. Government has been unwilling to deal with this program for 
too long. It is time for this Congress to act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1072

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     
[[Page S 10659]]


     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom From Union Violence 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EXTORTION UNDER HOBBS ACT.

       Paragraph (2) of section 1951(b) of title 18, United States 
     Code, (commonly known as the ``Hobbs Act'') is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2)(A) The term `extortion' means the obtaining of 
     property of another--
       ``(i) by threatening or placing another person in fear that 
     any person will be subjected to bodily injury or kidnapping 
     or that any property will be damaged; or
       ``(ii) under color of official right.
       ``(B) In a prosecution under subparagraph (A)(i) in which 
     the threat or fear is based on conduct by an agent or member 
     of a labor organization consisting of an act of bodily injury 
     to a person or damage to property, the pendence, at the time 
     of such conduct, of a labor dispute (as defined in section 
     2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(9))) 
     the outcome of which could result in the obtaining of 
     employment benefits by the actor, does not constitute prima 
     facie evidence that property was obtained `by' such 
     conduct.''.
     

                          ____________________