[House Report 104-705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-705
_______________________________________________________________________


 
 GRANTING THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT BETWEEN 
        THE CITIES OF BRISTOL, VIRGINIA, AND BRISTOL, TENNESSEE

                                _______
                                

 July 24, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


Mr. Gekas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H.J. Res. 166]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 166) granting the consent of 
Congress to the Mutual Aid Agreement between the city of 
Bristol, Virginia, and the city of Bristol, Tennessee, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the joint resolution do pass.

                          summary and purpose

    H.J. Res. 166 grants consent of the Congress to the Mutual 
Aid Agreement between the cities of Bristol, Virginia and 
Bristol, Tennessee providing that law enforcement officers in 
these cities may cross state lines in the performance of their 
duties and operate with full authorization in the adjoining 
city when requested by that city.

                background and need for the legislation

    Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States 
Constitution provides that: ``No State shall without the 
Consent of Congress * * * enter into any Agreement or Compact 
with another State, or with a foreign power. * * * '' 
Congressional consent is required for such agreements and 
compacts in order to determine whether they work to the 
detriment of another state and to ensure that they do not 
conflict with Federal law or Federal interests.
    The cities of Bristol, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee, 
with a collective population of approximately 43,000, sit 
astride the state border which runs along their main 
thoroughfare. Virginia and Tennessee have provided by statute 
that local entities in their respective States may enter into 
mutual aid agreements for law enforcement assistance with 
cross-border entities.\1\ The statutes provide that such 
agreements will be considered interstate compacts subject to 
approval by the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Section 15.1-131 of the Code of Virginia and Sections 6-54 and 
12-9-1 et seq. of the Tennessee Code Annotated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The two cities developed the mutual aid agreement as a 
reasonable solution to potential problems created by the 
existence of a state boundary at their center and in an effort 
to facilitate cooperation. The city council of Bristol, 
Tennessee approved the agreement on December 5, 1995, while 
that of Bristol, Virginia approved it on December 12, 1995.

                                hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on H.J. Res. 166 on June 27, 
1996. Testimony was received from Congressmen Rick Boucher of 
Virginia and James H. Quillen of Tennessee.

                        committee consideration

    On June 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law met in open session and ordered reported 
favorably the resolution H.J. Res. 166, without amendment by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On July 16, 1996, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably 
the resolution H.J. Res. 166, without amendment by a recorded 
vote of 25 yeas to 0 nays, a quorum being present.

                         vote of the committee

        YEAS                          NAYS
Mr. Hyde
Mr. Moorhead
Mr. McCollum
Mr. Gekas
Mr. Coble
Mr. Smith
Mr. Schiff
Mr. Canady
Mr. Goodlatte
Mr. Buyer
Mr. Hoke
Mr. Bono
Mr. Heineman
Mr. Conyers
Mrs. Schroeder
Mr. Frank
Mr. Boucher
Mr. Reed
Mr. Nadler
Mr. Scott
Mr. Watt
Mr. Becerra
Ms. Lofgren
Ms. Jackson Lee
Ms. Waters

                      committee oversight findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         committee on government reform and oversight findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               new budget authority and tax expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(C)(3) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the resolution, H.J. Res. 166, the 
following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.J. Res. 166, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on the Judiciary on July 16, 1996. CBO estimates that 
enacting this legislation would result in no cost to the 
Federal Government. Enacting H.J. Res. 166 would not affect 
direct spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply to this legislation.
    H.J. Res. 166 would give Congressional consent to the 
Mutual Aid Agreement between the city of Bristol, Virginia, and 
the city of Bristol, Tennessee. This agreement would provide 
for joint law enforcement efforts between the two cities.
    The resolution contains no private-sector or 
intergovernmental mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4 and 
would have no significant impact on the budget of state, local, 
or tribal governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

                     INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that H.J. 
Res. 166 will have no significant inflationary impact on prices 
and costs in the national economy.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Congressional consent

    Sec. 1. This section gives the consent of Congress to the 
Mutual Aid Agreement between the cities of Bristol, Virginia 
and Bristol, Tennessee. The text of the agreement is set out in 
enumerated paragraphs in the section. The agreement notes at 
the outset the state statutory authority under which it was 
entered into and recites the desire for cooperation and 
assistance that motivated it.
    Paragraph 1 provides that each city will respond to 
requests of law enforcement assistance only if such requests 
are made by the senior law enforcement officer on duty for the 
requesting city, or his or her designee, pursuant to the terms 
of the agreement, to the senior law enforcement officer of the 
city from which assistance is requested.
    Paragraph 2 provides that upon receiving a request for 
assistance the senior law enforcement officer in the responding 
city will authorize a response consisting of a minimum of one 
vehicle and one person to a maximum of 50 percent of its 
available personnel and resources. The response is to be 
determined by the circumstances prompting the request and, 
although there can be discussion between the senior law 
enforcement officers in the requesting and responding cities, 
the decision of the latter shall be final. If an emergency 
exists in the responding city at the time of a request for law 
enforcement assistance, the senior law enforcement official in 
the responding city may chose to use all equipment and 
personnel in his own city. The agreement provides that that 
official should inform the senior law enforcement official in 
the requesting city of his or her decision.
    Paragraph 3 provides that the requesting city shall not be 
liable or responsible for the equipment or other personal 
property of the personnel of the responding city which is lost, 
stolen or damaged during a response.
    Paragraph 4 provides that the responding city assumes all 
liabilities and responsibility as between it and the requesting 
city for damage to its own equipment and personal property. The 
responding city assumes liability and responsibility as between 
the cities for damage caused by its own equipment and/or the 
negligence of its personnel occurring outside the jurisdiction 
of the requesting city while en route to or from the latter.
    Paragraph 5 provides that the responding city assumes no 
responsibility or liability for damage or injury occurring due 
to actions taken in responding to a request under the 
agreement. Such liability and responsibility rests solely with 
the requesting city and within which boundaries the property 
exists or the incident occurs.
    Paragraph 6 provides that each city waves all claims 
against the other city arising out of activities in the other's 
jurisdiction under the agreement. To the extent permitted by 
law, the requesting city shall indemnify and hold harmless the 
responding city (including its officers, agents and employees) 
from all third party claims by third parties for property 
damage or personal injury arising out of activities of the 
responding city within the jurisdiction of the requesting city.
    Paragraph 7 provides that the responding city assumes no 
responsibility or liability for damage or injury occurring 
within the jurisdiction of the requesting city due to actions 
taken in responding under the agreement. It provides that, in 
accordance with Virginia and Tennessee law, personnel of the 
responding city shall, while they are providing assistance in 
the requesting city under the agreement, be deemed employees of 
the requesting city for purposes of tort liability.
    Paragraph 8 provides that no compensation will be due or 
paid by either city for mutual aid law enforcement assistance 
rendered under the agreement.
    Paragraph 9 provides that, except as provided under 
Paragraph 7, neither city will make a claim for compensation 
against the other for any loss, damage or personal injury 
occurring as a result of law enforcement assistance rendered 
under the agreement. Rights or claims to such are expressly 
waived.
    Paragraph 10 provides that when law enforcement assistance 
is rendered under the agreement, the senior law enforcement 
officer on duty in the requesting city shall be in command as 
to strategy, tactics and overall direction of operations. 
Orders or directions regarding the operations of the responding 
party shall be relayed to the senior law enforcement officer of 
the responding city.
    Paragraph 11 provides that either city may terminate the 
agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other city.
    Paragraph 12 provides that the agreement takes effect upon 
its execution by the cities' respective mayors and chiefs of 
police, approval by the city councils and by the Congress.

Section 2. Right to alter, amend, or repeal

    Section 2 reserves to the Congress the right to alter, 
amend or repeal the joint resolution and provides that it shall 
not be construed as impairing or affecting any right or 
jurisdiction of the United States in and over the region 
forming the subject of the agreement.

Section 3. Construction and severability

    Section 3 provides that the terms of the agreement shall be 
reasonably and liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. 
If any part of the agreement, or the legislation enabling it, 
is held invalid, the remainder of the agreement or its 
application to other situations shall not be affected.