[House Report 104-879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                 Union Calendar No. 481

104th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 104-879


 
       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                 of the

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               during the

                      ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

                              pursuant to

                Clause 1(d) Rule XI of the Rules of the

                        House of Representatives




January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        House of Representatives

    ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
                                 ------                                
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 
              1
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          Wisconsin
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
RICH BOUCHER, Virginia               HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   LAMAR SMITH, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island              STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
JERROLD NADLER, New York             ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
XAVIER BECERRA, California           BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York \2\        STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California              MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            SONNY BONO, California
MAXINE WATERS, California \3\        FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina
                                     ED BRYANT, Tennessee
                                     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
                                     MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois
                                     BOB BARR, Georgia
   Alan F. Coffey, Jr., General 
      Counsel/Staff Director
  Julian Epstein, Minority Staff 
             Director

----------
\1\ Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman 
pursuant to House Resolution 11, approved by the House January 5 
(legislative day of January 4), 1995.
Republican Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 11, approved by the House January 5 (legislative day of 
January 4), 1995.
Democratic Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 12, approved by the House January 5 (legislative day of 
January 4), 1995.
\2\ Jose E. Serrano, New York, resigned from the Committee March 14, 
1996.
\3\ Maxine Waters, California, elected to the Committee pursuant to 
House Resolution 414, approved by the House April 25, 1996.
          Subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary \1\

                                 ------                                

                    Courts and Intellectual Property

 CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California, 
             Chairman
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          Wisconsin
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
XAVIER BECERRA, California           BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               SONNY BONO, California
JERROLD NADLER, New York             GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
                                     ELTON GALLEGLY, California
                                     CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
                                     MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio

                                 Crime

 BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California              HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ED BRYANT, Tennessee
                                     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
                                     BOB BARR, Georgia

                   Commercial and Administrative Law

  GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island              HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
JOHN BRYANT, Texas \2\               BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JERROLD NADLER, New York             STEVEN CHABOT, Ohio
ROBERT W. SCOTT, Virginia            MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois
ZOE LOFGREN, California \2\          BOB BARR, Georgia

                         Immigration and Claims

   LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         SONNY BONO, California
XAVIER BECERRA, California           FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina
                                     ED BRYANT, Tennessee

                            The Constitution

   CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, 
             Chairman
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York \3\        MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado         Wisconsin
MAXINE WATERS, California \3\        MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio
                                     LAMAR SMITH, Texas
                                     BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia

----------
\1\ Subcommittee chairmanships and assignments approved January 5, 
1995; revised Democratic assignments approved February 2, 1995, March 
12, 1996, and June 11, 1996.
\2\ Zoe Lofgren, California, assigned to fill the vacancy created by 
the resignation of John Bryant, Texas, from the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law effective March 12, 1996.
\3\ Maxine Waters, California, assigned to the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution June 11, 1996, to fill the vacancy created by the 
resignation of Jose E. Serrano, Texas, from the Committee March 14, 
1996.


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 1997.
Hon. Robin H. Carle,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Carle: 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 104th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                     Henry J. Hyde,
                                                          Chairman.


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary...................     1
Tabulation of legislation and activity...........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee prints.................................................     8
House documents..................................................     8
Nonlegislative House reports.....................................    10
Summary of activities of the Committee on the Judiciary..........    11
    Public Laws..................................................    11
    Conference appointments......................................    17
    Full Committee Activities....................................    23
    Legislative activities.......................................    23
        Antitrust................................................    23
            Telecommunications Reform--H.R. 1528, H.R. 1555, P.L. 
              104-104............................................    23
            Charitable Gift Annunities--H.R. 2525, the 
              ``Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 
              1995''.............................................    25
            Intellectual Property Antitrust Protection--H.R. 2674    27
            Sports Franchise Reloction--H.R. 2740................    29
            Health Care Provider Networks, H.R. 2925 ``Antitrust 
              Health Care Advancement Act of 1996''..............    33
        Liability Issues.........................................    36
            Product Liability/Legal Reform--H.R. 10; H.R. 956....    36
            Medical Malpractice..................................    41
            Limitations on Volunteer Liability...................    42
        Matters Held at Full Committee...........................    43
            Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.............    43
            The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
              Act of 1996........................................    45
            Antiterrorism........................................    48
            The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996..............    51
            H.R. 994, the ``Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 
              1995''.............................................    54
            Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform........................    55
            National Gambling Impact Study Commission--H.R. 497, 
              P.L. 104-169.......................................    58
            Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment--H.J. Res. 
              173 and 174........................................    59
            Encryption--H.R. 3011, the ``Security and Freedom 
              Through Encryption (SAFE) Act''....................    60
            Title 49 Codification Update.........................    63
    Oversight Activities.........................................    64
        Full Committee Oversight Hearings........................    64
Summary of activities of the Subcommittees of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary:
    Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................    65
        Jurisdiction of the subcommittee.........................    65
        Legislative Activities...................................    65
        Administrative Law/Practice and Procedure................    65
            H.R. 1802, Reorganization of the Federal 
              Administrative Judiciary Act.......................    65
            H.R. 2977, Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 
              1996...............................................    67
            H.R. 2291, To Extend the Administrative Conference of 
              the United States..................................    68
        Bankruptcy...............................................    69
            H.R. 234, Boating and Aviation Operation Safety Act 
              of 1994............................................    69
            H.R. 2604, Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1995..........    69
        The Legal Services Corporation...........................    70
            H.R. 2277, The Legal Aid Act of 1995.................    70
        Regulatory Reform/Regulatory Flexibility.................    72
            H.R. 9 (titles VI, VII, VII), The Job Creation and 
              Wage Enhancement Act of 1995 and H.R. 926 (titles 
              I, II, III), The Regulatory Reform and Relief Act..    72
            H.R. 450/S. 219, The Regulatory Transition act of 
              1995...............................................    74
            H.R. 1047, Voluntary Environmental Self-Evaluation 
              Act................................................    75
            H.R. 1670, The federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995    76
            H.R. Delegation of Congressional Authority to Federal 
              Agencies...........................................    76
            H.R. H.R. 3307, The Regulatory Fair Warning Act......    77
        State Taxation...........................................    77
            H.R. 394, To Amend Title 4 of the United States Code 
              To Limit State Taxation of Certain Pension Income..    77
            H.R. 3163, Taxation of Federal Employees Working on 
              the Columbia River.................................    78
        Interstate Compacts......................................    79
            H.R. 2064, the Historic Chattahoochee Compact........    79
            H.J. Res. 78, The Bi-State Development Compact.......    79
            H.J. Res. 113, The Jennings Randolph Project.........    79
            H.J. Res. 129, The Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate 
              Public Water Supply Compact........................    80
            H.J. Res. 166, The Cities of Bristol Compact.........    81
            H.J. Res. 189, Granting the Consent of Congress to 
              the Interstate Insurance Receivership Compact......    81
            H.J. Res. 193, Emergency Management Mutual Assistance 
              Compact............................................    82
            H.J. Res. 194, The Washington Area Metropolitan 
              Transit Regulation Compact.........................    82
        Oversight Activities.....................................    83
            Administrative Law, Practice and Procedures..........    83
                Administrative Conference of the United States...    83
                Performance of the Social Security 
                  Administration's Office of Hearings and Appeals 
                  in Mobile, Alabama.............................    84
            The Legal Services Corporation.......................    84
            Negotiated Rulemaking................................    85
            Regulatory Reform....................................    85
            Local Taxation of Wireless Cable.....................    86
            U.S. Trustees........................................    86
    Subcommittee on the Constitution:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................    89
        Jurisdiction of the subcommittee.........................    89
        Legislation..............................................    89
            Private Property Rights..............................    89
            Fair Housing.........................................    90
            Racial and Gender Preferences--The Equal Opportunity 
              Act................................................    90
            Reform of Laws Governing Lobbying....................    92
            Religious Freedom....................................    93
            Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.......................    94
            Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act.............    95
            Office of Government Ethics..........................    95
            Billingual Voting Requirements.......................    95
            U.S. Commission of Civil Rights......................    96
            Same-Sex Marriage--The Defense of Marriage Act.......    97
            Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act.    97
        Constitutional Amendments................................    97
            Balanced Budget......................................    97
            Term Limits..........................................    98
            Flag Protection......................................    98
            Tax Limitation Amendment.............................    99
        Oversight Activities.....................................    99
            Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the 
              Department of Justice..............................    99
            Office of Government Ethics..........................    99
            Clinton Administration Adarand Review................   100
            Birthright Citizenship...............................   101
            Roe v. Wade..........................................   101
            Physician-Assisted Suicide...........................   101
            School Desegregation Litigation......................   101
    Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................   103
        Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.........................   103
        Public Legislation Enacted Into Law......................   104
            Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The Illegal 
              Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
              of 1996............................................   104
                Legislative History..............................   104
                Background.......................................   104
                Hearings.........................................   105
                Commission on Immigration Reform.................   105
                Summary of Legislation as Introduced.............   106
                    Border Security..............................   106
                    Alien Smuggling..............................   107
                    Removal of Illegal and Criminal Aliens.......   107
                    Employer Sanctions and Certification.........   109
                    Legal Immigration Reform.....................   111
                    Eligibility for Benefits and Sponsorship.....   115
                    Facilitation of Legal Entry..................   116
                    Skilled Nonimmigrants (H-1B) and 
                  Miscellaneous Provi-       sions...............   116
                Subcommittee Consideration.......................   117
                Full Committee Consideration.....................   118
                Consideration by the House.......................   120
                Senate and Conference Consideration..............   122
                Final Passage and Enactment......................   122
            The ``Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
              (LIBERTAD) Act of 1995''...........................   124
            A Bill Extending the Period of Stay in the United 
              States for Certain Nurses..........................   126
            Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
              update references in the classification of children 
              for purposes of United States Immigration laws.....   126
            ``Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations 
              Provisions Act of 1996''...........................   127
                International Law................................   127
                    ``War Crimes Act of 1996''...................   127
                    Claims.......................................   128
                    Reimbursement of White House Travel Office 
                  Employ-       ees Legal Expenses and Related 
                  Fees...........................................   128
                    Pueblo of Isleta Indian Land Claims..........   130
        Action on Other Public Legislation.......................   131
            Immigration..........................................   131
                Membership of U.S. Commission on Immigration 
                  Reform.........................................   131
                Authorize States to Deny Public Education 
                  Benefits to Illegal Alien Children.............   131
                A Bill Providing for Certain Changes with Respect 
                  to Requirements for a Canadian Border Boat 
                  Landing Permit.................................   132
                To Confer Honorary Citizenship of the United 
                  States on Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, Also Known as 
                  Mother Teresa..................................   132
            Claims...............................................   133
                ``Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1996''.   133
        Federal Charters.........................................   134
            Subcommittee Policy on New Federal Charters..........   134
            Amendment to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Charter....   135
        Private Claims and Private Immigration Legislation.......   135
        Oversight Activities.....................................   135
            Immigration..........................................   135
                Management Practices of the Immigration and 
                  Naturalization Service.........................   135
                Foreign Visitors Who Violate the Terms of their 
                  Visas by Remaining in the United States 
                  Indefinitely...................................   136
                Worksite Enforcement of Employer Sanctions.......   136
                Border Security..................................   136
                Removal of Criminal and Illegal Aliens...........   137
                Verification of Eligibility for Employment and 
                  Benefits.......................................   137
                Impact of Illegal Immigration on Public Benefit 
                  Programs and the American Labor Force..........   137
                Legal Immigration Reform Proposals...............   138
                The Commission on Immigration Reform's Interim 
                  Recommendations on Legal Immigration Reform....   138
                Agricultural Guest Worker Programs...............   138
                Agriculture Guest Worker Programs................   138
                Legal Immigration Projections....................   139
                Shifting of Refugee resettlement to Private 
                  Organizations..................................   139
                Removal of Criminal and Illegal Aliens...........   139
                Alleged Deception of Congressional Delegation to 
                  Miami District of the Immigration and 
                  Naturalization Service.........................   140
                Refugee Consultations............................   140
    Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................   143
        Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.........................   143
        Legislative Activities...................................   143
            Courts...............................................   143
                Reporting Deadlines, S. 464......................   143
                Senior Judge Participation in En Banc Hearings, 
                  S. 531.........................................   144
                Clarify the Rules Governing Venue, S. 532........   144
                Amend Commencement Date of Certain Temporary 
                  Federal Judgeships, H.R. 2361..................   145
                Technical Amendments to Removal Provision, S. 533   145
                Technical Amendments to Venue Provisions, S. 677.   146
                Attorney Accountability Act, H.R. 988............   146
                Three Judge Court Review of Constitutional 
                  Challenges to Referenda, H.R. 1170.............   148
                Federal Courts Improvement Act, H.R. 3968........   149
                Stenographic Preference for Depositions, H.R. 
                  1445...........................................   150
                Court Arbitration Authorization Act, H.R. 1443...   150
                Police Civil Liability, H.R. 1446................   151
                Ethical Standards for Federal Prosecutors, H.R. 
                  3386...........................................   151
        Intellectual Property....................................   152
            Copyrights...........................................   152
                Piracy by China, H.J. Res. 50....................   152
                Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings 
                  Act, H.R. 1506.................................   152
                Film Labeling, H.R. 1248.........................   153
                Copyright Clarification Act, H.R. 1861...........   153
                National Film Preservation Act, H.R. 1734........   154
                Copyright Term Extension, H.R. 989...............   155
                National Information Infrastructure Copyright 
                  Protection Act, H.R. 2441......................   156
            Patents..............................................   157
                Biotechnology Patent Process Act, H.R. 587.......   157
                Compensation Owners of Patents Used by U.S., H.R. 
                  632............................................   158
                PTO Corporation Act, H.R. 1659...................   158
                Intellectual Property Organization Act of 1996, 
                  H.R. 2533......................................   160
                Commerce Department Dismantling, H.R. 1756.......   161
                18-Month Publication, H.R. 1733..................   161
                Prior User Rights, H.R. 2235.....................   163
                Inventor Protection, H.R. 2419...................   164
                Reexamination, H.R. 1732.........................   165
                Patent Term, H.R. 359............................   167
                Medical Procedures, H.R. 1127....................   168
            Trademarks...........................................   169
                Federal Trademark Dilution, H.R. 1295............   169
                Anticounterfeiting, H.R. 2511....................   169
                Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, H.R. 1270....   170
                Department of Agriculture Trademark of ``Woodsy 
                  Owl'', H.R. 1269...............................   171
        Other Intellectual Property Rights.......................   172
            Database Protection, H.R. 3531.......................   172
        Oversight Activities.....................................   172
            Digital Performance Rights in Sound Recordings.......   172
            Fairness in Music Licensing..........................   172
            Satellite Home Viewer act Interpretation.............   173
            Madrid Protocol......................................   173
            Copyrighted Works on the Internet....................   174
            Exemption in the Copyright Act for the Repair of 
              Computers..........................................   174
            Copyright Term Extension.............................   174
            Protection of Photofinishers.........................   174
            Fair Use Exemption...................................   175
            Ethical Standards for Federal Prosecutors and 
              Prosecutorial Discretion...........................   176
            Article III Courts...................................   177
        Summary of Oversight Plan and Implementation.............   178
            Article III Courts...................................   178
            The U.S. Copyright System............................   178
            The U.S. Patent and Trademark Systems................   179
    Subcommittee on Crime:
        Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity......   181
        Jurisdiction of the subcommittee.........................   181
        The Effective Death penalty Act--Habeas Corpus Reform....   181
        Truth-in-Sentencing and prison Litigation Reform.........   182
        Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants............   183
        Mandatory Victim Restitution.............................   184
        Exclusionary Rule........................................   185
        Criminal Alien Deportation...............................   185
        The War on Drugs.........................................   186
            International Drug Trafficking.......................   186
            Cocaine Sentencing Policy............................   186
            Marijuana Policy.....................................   187
            Methamphetamine Policy...............................   188
        Violence Against Women...................................   188
            Anti-Stalking Legislation............................   188
            Rape Defined in Carjacking Offenses..................   189
            Drug-Induced Rape Prevention and Punishment..........   189
        Sex Crimes Against Children..............................   189
            Sexual Crimes Against Children Prevention Act........   189
            Serial Killers and Child Abductions..................   190
            Megan's Law..........................................   190
            The Crimes Against Children and Elderly Increased 
              Punishment Act.....................................   190
            Federal Record Keeping and Sex Offenders.............   191
            Children's Privacy Protection and Parental 
              Empowerment Act....................................   191
            Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments 
              of 1995............................................   191
        Violent Youth Crime......................................   192
            Regional Crime Forums................................   192
            Juvenile Crime Reform Act............................   194
        Federal Law Enforcement Oversight........................   195
            Nature, Extent, and Proliferation of Federal Law 
              Enforcement--Part 1: An Introduction and Overview..   195
            Nature, Extent, and Proliferation of Federal Law 
              Enforcement--Part 2: An Introduction and Overview..   195
            Federal Law Enforcement Actions in Relation to the 
              Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas............   195
            FBI Murder Investigation in Haiti....................   197
        General DOJ Oversight and Legislation....................   198
            Criminal Division Reorganization.....................   198
            Law Enforcement Technology...........................   198
            Matters Relating to the Federal Bureau of Prisons....   198
            COPS Program.........................................   198
            Administration's Efforts Against the Influence of 
              Organized Crime in the Laborers' International 
              Union of North America.............................   198
            The Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1995...........   199
        Other Subcommittee Hearings..............................   199
            Combating Domestic Terrorism.........................   199
            Combating Crime in the District of Columbia..........   200
            Nature and Threat of Violent Anti-Government Groups 
              in America.........................................   200
            United States Sentencing Commission..................   201
            The Growing Threat of International Organized Crime..   201
            Economic Espionage...................................   202
            Police Officers' Rights and Benefits.................   202
        Miscellaneous Bills......................................   202
            Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995...........................   202
            Consumer Fraud Prevention Act of 1995................   202
            Increasing Penalties for Espionage from a Federal 
              Prison.............................................   203
            Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act of 
              1995...............................................   203
            Execution of Federal Prisoners.......................   204
            DNA Identification Grants Improvement Act of 1995....   204
            Fugitive Detention Act of 1995.......................   204
            United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 
              1995...............................................   204
            Mandatory Federal Prison Drug Treatment Act of 1995..   205
            Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1995..............   205
            Law Enforcement and Industrial Security Cooperation 
              Act of 1996........................................   206
            Punishing Witness Retaliation and Jury Tampering.....   206
            Government Accountabilty Act of 1996.................   206
            Contracting or Trading with Indians..................   207
            Independent Counsel Accountability and Reform Act of 
              1996...............................................   207
            Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 
              1996...............................................   207


                                                 Union Calendar No. 481
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-879
_______________________________________________________________________


       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                _______
                                

January 2, 1997.--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 the 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.(j) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives for the 104th 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; and all bills, resolutions, and other matters 
relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of any standing 
committee as listed in this clause shall (in accordance with 
and subject to clause 5) be referred to such committees, as 
follows:
          * * * * * * *
          (j) 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...................................................   686
    House joint resolutions.......................................   123
    House concurrent resolutions..................................    18
    House resolutions.............................................     9
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
                                                                     836
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
    Senate bills..................................................    23
    Senate joint resolutions......................................     4
    Senate concurrent resolutions.................................     0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
                                                                      27
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
        Subtotal..................................................   863
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
Private legislation:
    House bills (Claims)..........................................    46
    House bills (Copyrights)......................................     1
    House bills (Criminal Procedure)..............................     1
    House bills (Immigration).....................................    14
    House bills (Patents).........................................     2
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
                                                                      64
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
    Senate bills (Claims).........................................     1
    Senate bills (Copyrights Patents).............................     0
    Senate bills (Immigration)....................................     0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
                                                                       1
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
        Subtotal..................................................    65
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
        Total.....................................................   928

             Action on Legislation Not Referred to Committee

Amended by House with Committee language (public):
    House bills...................................................     1
    Senate bills..................................................     0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
                                                                       1
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
Held at desk for House action (public):
    Senate bills..................................................    15
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
                                                                      15
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
Conference appointments (public):
    House bills...................................................     4
    Senate bills..................................................     2
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
                                                                       6
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
        Total.....................................................    22
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________

                              Final Action

    House resolutions approved (public)...........................     1
    Public laws...................................................    69
    Private Laws..................................................     4

                                Hearings

                          Serial No. and Title

                               __________

   (*Denotes material not assigned a serial number as of filing date)

    1. Management Practices of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. February 8, 1995.
    2. Foreign Visitors Who Violate the Terms of Their Visas by 
Remaining in the United States Indefinitely. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. February 14, 1995.
    3. Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. February 3, 6, 1995. (Oversight of 
regulatory practices and procedure provisions--Titles VI, VII, and 
VIII--of H.R.9).
    4. Product Liability and Legal Reform. Committee on the Judiciary. 
February 13, 1995. (Product liability provisions of H.R. 10).
    5. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. January 9, 10, 1995. (Oversight H.J. Res.1).
    6. Reauthorization of the Administrative Conference of the United 
States. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 11, 
1995.
    7. Telecommunications: The Role of the Department of Justice. 
Committee on the Judiciary. May 9, 1995.
    8. Worksite Enforcement of Employer Sanctions. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. March 3, 1995.
    9. Attorney Accountability. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
Property. February 6, 10, 1995. (Oversight of civil justice reform 
provisions of H.R. 10).
    10. Boating and Aviation Operation Safety Act. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. July 13, 1995. (H.R. 234).
    11. State Taxation of Nonresidents' Pension Income. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. June 28, 1995. (H.R. 371, H.R. 394 
and H.R. 744).
    12. Reorganization of the Federal Administrative Judiciary Act 
(Parts 1 and 2). Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. 
July 26, 1995. March 28, 1996 (H.R. 1802).
    13. Border Security. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 
10, 1995.
    14. Verification of Eligibility for Employment and Benefits. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 30, 1995.
    15. Removal of Criminal and Illegal Aliens. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. March 23, 1995.
    16. Patents on Biotechnological Processes and to Authorize Use by 
Regulation the Representation of ``Woodsy Owl'' Subcommittee on Courts 
and Intellectual Property. March 29, 1995. (H.R. 587 and H.R. 1269).
    17. Measures Passed by State Referendum. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. April 5, 1995. (H.R. 1170).
    18. Court Arbitration, Stenographic Preferences, and Venue 
Clarification. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May 
11, 1995. (H.R. 1443, H.R. 1445, S. 464, and S. 532).
    19. Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy. Subcommittee on Crime. 
June 29, 1995.
    20. Law Enforcement Technology. Subcommittee on Crime. May 17, 
1995.
    21. Matters Relating to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Subcommittee 
on Crime. June 8, 1995.
    22. Enforcement of Federal Drug Laws: Strategies and Policies of 
the FBI and DEA. Subcommittee on Crime. March 30, 1995.
    23. Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Subcommittee on 
Crime. March 23, 1995.
    24. International Terrorism: Threats and Responses. Committee on 
the Judiciary. April 6, June 12, 13, 1995. (Oversight H.R. 1710).
    25. Reauthorization of the Office of Government Ethics. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 17, 1995.
    26. Reauthorization of the Legal Services Corporation. Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 16, June 15, July 27, 1995.
    27. Agricultural Guest Worker Programs. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on 
Risk Management and Specialty Crops of the Committee on Agriculture. 
December 14, 1995.
    28. Impact of Illegal Immigration on Public Benefit Programs and 
the American Labor Force. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. April 
5, 1995.
    29. Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of 
Justice. Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 10, 1995.
    30. Patents Legislation. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
Property. June 8, November 1, 1995. (H.R. 359, H.R. 632, H.R. 1732, and 
H.R. 1733).
    31. Partial-Birth Abortion. Subcommittee on the Constitution. June 
15, 1995.
    32. Copyright Act Technical Corrections. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. November 9, 1995. (H.R. 1861).
    33. Reform of Laws Governing Lobbying. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. May 23, 1995.
    34. National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act. Committee 
on the Judiciary. September 29, 1995. (H.R. 497).
    35. Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 21, 28, 1995. 
(H.R. 1506).
    36. Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1995. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. December 7, 1995. (H.R. 2604).
    37. Reauthorization of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. December 13, 1995.
    38. NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995. Part I--Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary jointly with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. November 
15, 1995. (H.R. 2441 and S. 1284). Part 2--Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. February 7, 8, 1996. (H.R. 2441).
    39. Prior Domestic Commercial Use Act of 1995. Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property. October 26, 1995. (H.R. 2235).
    40. Minor and Miscellaneous Bills. Subcommittee on Crime. Part 1--
September 28, 1995. (H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and 
H.R. 2360). Part 2--March 7, 1996. (H.R. 1143, H.R. 1144, H.R. 1145, 
H.R. 2092, H.R. 2137, H.R. 2453, H.R. 2587, H.R. 2607, H.R. 2641, H.R. 
2650, H.R. 2803, H.R. 2804, H.R. 2974, H.R. 2980, and H.R. 2996).
    41. U.S. v. Hubbard: Prosecuting False Statements to Congress. 
Subcommittee on Crime. June 30, 1995.
    42. Protecting Private Property Rights from Regulatory Takings. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. February 10, 1995.
    43. Gun Laws and the Need for Self-Defense. (Parts 1 and 2). 
Subcommittee on Crime. March 31, April 5, 1995.
    44. Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995. Subcommittee 
on Immigration and Claims. June 29, 1995. (H.R. 1915).
    45. Members' Forum on Immigration. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. May 24, 1995.
    46. Legal Immigration Reform Proposals. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims. May 17, 1995.
    47. Effectiveness of Mandatory Busing in Cleveland. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution. May 17, 1995 (Cleveland, Ohio).
    48. Nature, Extent, and Proliferation of Federal Law Enforcement. 
Subcommittee on Crime. Part 1--An Introduction and Overview. November 
15, 1995.
    49. Rising Scourge of Methamphetamine in America. Subcommittee on 
Crime. October 26, 1995.
    50. Societal and Legal Issues Surrounding Children Born in the 
United States to Illegal Alien Parents. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims and the Subcommittee on the Constitution. December 13, 1995. 
(H.R. 705, H.R. 1363, H.J.Res. 56, H.J.Res. 64, H.J.Res. 87, H.J.Res. 
88, and H.J.Res. 93).
    51. Nature and Threat of Violent Anti-Government Groups in America. 
Subcommittee on Crime. November 2, 1995.
    52. Combating Domestic Terrorism. Subcommittee on Crime. May 3, 
1995.
    53. Copyright Term. Film Labeling, and Film Preservation 
Legislation. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 1 
(Pasadena, California). July 13, 1995. (H.R. 989, H.R. 1248, and H.R. 
1734).
    54. Guest Worker Programs. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. 
December 7, 1995.
    55. Serial Killers and Child Abductions. Subcommittee on Crime. 
September 14, 1995.
    56. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. October 19, 1995.
    57. Professional Sports Franchise Relocation. Antitrust 
Implications. Committee on the Judiciary. February 6, 1996. (Oversight 
H.R. 2699 and H.R. 2740).
    58. Madrid Protocol Implementation Act and Federal Trademark 
Dilution Act of 1995. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. 
July 19, 1995. (H.R. 1270 and H.R. 1295).
    59. Term limits for Members of the U.S. House and Senate. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. February 3, 1995.
    60. Equal Opportunity Act of 1995. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. December 7, 1995. (H.R. 2128).
    61. Ethics in Government and Lobbying Reform Proposals. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. March 22, 1996.
    62. Lobbying Disclosure Reform Proposals. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. September 7, 1995.
    63. Patent and Trademark Office Government Corporation. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. September 14, 1995. 
March 8, 1996. (H.R. 1659, H.R. 1756, and H.R. 2533).
    64. Authorization of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 
Justice. Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 20, 1995.
    65. Religious Liberty and the Bill of Rights. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. June 8 (Washington, D.C.), 10 (Harrisonburg, Virginia), 
23 (Tampa, Florida), July 10 (New York, New York), 14 (Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma), 1995.
    66. Health Care Reform Issues: Antitrust, Medical Malpractice 
Liability, and Volunteer Liability. Committee on the Judiciary. 
February 27, 28, 1996. (H.R. 911, H.R. 2925, and H.R. 2938).
    67. Regulatory Fair Warning Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. May 2, 1996. (H.R. 3307).
    68. Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeal Act. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. April 18, 1996. (H.R. 351).
    69. Defense of Marriage Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 
15, 1996. (H.R. 3396).
    70. Combating Crime in the District of Columbia. Subcommittee on 
Crime. June 22, 1995.
    71. Performance of the Social Security Administration's Office of 
Hearings and Appeals in Mobile, AL, and Related Issues. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. June 5, 1996.
    72. Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Toward the 
Branch Davidians. (Parts 1, 2, and 3). Subcommittee on Crime of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. July 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 
31, August 1, 1995.
    73. Effects of Anesthesia During a Partial-Birth Abortion. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. March 21, 1996.
    74. Group Preferences and the Law. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. April 3, June 1 (San Diego, California), October 25, 
1995.
    75. Intellectual Property Antitrust Protection Act of 1995. 
Committee on the Judiciary. May 14, 1996. (H.R. 2674).
    76. Exemption from Local Taxation for Wireless Service Providers. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, July 25, 1996.
    77. Interstate Compacts; Reauthorization on the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 
27, 1996. (H.J.Res. 113 and H.J.Res. 166 Oversight).
    78. Assisted Suicide in the United States. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. April 29, 1996.
    79. COPS Program. Subcommittee on Crime. December 7, 1995.
    80. Origins and Scope of Roe v. Wade. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. April 22, 1996.
    81. War Crimes Act of 1995. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. 
June 12, 1996. (H.R. 2587).
    82. Marijuana Use in America. Subcommittee on Crime. March 6, 1996.
    83. The Growing Threat of International Organized Crime. 
Subcommittee on Crime. January 25, 1996.
    84. FBI Murder Investigation in Haiti. Subcommittee on Crime. 
January 31, 1996.
    85. Legal Services Corporation. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. June 26, 1996.
    86. Possible Shifting of Refugees Resettlement to Private 
Organizations. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. August 1, 1996.
    87. U.S. Trustee Program. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 24, 1996.
    88. Voluntary Environmental Self-Evaluation Act. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. June 29, 1995. (H.R. 1047).
    89. Legislation Concerning Compacts. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. September 18, 1996. (H.J.Res. 189, H.J.Res. 193, 
and H.J.Res. 194).
    90. Federal Recordkeeping and Sex Offenders. Subcommittee on Crime. 
June 19, 1996.
    91. Proposals for a Constitutional Amendment to Provide Rights for 
Victims of Crime. Committee on the Judiciary July 11, 1996. (H.J.Res. 
173 and H.J.Res. 174).
    92. Independent Counsel Statute and Independent Counsel 
Accountability and Reform Act. Subcommittee on Crime February 29, 1996. 
(H.R. 892).
    93. Role of Congress in Monitoring Administrative Rulemaking. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. September 12, 1996. 
(Oversight H.R. 47, H.R. 2727, and H.R. 2990).
    94. Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. Committee on the Judiciary. 
July 22, 1996. (H.R. 1916).
    95. Oversight Hearing on the Impact of Adarand v. Pena: The 
Constitutionality of Race-Based Preferences. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly with the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. Federalism, and Property Rights of 
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. September 22, 1995.
    96. Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution. May 24, 1995, May 24, 1995. (H.J.Res. 79).
    97. Consumer Fraud Prevention Act of 1995. Subcommittee on Crime. 
April 18, 1996. (H.R. 1499).
    98. Church Fires in the Southeast. Committee on the Judiciary. May 
21, 1996.
    99. Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995. Subcommittee on Crime. 
January 19, 20, 1995. (H.R. 3).
    100. Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act. Committee 
on the Judiciary. September 25, 1996 (H.R. 3011).
    101. Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1995. Subcommittee on Crime. 
June 6, 1996. (S. 1507).
    * Medical Procedures Innovation and Affordability Act and the 
Inventor Protection Act of 1995. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. October 19, 1995, (H.R. 1127 and H.R. 2419).
    * Law Enforcement Officers Civil Liability Act of 1995. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. November 9, 1995. 
(H.R. 1446).
    * Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1995. Subcommittee 
on Courts and Intellectual Property. December 7, 1995. (H.R. 2511).
    * Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1995. Subcommittee on Courts 
and Intellectual Property. March 14, 1996. (H.R. 1989).
    * Ethical Standards for Federal Prosecutors Act of 1996. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. September 12, 1996. 
(H.R. 3386).
    * United States Sentencing Commission. Subcommittee on Crime. 
December 14, 1995.
    * Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1995. Subcommittee on 
Crime. April 25, 1996. (H.R. 1202).
    * Economic Espionage. Subcommittee on Crime. May 9, 1996.
    * Nature Extent and Proliferation of Federal Law Enforcement. 
Subcommittee on Crime. Part 2--State and Local Law Enforcement 
Perspectives. May 23, 1996.
    * Violent Youth Predator Act of 1996 Balanced Juvenile Justice and 
Crime Prevention Act of 1996. Subcommittee on Crime. June 27, 1996. 
(H.R. 3565 and H.R. 3445).
    * Rights and Benefits of State and Local Law Enforcement Officers. 
Subcommittee on Crime. July 18, 1996. (H.R. 218, H.R. 892, H.R. 1805, 
H.R. 2912, and H.R. 3263).
    * Administration's Efforts Against the Influence of Organized Crime 
in the Laborers' International Union of North America. Subcommittee on 
Crime. July 24, 25, 1996.
    * Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. Subcommittee 
on Crime. September 5, 1996. (H.R. 3852).
    * Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act. 
Subcommittee on Crime. September 12, 1996. (H.R. 3508).
    * Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated. Subcommittee on Crime. 
September 18, 1996.
    * Witness Protection Programs in America. Subcommittee on Crime. 
November 7, 1996 (Orlando, Florida).
    * Chattahoochee Compact and the Bi-State Development Agency. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. October 19, 1995. 
(H.R. 2064 and H.J.Res. 78).
    * Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate Public Water Supply Compact. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. February 29, 1996. 
(H.J.Res. 129).
    * Interim Recommendations on Legal Immigration Reform of the 
Commission on Immigration Reform. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly with the 
Subcommittee on Immigration of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 
June 28, 1995.
    * Legal Immigration Projections. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. May 16, 1996.
    * Removal of Criminal and Illegal Aliens. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. September 5, 1996.
    * Alleged Deception of Congressional Task Force Delegation to the 
Miami District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. September 12, 1996.
    * Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1995. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. September 19, 1996. (H.R. 1023).
    * Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution. October 26, 1995. (H.R. 1946).
    * Constitutional Amendment Requiring Two-Thirds Majorities for 
Bills Increasing Taxes. Subcommittee on the Constitution. March 6, 
1996. (H.J.Res. 159).
    * Legislative Responses to School Desegregation Litigation. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. April 16, 1996.
    * Religious Freedom Protection. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
July 23, 1996. (H.J.Res. 184).
    * U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 24, 1996.
    * Protection of Freedom of Speech and Neighborhood Safety Under the 
Fair Housing Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 5, 1996.

                            Committee Prints

                          Serial No. and Title

                               __________
    1. Immigration and Nationality Act (Reflecting Laws Enacted as of 
May 1, 1995) With Notes and Related Laws--10th Edition. May 1995.
    2. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 1995.
    3. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 1995.
    4. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 1995.
    5. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 1995.
    6. Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands. A 
Report of Chairman Charles T. Canady to the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. September 1996.
    7. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 1996.
    8. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 1996.
    9. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 1996.
    10. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 1996.
    11. Fair Use Guidelines for Educational Multimedia. Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property. December 1996.

                            House Documents

                         H. Doc. No. and Title

                               __________
    104-31. Proposed Legislation: ``The Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 
1995''. Message from the President of the United States transmitting a 
draft of proposed legislation to improve the ability of the United 
States to respond to the international terrorist threat. February 9, 
1995. (Presidential Message No. 16).
    104-64. Amendments to the 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, 
1995. (Executive Communication No. 804).
    104-65. 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 that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2072. May 2, 1995. (Executive Communication No. 805).
    104-66. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2072. May 2, 1995. (Executive Communication No. 809).
    104-67. 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 that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2075. May 2, 1995. (Executive Communication No. 810).
    104-68. Proposed Legislation: ``Immigration Enforcement 
Improvements Act of 1995''. Message from the President of the United 
States transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled, 
``Immigration Enforcement Improvements Act of 1995''. Referred jointly 
to the Committees on the Judiciary, Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, and Commerce. May 3, 1995. (Presidential Message No. 
44).
    104-71. Proposed Legislation: ``Antiterrorism Amendments Act of 
1995''. Message from the President of the United States transmitting a 
draft of proposed legislation entitled, ``Antiterrorism Amendments Act 
of 1995''. Referred jointly to the Committee on the Judiciary, Banking 
and Financial Services, and Commerce. May 9, 1995. (Presidential 
Message No. 45).
    104-72. Proposed Legislation: ``The Gun-Free School Zones 
Amendments Act of 1995''. Message from the President of the United 
States transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Gun-
Free School Zones Act of 1990 to provide the necessary nexus with 
interstate commerce. May 10, 1995. (Presidential Message No. 47).
    104-90. Proposed Legislation: ``Saving Law Enforcement Lives Act of 
1995''. Message from the President of the United States transmitting a 
draft of proposed legislation to save the lives of America's law 
enforcement officers. June 30, 1995 (Presidential Message No. 61).
    104-150. Veto of H.R. 1058. Message from the President of the 
United States transmitting his veto of H.R. 1058, a bill to reform 
Federal securities litigation and for other purposes. December 20, 
1995.
    104-164. Veto of H.R. 4. Message from the President of the United 
States transmitting his veto of H.R. 4, the ``Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Act of 1995''. Referred to the Committee on Ways 
and Means. January 22, 1996.
    104-197. Veto of H.R. 1561. Message from the President of the 
United States transmitting his veto of H.R. 1561, a bill entitled 
``Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997. 
April 15, 1996.
    104-198. Veto of H.R. 1833. Message from the President of the 
United States transmitting his veto of H.R. 1833, a bill to amend title 
18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions. April 15, 1996. 
(Presidential Message No. 148).
    104-201. Amendments to the 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. April 
24, 1996. (Executive Communication No. 2487).
    104-202. 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 that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2072. April 24, 1996. (Executive Communication No. 2488).
    104-203. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2072. April 24, 1996. (Executive Communication No. 2489).
    104-204. 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 that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2075. April 24, 1996. (Executive Communication No. 2490).
    104-207. Veto of H.R. 956. Message from the President of the United 
States transmitting his veto of H.R. 956, a bill to establish legal 
standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and for 
other purposes. May 6, 1996.

                      Nonlegislative House Reports

                         H. Rept. No. and Title

                               __________
    104-749. Investigation into the Activities of Federal Law 
Enforcement Agencies Toward the Branch Davidians. Report by the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight prepared in conjunction 
with the Committee on the Judiciary (based on a joint investigation by 
the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
and the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary). 
August 2, 1996. (Committed to the Union Calendar).
        Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary

                              Public Laws

                              ----------                              

    A variety of legislation within the Committee's 
jurisdiction was enacted into law during the 104th Congress. 
The public 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 Law 104-1--To make certain laws applicable to the 
legislative branch of the Federal Government. ``Congressional 
Accountability Act of 1995''. (S. 2) (Approved January 23, 
1995; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 104-3--To amend the charter of the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars to make eligible for membership those veterans 
that have served within the territorial limits of South Korea. 
(S. 257) (Approved March 7, 1995).
    Public Law 104-4--To curb the practice of imposing unfunded 
Federal mandates on States and local governments; to strengthen 
the partnership between the Federal Government and State, local 
and tribal governments; to end the imposition in the absence of 
full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, 
local, and tribal governments without adequate funding, in a 
manner that may displace other essential governmental 
priorities; and to ensure that the Federal Government pays the 
costs incurred by those governments in complying with certain 
requirements under Federal statutes and regulations; and for 
other purposes. ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995''. (S. 
1) (Approved March 22, 1995).
    Public Law 104-33--To make the reporting deadlines for 
studies conducted in Federal court demonstration districts 
consistent with the deadlines for pilot districts, and for 
other purposes. (S. 464) (Approved October 3, 1995).
    Public Law 104-34--To clarify the rules governing venue, 
and for other purposes. (S. 532) (Approved October 3, 1995).
    Public Law 104-38--To disapprove of amendments to the 
Federal Sentencing Guidelines relating to lowering of crack 
sentences and sentences for money laundering and transactions 
in property derived from unlawful activity. (S. 1254) (Approved 
October 30, 1995).
    Public Law 104-39--To amend title 17, United States Code, 
to provide an exclusive right to perform sound recordings 
publicly by means of digital transmissions, and for other 
purposes. ``Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act 
of 1995''. (S. 227) (Approved November 1, 1995; general 
effective date February 2, 1996; effective date November 1, 
1995, for ``Authority for Negotiations'' and ``Licenses for 
Nonexempt Subscription Transmissions'' provisions).
    Public Law 104-41--To amend title 35, United States Code, 
with respect to patents on biotechnological processes. (S. 
1111) (Approved November 1, 1995).
    Public Law 104-51--To amend the Immigration and Nationality 
Act to update references in the classification of children for 
purposes of United States immigration laws (S. 457) (Approved 
November 15, 1995).
    Public Law 104-60--To amend the commencement dates of 
certain temporary Federal judgeships. (S. 1328) (Approved 
November 28, 1995).
    Public Law 104-63--To modify the operation of the antitrust 
laws, and of State laws similar to the antitrust laws, with 
respect to charitable gift annuities. ``Charitable Gift 
Annuity, Antitrust Relief Act of 1995''. (H.R. 2525) (Approved 
December 8, 1995; effective with respect to conduct occurring 
before, on, or after the date of enactment).
    Public Law 104-65--To provide for the disclosure of 
lobbying activities to influence the Federal Government, and 
for other purposes. ``Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995'' (S. 
1060) (Approved December 19, 1995; effective date January 1, 
1996).
    Public Law 104-67--To reform Federal securities litigation 
and for other purposes. ``Private Securities Litigation Reform 
Act of 1995'' (H.R. 1058) (Became law December 22, 1995, over 
the objections of the President).
    Public Law 104-71--To combat crime by enhancing the 
penalties for certain sexual crimes against children. ``Sex 
Crimes Against Children Prevention Act of 1995''. (H.R. 1240) 
(Approved December 23, 1995).
    Public Law 104-76--To amend the Fair Housing Act to modify 
the exemption from certain familial status discrimination 
prohibitions granted to housing for older persons. ``Housing 
for Older Persons Act of 1995''. (H.R. 660) (Approved December 
28, 1995).
    Public Law 104-88--To abolish the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States 
Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and for 
other purposes. ``ICC Termination Act of 1995''. (H.R. 2539) 
(Approved December 29, 1995; effective date January 1, 1996).
    Public Law 104-95--To amend title 4 of the United States 
Code to limit State taxation of certain pension income. (H.R. 
394) (Approved January 10, 1996; effective with respect to 
amounts received after December 31, 1995).
    Public Law 104-98--To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to 
make certain revisions relating to the protection of famous 
marks. ``Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995''. (H.R. 1295) 
(Approved January 16, 1996).
    Public Law 104-104--To promote competition and reduce 
regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality 
services for American telecommunications consumers and 
encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications 
technologies. ``Telecommunications Act of 1996''. 
``Communications Decency Act of 1996''. (S. 652) (Approved 
February 8, 1996; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 104-106--To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 1996 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, to reform acquisition laws 
and information technology management of the Federal 
Government, and for other purposes. ``National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996''. ``Ballistic Missile 
Defense Act of 1995''. ``Military Justice Amendments of 1995''. 
``Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms 
Safety Act''. ``Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996''. ``Illinois Land Conservation Act of 1995''. 
``Panama Canal Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996''. ``Panama Canal Amendments Act of 1995''. ``Federal 
Acquisition Reform Act of 1996''. ``Information Technology 
Management Reform Act of 1996''. (S. 1124) (Approved February 
10, 1996; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 104-114--To seek international sanctions against 
the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a 
transition government leading to a democratically elected 
government in Cuba, and for other purposes. ``Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996''. (H.R. 927) 
(Approved March 12, 1996).
    Public Law 104-121--To provide for enactment of the Senior 
Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996, the Line Item Veto Act, 
and the Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to 
provide for a permanent increase in the public debt limit. 
``Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996''. ``Senior 
Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996''. ``Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996''. (H.R. 3136) 
(Approved March 29, 1996; effective dates vary) .
    Public Law 104-125--To grant the consent of the Congress to 
certain additional powers conferred upon the Bi-State 
Development Agency by the States of Missouri and Illinois. 
(H.J. Res. 78) (Approved April 1, 1996; effective date January 
1, 1995).
    Public Law 104-126--Granting the consent of Congress to the 
Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate Public Water Supply Compact. 
(S.J. Res. 38) (Approved April 1, 1996).
    Public Law 104-132--To deter terrorism, provide justice for 
victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other 
purposes. ``Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
1996''. ``Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996''. 
``Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 1996''. (S. 735) 
(Approved April 24, 1996; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 104-144--To grant the consent of Congress to an 
amendment of the Historic Chattahoochee Compact between the 
States of Alabama and Georgia (H.R. 2064) (Approved May 16, 
1996).
    Public Law 104-145--To amend the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to require the release of relevant 
information to protect the public from sexually violent 
offenders. ``Megan's Law''. (H.R. 2137) (Approved May 17, 
1996).
    Public Law 104-152--To amend the anti-car theft provisions 
of title 49, United States Code, to increase the utility of 
motor vehicle title information to State and Federal law 
enforcement officials, and for other purposes. ``Anti-Car Theft 
Improvements Act of 1996''. (H.R. 2803) (Approved July 2, 
1996).
    Public Law 104-153--To control and prevent commercial 
counterfeiting, and for other purposes. ``Anticounterfeiting 
Consumer Protection Act of 1996''. (S. 1136) (Approved July 2, 
1996).
    Public Law 104-155--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to clarify the Federal jurisdiction over offenses relating to 
damage to religious property. ``Church Arson Prevention Act of 
1996''. (H.R. 3525) (Approved July 3, 1996).
    Public Law 104-169--To create the National Gambling Impact 
and Policy Commission. ``National Gambling Impact Study 
Commission Act''. (H.R. 497) (Approved August 3, 1996).
    Public Law 104-175--To authorize a circuit judge who has 
taken part in an in banc hearing of a case to continue to 
participate in that case after taking senior status, and for 
other purposes. (S. 531) (Approved August 6, 1996).
    Public Law 104-176--Granting the consent of Congress to the 
compact to provide for joint natural resource management and 
enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to natural 
resources and boating at the Jennings Randolph Lake Project 
lying in Garrett County, Maryland and Mineral County, West 
Virginia, entered into between the States of West Virginia and 
Maryland. (S.J. Res. 20) (Approved August 6, 1996).
    Public Law 104-177--To amend title 18 of the United States 
Code to allow members of employee associations to represent 
their views before the United States Government. ``Federal 
Employee Representation Improvement Act of 1996''. (H.R. 782) 
(Approved August 6, 1996).
    Public Law 104-178--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to repeal the provision relating to Federal employees 
contracting or trading with Indians. (H.R. 3215) (Approved 
August 6, 1996).
    Public Law 104-179--To amend the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978 to extend the authorization of appropriations for the 
Office of Government Ethics for 3 years, and for other 
purposes. ``Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 
1996''. (H.R. 3235) (Approved August 6, 1996).
    Public Law 104-181--Granting the consent of Congress to the 
Mutual Aid Agreement between the city of Bristol, Virginia, and 
the city of Bristol, Tennessee. (H.J. Res. 166) (Approved 
August 6, 1996).
    Public Law 104-191--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to improve portability and continuity of health insurance 
coverage in the group and individual markets, to combat waste, 
fraud, and abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, 
to promote the use of medical savings accounts, to improve 
access to long-term care services and coverage, to simplify the 
administration of health insurance, and for other purposes. 
``Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
1996''. (H.R. 3103) (Approved August 21, 1996; effective dates 
vary).
    Public Law 104-192--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to carry out the international obligations of the United States 
under the Geneva Conventions to provide criminal penalties for 
certain war crimes. ``War Crimes Act of 1996''. (H.R. 3680) 
(Approved August 21, 1996.)
    Public Law 104-198--To confer jurisdiction on the United 
States Court of Federal Claims with respect to land claims of 
Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe (H.R. 740) (Approved September 
18, 1996).
    Public Law 104-199--To define and protect the institution 
of marriage ``Defense of Marriage Act''. (H.R. 3396) (Approved 
September 21, 1996).
    Public Law 104-201--To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 1997 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 1997''. 
``National Imagery and Mapping Agency Act of 1996''. ``Reserve 
Forces Revitalization Act of 1996''. ``Defense Against Weapons 
of Mass Destruction Act of 1996'' ``Department of Defense 
Civilian Intelligence Personnel Policy Act of 1996''. 
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1997''. ``Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands Withdrawal 
Act''. ``El Centro Naval Air Facility Ranges Withdrawal Act''. 
``Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Amendment Act''. 
``Panama Canal Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1997''. ``Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996''. (H.R. 3230) 
(Approved September 23, 1996, effective dates vary).
    Public Law 104-208--Making appropriations for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1997, and for other purposes. (H.R. 3610) (Approved September 
30, 1996).
    Public Law 104-214--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
with respect to witness retaliation, witness tampering and jury 
tampering. (H.R. 3120) (Approved October 1, 1996).
    Public Law 104-217--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the Federal 
carjacking prohibition. ``Carjacking Correction Act of 1996''. 
(H.R. 3676) (Approved October 1, 1996).
    Public Law 104-218--To confer honorary citizenship of the 
United States on Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, also known as Mother 
Teresa. (H.J. Res. 191) (Approved October 1, 1996).
    Public Law 104-219--To clarify the rules governing removal 
of cases to Federal court, and for other purposes. (S. 533) 
(Approved October 1, 1996).
    Public Law 104-220--To repeal a redundant venue provision, 
and for other purposes. (S. 677) (Approved October 1, 1996).
    Public Law 104-232--To provide for the extension of the 
Parole Commission to oversee cases of prisoners sentenced under 
prior law, to reduce the size of the Parole Commission, and for 
other purposes. ``Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996''. (S. 
1507) (Approved October 2, 1996).
    Public Law 104-235--To modify and reauthorize the Child 
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and for other purposes. 
``Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 
1996''. (S. 919) (Approved October 3, 1996).
    Public Law 104-236--To provide for the nationwide tracking 
of convicted sexual predators, and for other purposes. ``Pam 
Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 
1996''. (S. 1675) (Approved October 3, 1996; effective date 
October 3, 1997, except for certain State compliance 
provisions).
    Public Law 104-237--To prevent the illegal manufacturing 
and use of methamphetamine. ``Comprehensive Methamphetamine 
Control Act of 1996''. (S. 1965) (Approved October 3, 1996).
    Public Law 104-238--To provide educational assistance to 
the dependents of Federal law enforcement officials who are 
killed or disabled in the performance of their duties. 
``Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996''. 
(S. 2101) (Approved October 3, 1996).
    Public Law 104-280--To provide for the extension of certain 
authority for the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme 
Court Police (S. 2100) (Approved October 9, 1996).
    Public Law 104-285--To reauthorize the National Film 
Preservation Board, and for other purposes. ``National Film 
Preservation Act of 1996''. ``National Film Preservation 
Foundation Act''. (H.R. 1734) (Approved October 11, 1996).
    Public Law 104-287--To codify without substantive change 
laws related to transportation and to improve the United States 
Code. (H.R. 2297) (Approved October 11, 1996).
    Public Law 104-292--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
with respect to the crime of false statement in a Government 
matter ``False Statements Accountability Act of 1996''. (H.R. 
3166) (Approved October 11, 1996).
    Public Law 104-294--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to protect proprietary economic information, and for other 
purposes. ``Economic Espionage Act of 1996''. (H.R. 3723) 
(Approved October 11, 1996).
    Public Law 104-302--To To extend the authorized period of 
stay within the United States for certain nurses. (S. 2197) 
(Approved October 11, 1996; effective date September 30, 1996).
    Public Law 104-305--To combat drug-facilitated crimes of 
violence, including sexual assaults. ``Drug-Induced Rape 
Prevention and Punishment Act of 1996''. (H.R. 4137) (Approved 
October 13, 1996).
    Public Law 104-308--To enhance fairness in compensating 
owners of patents used by the United States. (H.R. 632) 
(Approved October 19, 1996; effective with respect to actions 
pending on, or brought on or after the date of enactment).
    Public Law 104-309--To express the sense of the Congress 
that United States Government agencies in possession of records 
about individuals who are alleged to have committed Nazi war 
crimes should make these records public. (H.R. 1281) (Approved 
October 19, 1996).
    Public Law 104-317--To make improvements in the operation 
and administration of the Federal courts, and for other 
purposes (S. 1887) (Approved October 19, 1996).
    Public Law 104-319--To strengthen the protection of 
internationally recognized human rights. (H.R. 4036) (Approved 
October 19, 1996).
    Public Law 104-320--To reauthorize alternative means of 
dispute resolution in the Federal administrative process, and 
for other purposes. ``Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 
1996''. (H.R. 4194) (Approved October 19, 1996; effective dates 
vary).
    Public Law 104-321--To Granting the consent of Congress to 
the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. (H.J. Res. 193) 
(Approved October 19, 1996).
    Public Law 104-322--To Granting the consent of the Congress 
to amendments made by Maryland, Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation 
Compact. (H.J. Res. 194) (Approved October 19, 1996).
    Public Law 104-324--To authorize appropriations for the 
United States Coast Guard, and for other purposes. (S. 1004) 
(Approved October 19, 1996).
    Public Law 104-331--To make certain laws applicable to the 
Executive Office of the President, and for other purposes (H.R. 
3452) (Approved October 26, 1996).

                        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. 1058

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 1058, 
the ``Securities Litigation Reform Act.'' H.R. 1058 became law 
over the objections of the President, as P.L. 104-67.

H.R. 1530

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 1530, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996.''

H.R. 2491

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 2491, 
the ``Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995,'' 
for provisions relating to health care liability reform, 
physician service network antitrust coverage and physician 
self-policing antitrust exemptions.
            I. Health Care Liability Reform
    The House, but not the Senate, bill included a series of 
provisions aimed at reforming the litigation system as it 
relates to health care actions. These reforms were driven by a 
recognition that the health care system is burdened by cost-
based pressures, one of which is the threat of liability suits 
facing medical practitioners and health care providers and the 
large dollar amounts they are forced to spend to protect 
themselves against these legal actions.
    The principal provisions contained in the House bill are as 
follows:
          1. Applicability. The proposed legislation would 
        establish uniform standards for health care liability 
        actions (including medical malpractice liability 
        actions) brought in either federal or state court. 
        These standards would also apply to claims filed in any 
        alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system established 
        under federal or state law.
          2. Statute of Limitations. No health care liability 
        claim could be brought more than two years after the 
        injury is discovered (or should reasonably have been 
        discovered) and, in no event, more than five years 
        after the initial injury actually occurred.
          3. Non-Economic Damages. The maximum recovery for 
        non-economic damages (pain and suffering, etc.) could 
        not exceed $250,000 in a particular case.
          4. Joint and Several Liability. A defendant would 
        only be liable for the amount of non-economic damages 
        attributable to that defendant's proportionate share of 
        the fault or responsibility for the claimant's injury. 
        All defendants would remain jointly liable for economic 
        losses.
          5. Punitive Damages. Punitive damages could not 
        exceed three times the amount of damages awarded to a 
        claimant for economic loss or $250,000, whichever is 
        greater. The determination as to whether punitive 
        damages should be awarded and the amount would be made 
        by the judge, not the jury. Either party may request a 
        separate proceeding (bifurcation) on the issues of 
        whether punitive damages should be awarded and in what 
        amount. Punitive damages may not be awarded in a case 
        where a drug or device was subject to pre-market 
        approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 
        unless there was misrepresentation or fraud.
          6. Collateral Source Rule. A defendant may introduce 
        evidence of amounts paid or likely to be paid to the 
        claimant through health or accident insurance, 
        disability coverage, worker's compensation or any other 
        collateral source.
          7. Periodic Payments. The claimant's damages (both 
        economic and non-economic) will be paid--if in excess 
        of $50,000--periodically rather than in a lump sum.
    These provisions were not included in the conference 
report.
            II. Easing of Antitrust Barriers for Physician Service 
                    Networks
    H.R. 2425 created ``provider service networks''--those 
composed of doctors, hospitals, and other entities who actually 
deliver health care services--which could be potentially 
vigorous competitors for Medicare beneficiaries. The benefits 
to the Medicare program of their participation would be lower 
costs and higher quality of care than in non-provider sponsored 
health plans. Costs would be lower because contracting with a 
PSN instead of an insurer could eliminate a layer of profit and 
overhead. Quality would be higher because providers, and 
particularly physicians, would have direct control over medical 
decision-making. Arguably, physicians and other providers are 
better qualified than insurers to strike the balance between 
conserving costs and meeting the needs of the patient.
    The House recognized, however, that there could be 
obstacles to the formation of PSNs. One of the most serious is 
the application of the antitrust laws to such groups in a 
manner which does not allow the network to engage in joint 
pricing agreements, regardless of whether its effect on 
competition is positive rather than negative. For this reason, 
the House bill contained a provision which would grant rule of 
reason treatments to provider service networks seeking to 
contract for the provision of services under Medicare. For a 
more detailed discussion of this issue, see the discussion of 
H.R. 2925 in the Full Committee section of this report.
    This antitrust provision was not included in the final 
conference report because of the application of the Byrd rule 
in the Senate.
            III. Antitrust Exemption for Medical Self-Regulatory 
                    Entities
    Standard setting is a cooperative activity engaged in by 
the providers of the health care services in this country. 
Those entities have a long history of protecting the public 
with standards for medical education, professional ethics, and 
specialty certification. These activities have increasingly 
been challenged under the antitrust laws in recent years, 
typically by those who fail to meet the standards. Congress 
attempted to address this problem with the Health Care Quality 
Improvement Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 11101 et. seq., which 
provided antitrust protection for peer review actions conducted 
in good faith. While beneficial, this law shifted the debate in 
antitrust litigation over peer review to whether the 
participants acted in ``good faith'' and has not served to stem 
the tide of antitrust law suits.
    The medical self-regulatory entity exemption included in 
the House bill would bar antitrust suits against medical self-
regulatory entities that develop or enforce medical standards. 
This would include activities such as accreditation of health 
care providers and medical education programs and institutions, 
technology assessment and risk management, development and 
implementation of practice guidelines and parameters, and 
official peer review proceedings. The exemption would cover 
suits against individual members of the groups which undertake 
these activities as well as the organizational entity on whose 
behalf they act.
    The scope of this antitrust protection is not absolute, 
however. Activities by a medical self-regulatory body that are 
conducted for purposes of financial gain or which would 
interfere with the provision of health care services of a 
provider who is not a member of the profession that sets the 
standard would not be covered or exempted by this provision.
    The conference report did not include this provision.

H.R. 2539

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 2539, 
the ``ICC Termination Act of 1995,'' for consideration of 
provisions relating to the applicability of antitrust laws to 
carrier mergers and interstate carriers. Also, the Committee's 
conferees were appointed to consider provisions dealing with 
federal courts and state taxation of interstate commerce with 
respect to ad valorum taxes on rail property. The bill was 
approved by the President on December 29, 1995 as P.L. 104-88.

H.R. 3103

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 3103, 
the ``Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 
1996,'' for consideration of issues relating to health care 
liability reform and fraud and abuse, and other issues within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee. The bill was approved by the 
President on August 21, 1996 as P.L. 104-191. The principal 
disputed provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
are discussed below:
            I. Health Care Liability Reform
    The House bill, but not the Senate, included provisions 
relating to health care liability reform. Its provisions were 
identical to those included in the H.R. 2491, and discussed 
above. The conference report did not include these provisions.
    The Conferees agreed to modifications to a Senate provision 
which would extend Federal Tort Claims Act coverage to certain 
medical volunteers in free clinics in order to expand access to 
health care services to low-income individuals in medically 
under served areas.
            II. Fraud and Abuse
    Two principal differences existed between the House and 
Senate bills in this area. The first concerned the standard to 
be imposed for two criminal offenses--the filing of false 
statements, and health care fraud. The House bill requires only 
that the conduct be ``knowing,'' while the Senate bill requires 
``knowing and willing'' conduct. The conferees agreed to adopt 
the Senate standard in connection with both the filing of false 
statements and the Health Care Fraud offense.
    The second open issue involved the availability to the 
provider community of advisory opinions concerning violations 
of the anti-kickback statute. The House bill would require the 
Secretary of HHS to provide these opinions within 30 days of a 
request. The opinion would be binding on the Secretary, and 
would be available to the public for use as evidence of agency 
interpretation of the statute. The Senate bill allows the HHS 
Inspector General to issue interpretive rulings, when 
appropriate. These rulings would not bind the Secretary in a 
particular case, and they would not extend to questions of 
fact, such as the intent of the parties or the fair market 
value of particular leased space or equipment.
    The conferees agreed to adopt the House provision with 
modifications. The Secretary will be required to issue a 
response to a party requesting an advisory opinion within 60 
days, and the advisory opinion provisions will apply to 
requests made for opinions on or after the date which is 6 
months after the date of enactment. The agreement requires the 
Secretary of HHS to consult with the Attorney General prior to 
issuing the opinion, and sunsets the entire advisory opinion 
process after four years.

H.R. 3230

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 3230, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1997.'' Portions of H.R. 3230 within the Committee's 
jurisdiction included the repeal of the right of judicial 
review in Title 10, U.S.C., relating to missing persons, which 
was adopted; a provision relating to stalking of military 
personnel, which was adopted with amendments; new third party 
liability to the Untied States for certain injuries to members 
of the uniformed services, which was adopted; provisions 
relating to patent law, which were rejected; a prohibition of 
the distribution of information relating to explosive 
materials, which was rejected; a federal charter for the Fleet 
Reserve Association, which was adopted; and a provision 
allowing for military assistance to civilian law enforcement 
officials in emergency situations involving biological or 
chemical weapons, which was adopted. The bill was approved by 
the President on September 23, 1996 as P.L. 104-201.

S. 652

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on S. 652, the 
``Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 
1995.'' A more detailed description of the subject of this 
conference appears below in the discussion of the activities of 
the Full Committee. The President approved the bill on February 
8, 1996 as P.L. 104-104.

S. 1004

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on S. 1004, 
the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1995,'' for provisions 
dealing with tort liability and criminal penalties relating to 
the pilots of aircraft. The President approved the bill on 
October 19, 1996, as P.L. 104-324.
                                     

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

 HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          Wisconsin
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   LAMAR SMITH, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island              STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
JERROLD NADLER, New York             ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
XAVIER BECERRA, California           BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York 1     STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California              MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            SONNY BONO, California
MAXINE WATERS, California 2     FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina
                                     ED BRYANT, Tennessee
                                     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
                                     MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois
                                     BOB BARR, Georgia

----------
\1\ Jose E. Serrano, New York, resigned from the Committee effective 
March 14, 1996.
\2\ Maxine Waters, California, was elected to the Committee pursuant to 
House Resolution 414, approved by the House April 25, 1996.

                       Full Committee Activities

    During the 104th 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 (including 
medical malpractice, product liability and legal reform). In 
addition, a number of specific legislative issues were handled 
exclusively by the full Committee, including the Balanced 
Budget Constitutional Amendment, antiterrorism, the Gambling 
Commission, church arson, civil asset forfeiture, regulatory 
sunset, encryption, and the proposed Victims Rights 
Constitutional Amendment.

                         Legislative Activities

                               Antitrust

Telecommunications Reform--H.R. 1528, H.R. 1555, P.L. 104-104

    Summary.--The 105th Congress passed historic 
telecommunications legislation that will usher in a new era in 
the industry. The structure of the industry before the passage 
of this legislation came about because the Department of 
Justice (``DOJ'') brought an antitrust action against the 
American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (``AT&T'') in 1974. The 
government sought to prevent AT&T from using its local 
telephone monopoly: (1) to discriminate against its competitors 
in long distance and equipment manufacturing, and (2) to use 
revenues from its regulated monopoly in local telephone service 
to subsidize its other non-regulated business ventures, a 
practice known as cross-subsidization. That action led to a 
settlement and consent decree entered in 1982. United States v. 
American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 552 F.Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 
1982), aff'd, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). This consent decree is 
commonly known as the Modification of Final Judgment (``MFJ'').
    Under the terms of the MFJ, AT&T retained its long distance 
and manufacturing businesses, but divested itself of its local 
telephone exchange monopoly. Effective January 1, 1984, the 
local telephone exchange monopolies were taken over by seven 
Regional Bell Operating Companies (``RBOCs'')--NYNEX, Bell 
Atlantic, BellSouth, Ameritech, SBC Communications, Inc. 
(formerly known as Southwestern Bell), U.S. West, and Pacific 
Telesis. The RBOCs are completely separate from AT&T, and they 
and AT&T had opposing views as to the shape that MFJ reform 
legislation should take.
    The MFJ prohibited the RBOCs from entering four lines of 
business: (1) providing long distance service; (2) 
manufacturing telecommunications equipment; (3) providing 
information services; and (4) entering into any other non-
telecommunications business. The courts had subsequently 
removed the restrictions on information services and non-
telecommunications businesses. However, until the legislation 
passed, the RBOCs still could not enter the long distance 
business or the manufacturing business.
    The RBOCs contended that they would bring increased 
competition to these markets. On the other hand, the long 
distance companies contended that unless competition in local 
exchange service was established before the RBOCs entered the 
long distance market, the RBOCs would be able to engage in the 
same types of discrimination and cross-subsidization that led 
to the AT&T breakup.
    Companies could seek waivers from the MFJ's restrictions, 
but they had to first submit them to DOJ which made a 
recommendation to the Court. The Court then ruled on the 
request. The RBOCs contended that this process had broken down 
and that DOJ and the Court took too long to act on these 
waivers. This is one of the reasons that the RBOCs opposed any 
DOJ role in the legislation.
    DOJ, on the other hand, maintained that it was doing a good 
job of moving the waiver requests along given that they had 
become increasingly complicated over the years the MFJ had been 
in effect. DOJ argued that this increased complexity was 
evidenced by the fact that during 1993 and 1994, it has 
received nearly six times the average number of comments per 
waiver than it had during the previous nine years. DOJ also 
pointed out that in the earlier years, many of the waivers 
requested permission to enter non-telecommunications businesses 
which required little antitrust analysis. Many of these early 
waiver requests were ``me-too'' requests filed by one RBOC 
after another RBOC's similar request had already been approved 
again requiring little analysis. By contrast, the waiver 
requests filed in the last few years went to the core line of 
business restrictions and require much more analysis. In 
addition, DOJ and the long distance companies contended that 
only DOJ had the expertise to analyze properly the competitive 
issues involved in MFJ reform. The legislation Chairman Hyde 
introduced (H.R. 1528) would have mooted that debate by setting 
up a new streamlined process under which DOJ would have had to 
act within established time limits. If DOJ had not acted within 
the time limit, the RBOCs' applications would have been deemed 
approved.
    The full Committee held hearings on H.R. 1528 and ordered 
it reported with broad, bipartisan support. The Committee 
ultimately merged the approach it took in H.R. 1528 with that 
taken by the Committee on Commerce into one bill, H.R. 1555, 
that passed the House. The Committee participated fully in the 
House-Senate Conference Committee, and it led the Conference 
negotiations on a number of important issues, including the 
transition from the MFJ to the new environment, the role of the 
Department of Justice, the repeal of the FCC's authority to 
grant antitrust immunity to mergers in the industry, electronic 
publishing, alarm monitoring, and other issues.
    Hearing and Legislative History.--On May 2, 1995, Chairman 
Hyde introduced H.R. 1528, the ``Antitrust Consent Decree 
Reform Act of 1995.'' On May 9, 1995, the full Committee held a 
hearing on the role of the Department of Justice in 
telecommunications which focused heavily on H.R. 1528. (Serial 
No. 7) The witnesses were: Hon. Anne K. Bingaman, Assistant 
Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States Department 
of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Bert C. Roberts, Jr., 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, MCI Communications 
Corporation, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Thomas P. Hester, Executive 
Vice President and General Counsel, Ameritech, Chicago, 
Illinois; and Mr. Timothy J. Regan, Division Vice President, 
Corning, Inc., Washington, D.C.
    On May 18, 1995, the Committee marked up H.R. 1528 and 
ordered it favorably reported, as amended, by a roll call vote 
of 29 ayes to 1 nay. On July 24, 1995, the Committee filed its 
report on H.R. 1528. (H. Rept. 104-203, part I). On the same 
day, the Committee on Commerce, which had a secondary referral 
of H.R. 1528, was discharged from further consideration. 
Likewise, the Judiciary Committee, which had a secondary 
referral of the Commerce Committee bill, H.R. 1555, was 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1555.
    On August 3, 1995, H.R. 1555, as amended to reflect the 
Judiciary Committee approach, passed the House by a roll call 
vote of 305 ayes to 117 nays. On October 12, 1995, the House 
passed the Senate bill, S. 652, after amending it to substitute 
the text of H.R. 1555 as passed by the House thereby setting 
the stage for a conference. Fourteen members of the Judiciary 
Committee were conferees. On January 31, 1996, the conference 
filed its report. (H. Rept. 104-458). On February 1, 1996, the 
House and the Senate passed the conference report. On February 
8, 1996, the President signed the bill into law. (Public Law 
No. 104-104)

Charitable Gift Annuities--H.R. 2525

    Summary.--The ``Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief 
Act of 1995'' (H.R. 2525) provides antitrust protection to 
organizations which are registered as 501(c)(3) non-profit 
entities and exempt from taxation, and which issue charitable 
gift annuities. It specifies that agreeing to use, or using the 
same annuity rate for the purpose of issuing one or more 
charitable gift annuity is not unlawful under the antitrust 
laws. The exemption extends to both Federal and State law, 
although a state would have three years after enactment to 
expressly override application of the bill to its state 
antitrust laws.
    A charitable gift annuity is a fundraising instrument 
defined and regulated under section 501(m)(5) of the Internal 
Revenue Code. A person who enters into a gift annuity agreement 
with a religious, charitable or educational institution makes a 
gift to the institution and receives a fixed income for life. 
Since the value of the gift received is more than the property 
transferred to the donor, a bargain sale has occurred, and the 
difference in values is deductible to the donor.
    The Committee learned that charitable giving through gift 
annuities was being threatened by a lawsuit pending in the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Texas. Richie v. American Council on Gift Annuities (Civ. No. 
7:94-CV-128-X). The Richie suit alleged that the use of the 
same annuity rate by the various charities constitutes price 
fixing, and thus a violation of the antitrust laws.
    The Committee believed that the application of the 
antitrust laws to this situation would be contrary to good 
public policy. Congress encourages private gift giving through 
legitimate means, and particularly through instruments which 
the IRS approves and regulates. Gift annuities carry this 
imprimatur. Litigants should not be able to use the antitrust 
laws as an impediment to these beneficial activities where, as 
here, there is no detriment associated with the conduct. It is 
particularly difficult to see what anticompetitive effect the 
supposed setting of prices has in a context where the decision 
to give is motivated not by price but by interest in and 
commitment to a charitable mission.
    Furthermore, it is a misnomer to use the term ``price'' to 
describe the selection of an annuity rate: in this context an 
annuity rate merely determines the portion of the donation to 
be returned to the donor, and the portion the charity will 
retain. Donors are not primarily buying an annuity; they are 
making a gift. It is the idea of helping the charity, not 
maximizing return, which stimulates the transaction.
    Enactment of H.R. 2525 was intended to provide a complete 
defense to the antitrust portions of the Richie suit, as well 
as protection from future suits based on the use of agreed-upon 
annuity rates.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2525 was introduced by Chairman 
Hyde on October 24, 1995, with 14 original cosponsors. It was 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives on October 
31, 1995, by voice vote, House Report No. 104-336. It passed 
the House on the corrections calendar on November 28, 1995, by 
a vote of 427 ayes to 0 nays. The Senate received the bill on 
November 29, 1996 and immediately adopted the bill by voice 
vote. H.R. 2525 was approved on December 8, 1995, as Public Law 
104-63.

Intellectual Property Antitrust Protection--H.R. 2674

    Summary.--H.R. 2674, introduced by Chairman Hyde, would 
eliminate a court-created presumption that market power is 
always present for antitrust purposes when a product protected 
by an intellectual property right is sold, licensed, or 
otherwise transferred. Market power is ``the power to control 
prices or exclude competition.'' United States v. E.I. du Pont 
de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391 (1956). Many believe that 
the market power presumption for intellectual property is wrong 
because it is based on false assumptions. Because there are 
often substitutes for products covered by intellectual property 
rights or there is no demand for the protected product, an 
intellectual property right does not automatically confer the 
power to determine the overall market price of a product or the 
power to exclude competitors from the marketplace. As Justice 
O'Connor put it:

          A common misconception has been that a patent or 
        copyright . . . suffices to demonstrate market power. 
        While [a patent or copyright] might help to give market 
        power to a seller, it is also possible that a seller in 
        [that situation] will have no market power: for 
        example, a patent holder has no market power in any 
        relevant sense if there are close substitutes for the 
        patented product.

Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 37 
n.7 (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). See also 
Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc. v. Glaverbel, S.A., 861 
F.Supp. 653, 663 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
    The recent Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of 
Intellectual Property--issued jointly by the antitrust 
enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice and the Federal 
Trade Commission--acknowledge that the court-created 
presumption is wrong. The Guidelines state that the enforcement 
agencies ``will not presume that a patent, copyright, or trade 
secret necessarily confers market power upon its owner. 
Although the intellectual property right confers the power to 
exclude with respect to the specific product, process, or work 
in question, there will often be sufficient actual or potential 
close substitutes for such product, process, or work to prevent 
the exercise of market power.'' Antitrust Guidelines for the 
Licensing of Intellectual Property dated April 6, 1995 at 4 
(emphasis in original).
    The Guidelines are helpful because they state the 
enforcement policies of the Department of Justice and the 
Federal Trade Commission. However, they are not a complete 
solution to the problem. The agencies are not legally bound by 
the Guidelines. More importantly, the Guidelines do not have 
any effect on private parties who are free to bring antitrust 
suits relying on the presumption.
    Unfortunately, some court decisions continue to apply the 
erroneous presumption of market power thereby creating an 
unintended conflict between the antitrust laws and the 
intellectual property laws. Economists and legal scholars have 
criticized these decisions, and more importantly, these 
decisions have discouraged innovation to the detriment of the 
American economy.
    A number of Supreme Court and lower federal court decisions 
have applied the erroneous presumption construing patents and 
copyrights as automatically giving the intellectual property 
owner market power. Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. 
Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 16 (1984); United States v. Loews, Inc., 371 
U.S. 38, 45 (1962); Lee v. The Life Insurance Co. of North 
America, 23 F.3d 14, 16 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 427 
(1994) (Market power ``may be demonstrated, for example, if the 
seller holds a monopoly in the tying product (e.g. a patented 
product) . . .''); Digidyne Corp. v. Data General Corp., 734 
F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 908 
(1984); Brokerage Concepts, Inc. v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 1995 
U.S. Dist. Lexis 10807, *8 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (``Market power 
arises where the seller has a patent or other government 
granted monopoly . . .''). By the same token, some courts have 
refused to apply the presumption despite the Supreme Court's 
rulings. Abbott Laboratories v. Brennan, 952 F.2d 1346, 1354-55 
(Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1205 (1992); A.I. Root 
Co. v. Computer/Dynamics, Inc., 806 F.2d 673, 676 (6th Cir. 
1986). As the Guidelines note, the law is unclear on this 
issue. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual 
Property dated April 6, 1995 at 4 n.10. This lack of clarity 
causes uncertainty about the law which, in turn, stifles 
innovation and discourages the dissemination of technology.
    The best example of the presumption's effect occurs in the 
area of tying. Under Supreme Court precedent, tying is subject 
to per se treatment under the antitrust laws only if the 
defendant has market power in the tying product. However, the 
presumption automatically confers market power on any patented 
or copyrighted product. Thus, when a patented or copyrighted 
product is sold with any other product, it is automatically 
reviewed under a harsh per se standard even though the patented 
or copyrighted product may not have any market power. As a 
result, innovative computer manufacturers may be unwilling to 
sell copyrighted software with unprotected hardware--a package 
that many consumers desire--because of the fear that this 
bundling will be judged as a per se violation of the 
prohibition against tying. The disagreement among the courts 
only heightens the problem for corporate counsel advising their 
clients as to how to proceed. Moreover, it encourages forum 
shopping as competitors seek a court that will apply the 
presumption. Intellectual property owners need a uniform 
national rule enacted by Congress.
    Opponents of the bill have testified in the past that 
overturning the presumption would encourage tying arrangements 
and stifle innovation in the computer field. That contention 
assumes that all tying arrangements are necessarily 
anticompetitive. In many cases, however, tying is 
procompetitive. For example, we all want to buy cars that are 
``tied'' to tires, even though we could buy the tires 
separately. Tying only becomes anticompetitive when it forces 
consumers to buy a separate product that they would not 
otherwise buy.
    Similar legislation, S. 270, passed the Senate four times 
during the 101st Congress with broad, bipartisan support. 
During the debate over that legislation, opponents of this 
procompetitive measure made various erroneous claims about this 
legislation, and they should be corrected. First, this bill 
does not create an antitrust exemption. To the contrary, it 
eliminates an antitrust plaintiff's ability to rely on a 
presumption of market power, which is usually not true, rather 
than providing actual proof of market power. Second, this bill 
does not in any way affect the remedies, including treble 
damages, that are available to an antitrust plaintiff when it 
does prove its case. Third, this bill does not change the law 
that tying arrangements are deemed to be per se illegal when 
the defendant has market power in the tying product. Rather, it 
simply requires the plaintiff to prove that the claimed market 
power does, in fact, exist before subjecting the defendant to 
the per se standard. Fourth, this bill does not legalize any 
conduct that is currently illegal.
    This bill ensures that intellectual property owners are 
treated the same as all other companies under the antitrust 
laws, including those relating to tying violations. The bill 
does not give them any special treatment, but restores to them 
the same treatment that all others receive. The Committee 
expects to consider this measure further in the 105th Congress.
    Hearing.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 2674 on November 
20, 1995. On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the full Committee held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 2674, the ``Antitrust Intellectual 
Property Protection Act of 1995.'' (Serial No. 75) The 
witnesses were: Hon. Bruce Lehman, Assistant Secretary of 
Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and 
Trademark Office, Arlington, Virginia; Hon. Joel Klein, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Jacob Frank, Vice-President and 
General Counsel, Data General Corporation, Westborough, 
Massachusetts; Mr. Gregory Handschuh, Vice-President and 
General Counsel, Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale, California; Mr. 
John Kirk, Jenkens & Gilchrest, Houston, Texas, on behalf of 
the Intellectual Property Section of the American Bar 
Association; Mr. Larry Evans, Intellectual Property and 
Licensing Consultant, South Barrington, Illinois, on behalf of 
the Licensing Executives Society; Mr. Abbott Lipsky, Senior 
Competition Counsel, Coca-Cola Company, Atlanta, Georgia, on 
behalf of Intellectual Property Owners.

Sports Franchise Relocation--H.R. 2740

    Summary.--On November 6, 1995, the owner of the Cleveland 
Browns of the National Football League (``NFL''), Art Modell, 
announced that he was moving the team to Baltimore, Maryland. 
Citing financial difficulty, Mr. Modell agreed to move his team 
in return for promises from the Maryland Stadium Authority of a 
new, multi-million dollar, state-of-the-art stadium. The 
Cleveland community, which has fervently supported the Browns 
for years, erupted in a storm of protest. In the controversy 
which followed, the economic, social, and emotional costs and 
benefits of moving professional sports franchises from one city 
to another were hotly debated.
    The city of Cleveland filed a lawsuit seeking to block the 
move. On February 8, 1996, the NFL reached a settlement with 
the city which, among other things, would provide Cleveland 
with a team by the 1999 season and allow the new team to use 
the ``Browns'' nickname. On February 9, the NFL owners voted to 
approve the settlement and to approve the relocation of the old 
team to Baltimore. Under the NFL Constitution, any move by an 
NFL owner must be approved by a three-fourths majority of the 
team owners. The owners approved the move by a vote of 25 ayes 
to 2 nays.
    Franchise relocations have caused continuing controversy 
for the NFL. In the 1980s, owner Al Davis moved the Oakland 
Raiders to Los Angeles; in 1994, he moved them back to Oakland. 
The St. Louis Cardinals moved to Arizona in the late 1980s, 
while the Los Angeles Rams recently moved to St. Louis. The 
city of Baltimore lost its team in 1984 when the Baltimore 
Colts abruptly abandoned that city for Indianapolis, Indiana. 
At present, the Houston Oilers are actively seeking to move to 
Nashville, the Seattle Seahawks have announced plans to move to 
Los Angeles, and there are numerous rumors concerning possible 
moves by other teams.
     Prior to the 104th Congress, the last time this Committee 
had held hearings specifically on the subject of sports 
franchise movement was in 1981 and 1982. Since that time, the 
number and cost of team movements have dramatically increased. 
For example, the state of Maryland has offered over $200 
million dollars of public money to entice the Cleveland Browns 
to move. Cities are being pitted against each other in ever 
escalating bidding wars with public officials desperate to keep 
their teams in town.
    At the Committee's hearing, the Commissioner of the 
National Football League, Paul Tagliabue, testified that the 
League needed a ``narrow'' antitrust exemption to have some 
control over football franchise relocations. He further 
asserted that the decisions in the Oakland Raiders case and 
other court decisions severely restrict the NFL's power to 
prevent an owner from moving a football team to a new city.
     Mr. Tagliabue's contention that the NFL is nearly 
powerless to prevent franchise relocations grows out of 
litigation in the 1980s over Section 4.3 of the NFL's 
Constitution and Bylaws. Section 4.3 provides in relevant part 
that: ``No member club shall have the right to transfer its 
franchise or playing site to a different city, either within or 
outside its home territory, without prior approval by the 
affirmative vote of three-fourths of the existing member clubs 
of the League.'' When Al Davis announced that he would move the 
Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles, the NFL owners voted 22-0 to 
block the move under Rule 4.3. Mr. Davis brought an antitrust 
suit against the league claiming that the vote under Rule 4.3 
amounted to an illegal conspiracy to restrain trade in 
violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act.
     Mr. Davis ultimately prevailed in the liability phase of 
the case on two grounds. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 
Commission v. National Football League, 726 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 
1984) (``Raiders I''), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990 (1984). 
First, the Raiders I court held that, as a matter of law, the 
NFL is not a single entity incapable of conspiring with itself. 
Id. at 1387-90. Rather, the court found that the teams in the 
League compete with one another and may conspire with one 
another to restrain trade. One judge on the panel vigorously 
dissented from this holding arguing that the NFL is a single 
entity incapable of conspiring with itself. Id. at 1401, 1403-
10.
     Second, the Raiders I court considered whether the jury 
properly found that Rule 4.3 was an unreasonable ancillary 
restraint to the legitimate and necessary cooperation among NFL 
members. Applying a rule of reason analysis, the court held 
that ``the jury could have found that the rules restricting 
team movement do not sufficiently promote interbrand 
competition [i.e. competition among leagues] to justify the 
negative impact on intrabrand competition [i.e. competition 
among League members].'' Id. at 1397. The court further 
suggested that a league rule that included objective criteria 
and procedural due process mechanisms might pass antitrust 
scrutiny. Id. at 1397-98.
     Later, the appeal of the damages phase of the case shed 
further light on these issues. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 
Commission v. National Football League, 791 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 
1986) (``Raiders II''), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 826 (1987). In 
resolving the various claims as to how damages were to be 
offset, the Raiders II court held that the jury's verdict 
should be read as finding Rule 4.3 illegal only as it applied 
to this specific case. Id. at 1369. It was not to be read as 
finding the rule invalid in all cases. Id. The court 
specifically noted that the trial court's injunction only 
prohibited the NFL from enforcing the rule in the circumstances 
of this case and not in all other cases. Id. at 1369 & n.4.
     In a later case involving the relocation of the NBA's San 
Diego Clippers to Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the 
basic principles it set forth in Raiders I and Raiders II. 
National Basketball Association v. SDC Basketball Club, Inc., 
815 F.2d 562 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 484 U.S. 960 (1987). 
The court held:

        Collectively, the Raiders opinions held that rule of 
        reason analysis governed a professional sports league's 
        efforts to restrict franchise movement. More narrowly, 
        however, Raiders I merely held that a reasonable jury 
        could have found that the NFL's application of its 
        franchise movement rule was an unreasonable restraint 
        of trade. . . . Neither the jury's verdict in Raiders, 
        nor the court's affirmance of that verdict, held that a 
        franchise movement rule, in and of itself, was invalid 
        under the antitrust laws.

815 F.2d at 567.
    The decisions in the Raiders cases may be read to mean more 
than they do. In particular, analysis of the Raiders decisions 
rarely focuses on the fact that the Raiders moved to a market 
in which another NFL team, the Los Angeles Rams, was already 
playing. That consideration raises competitive issues that are 
not present in a more typical move like the Browns' move to 
Baltimore where no other team is located. In short, the NFL's 
claims that it is powerless to prevent franchise relocations 
because of the antitrust laws have not been thoroughly tested, 
and they may be based on a decision that arose out of an 
atypical fact situation. Nonetheless, the NFL raises a 
legitimate concern about the expense and uncertainty of 
antitrust treble damage lawsuits hanging over its head for 
years.
     As noted above, the Raiders I court suggested that an NFL 
rule that included objective criteria and procedural mechanisms 
to guide league decisions on franchise relocations might pass 
antitrust scrutiny. In December 1984, the League adopted a 
policy that provides for the types of objective criteria 
suggested by the court. These criteria include: (1) the 
adequacy of the team's stadium and the willingness of the city 
to renovate it; (2) the loyalty of the team's fans; (3) the 
extent of the team's public financial support; (4) the degree 
to which team management has contributed to the need to move; 
(5) the team's financial viability; (6) the degree to which the 
team has engaged in good faith negotiations with the city; (7) 
whether the existing city and the new city already have other 
teams; and (8) whether the stadium authority opposes the move. 
That policy also provides a procedural mechanism for 
consideration of franchise relocations. However, these 
procedural mechanisms apply only to the subject team and other 
League members. The policy does not allow the affected 
communities any participation in the process. To the 
Committee's knowledge, no court has ever reviewed this policy 
to determine whether it would violate the antitrust laws.
     Despite the decision in Raiders I, there is an ongoing 
debate as to whether sports leagues should be treated as single 
entities or whether each team should be treated as an 
independent firm for antitrust analysis purposes. Many legal 
commentators, as well as the NFL, have advanced the single 
entity theory arguing that the leagues are joint ventures in 
which the owners are partners. Other courts have followed the 
Raiders I decision on this point. Sullivan v. NFL, 34 F.3d 
1091, 1098-99. (1st Cir. 1994); McNeil v. NFL, 790 F.Supp. 871, 
879-80 (D. Minn. 1992).
     Professional sports leagues involve elements of both 
cooperation and competition. For example, sports leagues adopt 
uniform league rules and agree on the appropriate size of the 
playing field. Further, they cooperate on scheduling dates, the 
number of games played, and the playoff structure. In addition, 
they also share revenue from television rights and gate 
receipts. The leagues argue that the economic success of each 
team depends on the economic strength and stability of the 
other league members and that they are not economic 
competitors.
     Others argue that the teams are separate competing 
entities. This argument carries the most weight when two teams 
play in the same city, as in the Raiders case. Each club makes 
most of its own business decisions on a day-to-day business. 
They have separate profit and loss results. Each team 
determines its own ticket prices, players' salaries, and player 
acquisitions. Each team hires its own coaches, negotiates the 
terms of its stadium leases, and enters into its own local 
radio broadcasting deals. The Supreme Court has yet to resolve 
this issue.
    Aside from the franchise relocation issue, the NFL 
currently enjoys at least two antitrust exemptions: (1) the 
Sports Broadcasting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 et seq., which 
allows the teams to market the League's broadcast rights 
jointly and (2) the Football Merger Act of 1966, Public Law No. 
89-800, 80 Stat. 1508, which allowed the merger of the NFL with 
the old American Football League.
    H.R. 2740 addressed this issue by providing the sports 
leagues with the antitrust exemption that they sought. In 
return for this exemption, however, the leagues would have been 
required to provide an expansion team for any city that lost a 
team if that city could provide the name of a qualified 
investor in the expansion team.
    Hearing and Legislative History.--Representative Martin 
Hoke introduced H.R. 2740, the ``Fan Freedom and Community 
Protection Act of 1995,'' on December 7, 1995. Similar 
legislation was introduced in the Senate including, S.1439 by 
Senator Glenn, and S. 1529 by Senator DeWine. H.R. 2740 was 
primarily referred to this Committee with a secondary referral 
to the Committee on Commerce. On Tuesday, February 6, 1996, the 
full Committee held a legislative and oversight hearing on the 
antitrust implications of professional sports franchise 
relocations (Serial No. 57). At the hearing, the Committee 
considered H.R. 2740, as well as H.R. 2699, the ``Fans Rights 
Act,'' introduced by Representative Louis Stokes.
    The witnesses were: Hon. Martin Hoke, United States 
Representative, 10th District of Ohio; Hon. Michael Patrick 
Flanagan, United States Representative, 5th District of 
Illinois; Hon. Louis Stokes, United States Representative, 11th 
District of Ohio; Hon. John Glenn, United States Senator, State 
of Ohio; Mr. Paul Tagliabue, Commissioner, National Football 
League, New York, New York; Mr. Jerry Richardson, Owner, 
Carolina Panthers, Charlotte, North Carolina; Hon. Joe 
Chillura, Countywide Commissioner, Hillsborough County, 
Florida; Hon. Bob Lanier, Mayor, Houston, Texas; Hon. Gary 
Locke, County Executive, King County, Washington; Mr. John 
``Big Dawg'' Thompson, Browns Fan, Cleveland, Ohio; Professor 
Gary Roberts, Tulane Law School, New Orleans, Louisiana; 
Professor Andy Zimbalist, Smith College, Northampton, 
Massachusetts; and Mr. Bruce Keller, Debevoise & Plimpton, New 
York, New York, on behalf of the International Trademark 
Association.
    On Wednesday, April 24, 1996, the full Committee marked up 
H.R. 2740. At the markup, the Committee ordered the bill 
favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 24 ayes to 6 nays. 
The Committee filed its report on the bill on June 27, 1996 
(H.Rept. 104-656, Part I). The Speaker then set the period of 
time for consideration by the Committee on Commerce, and that 
period was extended several times with the final extension 
going through October 4, 1996. The Committee on Commerce did 
not file a report, and the bill did not come to the floor.

Health Care Provider Networks, H.R. 2925

    Summary.--H.R. 2925 would apply rule of reason treatment to 
the conduct of certain health care provider networks. The bill 
was intended to prevent antitrust enforcement policies from 
imposing an artificial barrier to the utilization of private 
cooperative initiatives which can make our health care system 
more efficient.
    Health care provider networks, or ``HCPNs,''--those 
composed of doctors, hospitals, and other entities who actually 
deliver health care services--are potentially vigorous 
competitors in the health care market. Their formation leads to 
lower health care costs and higher quality of care. Costs are 
lower because contracting directly with health care providers 
eliminates an intermediate layer of overhead and profit. 
Quality is higher because providers, and particularly 
physicians, have direct control over medical decision-making. 
Physicians and other health care professionals are better 
qualified than insurers to strike the proper balance between 
conserving costs and meeting the needs of the patient.
    Concern was raised that the application of current 
antitrust enforcement guidelines is discouraging providers from 
forming networks which would have a positive effect on 
competition. These networks would most likely be found legal 
under the antitrust laws, but providers--who are understandably 
concerned about potential treble damage liability--are 
unwilling to create them in the absence of pre-conduct approval 
from the enforcement agencies. H.R. 2925 removes this 
artificial barrier to entry, by conforming agency enforcement 
practices to the manner in which courts have interpreted and 
applied antitrust law.
    Antitrust law prohibits agreements among competitors that 
fix prices or allocate markets. Such agreements are per se 
illegal. Where competitors economically integrate in a joint 
venture, however, agreements on prices or other terms of 
competition that are reasonably necessary to accomplish to 
procompetitive benefits of the integration are not unlawful. 
See, e.g., Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 
441 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1979). Price setting conduct by these joint 
ventures is evaluated under the ``rule of reason,'' that is, on 
the basis of its reasonableness, taking into account all 
relevant factors affecting competition.
    The antitrust laws treat individual physicians as separate 
competitors. Thus, networks composed of physicians which set 
prices for their services as a group will be considered per se 
illegal under the antitrust laws if they are not economically 
integrated joint ventures. In the typical provider network, 
competing physicians relinquish some of their independence to 
permit the venture to win the business of health care 
purchasers, such as large employers. These networks promise to 
provide services to plan subscribers at reduced rates. The 
ventures also achieve another central goal of health care 
reform: careful, common sense controls on the provision of 
unnecessary care.
    However, agreements among physicians who retain a great 
deal of independence but set fees for their services as part of 
a network bear a striking resemblance to horizontal price 
fixing agreements. These are the most disfavored and most 
quickly condemned restraints in antitrust jurisprudence. The 
key factual question which would distinguish a network that is 
per se unlawful from one which, upon consideration of the 
circumstances, is acceptable because it is not anticompetitive 
in nature, is the degree of integration of the individuals who 
form the network.
    While the antitrust laws provide substantial latitude in 
the context of collaboration among health care professionals, 
there is an understandable degree of uncertainty associated 
with their enforcement. Because each network involves unique 
facts--differences not only in the structure of the network, 
but also in the market in which it will compete--the ability of 
providers to prospectively determine whether their arrangement 
will be considered legal is limited.
    In order to eliminate this uncertainty, and to encourage 
procompetitive behavior that would otherwise be chilled, the 
Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have 
established a mechanism for prospective review of proposed 
HCPNs. In 1993, the antitrust enforcement agencies jointly 
issued ``Statements of Enforcement Policy and Analytical 
Principles Relating to Health Care and Antitrust.'' These 
guidelines, which were amended in 1994, contain safety zones 
which describe provider network joint ventures that will not be 
challenged by the agencies under the antitrust laws, along with 
principles for analysis of joint ventures that fall outside the 
safety zones. A group of providers wishing to embark on a joint 
venture may request an advisory opinion from the agencies. The 
agencies, after reviewing the particulars of the proposed 
venture, then determine whether the network would fall within a 
safety zone, or otherwise not be challenged under the antitrust 
laws.
    The guidelines promise rule of reason treatment to ventures 
where the competitors involved are ``sufficiently integrated 
through the network.'' This is consistent with judicial 
interpretations of the law. See, e.g., Broadcast Music, Inc. v. 
Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 441 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1979). Where the 
guidelines diverged significantly from current law, however, 
was in defining integration solely as the sharing of 
``substantial financial risk.'' Under the 1994 guidelines, a 
network which integrates in any other way--regardless of the 
extent of that integration, or whether a court interpreting the 
antitrust laws would find it to be integrated--cannot qualify 
as a legitimate joint venture. This means that the agencies 
would not proceed to examine the specific facts of these joint 
ventures to determine their likely impact on competition; the 
arrangement would be viewed as per se illegal.
    This restrictive notion of what constitutes a legitimate 
joint venture discourages procompetitive ventures from entering 
the health care marketplace, under the guise of antitrust 
enforcement. It excludes potential provider networks which 
would mean an expanded set of consumer choices and increased 
competition (and thereby, lower costs) for health care 
services.
    In August 1996, after the Committee reported H.R. 2925, the 
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission 
guidelines were amended to allow consideration of additional 
factors in determining whether a prospective network qualifies 
as sufficiently integrated to receive rule of reason 
consideration. The impact of these amendments remains to be 
seen, but arguably they bring the enforcement policies more in 
tune with applicable case law. H.R. 2925 addressed the 
inadequacies of the 1994 guidelines by requiring that the 
conduct of an organization meeting the criteria of a Health 
Care Provider Network be judged under the rule of reason. The 
result would be to permit a case-by-case determination as to 
whether the conduct of that HCPN would be procompetitive, and 
thus permissible under the antitrust laws. This was not an 
exemption from the antitrust laws. In no event would providers 
be allowed to set prices or control markets if, in doing so, 
they have an anticompetitive effect on the market. The normal 
principles of antitrust law will continue to apply. There could 
just be no automatic assumption that such networks would be per 
se illegal.
    Only an organization meeting specified criteria would 
qualify for the more liberal, rule of reason consideration. The 
network must have in place written programs for quality 
assurance, utilization review, coordination of care and 
resolution of patient grievances and complaints. It must 
contract as a group, and mandate that all providers forming 
part of the group be accountable for provision of the services 
for which the organization has contracted. If these criteria 
are not met, the entity could still be considered per se 
illegal.
    Rule of reason consideration would be extended not only to 
the actual performance of a contract to provide health care 
services, but also to the exchange of information necessary to 
establish a HCPN. An important limitation on the exchange of 
information is that it must be reasonably required in order to 
create a HCPN. Further, information obtained in that context 
may not be used for any other purpose.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2925 was introduced by Chairman 
Hyde on February 1, 1996, and ultimately had 153 cosponsors. 
Hearings were held on the bill on February 27 and 28, 1996. The 
witnesses were: the Honorable Bill Archer; the Honorable Pete 
Stark; the Honorable Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal Trade 
Commission; Dr. Nancy Dickey, Chair, American Medical 
Association Board of Trustees; Gayle McKay, Associate Program 
Director for the Abbot Northwestern Hospital School of 
Anesthesia, on behalf of the American Association of Nurse 
Anesthetists; Margaret Mitzger, Senior Vice President and 
Corporate General Counsel for Tufts Associated Health Plan, on 
behalf of the American Association of Health Plans; and, 
Professor Clark Havighurst, William Neal Reynolds Professor at 
the Duke University School of Law.
    On March 12, 1996, the Committee ordered H.R. 2925 
favorably reported to the House by a vote of 20 yeas to 4 nays, 
House Report No. 104-646.

                            liability issues

Product Liability/Legal Reform--H.R. 10; H.R. 956

    The ``Common Sense Legal Reforms Act of 1995'' (H.R. 10) 
was introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde on 
the opening day of the 104th Congress (January 4, 1995). 
Section 103 of that bill focussed on product liability reform. 
On February 13, 1995, the full Committee held a hearing on 
``Product Liability and Civil Justice Reform.'' The Committee 
received testimony on section 103 of H.R. 10 and on broader 
civil justice and tort reform issues. The Committee heard 
testimony from the following eight witnesses: Charles E. 
Gilbert, Jr., President, Cincinnati Gilbert Machine Tool 
Company; Larry S. Stewart, President, American Trial Lawyers 
Association of America; Richard K. Willard, Partner, Steptoe 
and Johnson; Robert B. Creamer, Executive Director, Illinois 
Citizen Action, representing Citizen Action; Peter A. 
Chevalier, Vice President, Medtronic Inc.; Thomas A. Eaton, 
Professor of Law, University of Georgia; Patrick J. Head, Vice 
President and General Counsel, FMC Corporation; and William T. 
Waren, Federal Affairs Counsel, National Conference of State 
Legislatures. Subsequently, on February 15, Chairman Hyde 
introduced H.R. 956, the ``Common Sense Legal Standards Reform 
Act of 1995,'' which was modeled on section 103 of H.R. 10.
    H.R. 956 was designed to promote fairness in product 
liability litigation and set appropriate parameters for 
judicial consideration of punitive damage claims. Our excessive 
reliance today on a patchwork of conflicting state statutes and 
common law relating to allegations of product defects 
excessively burdens interstate commerce, discourages invention, 
exacerbates liability insurance costs, compromises American 
competitiveness, and forces Americans to pay higher prices. The 
absence of federal standards and limitations also proves 
harmful to businesses and consumers in the range of cases 
involving punitive damages, not just in product related 
litigation. Both product liability reform and punitive damages 
reform implicate important Federal interests that necessitate 
action on the national level.
    The development of national and international markets 
necessitates a federal response to product liability issues--a 
response that may have been inappropriate at earlier times when 
Americans relied primarily on locally produced goods. There is 
a need for a significant measure of national uniformity in the 
law of product liability to free American businesses from the 
excessive costs and uncertainties associated with the potential 
application of widely diverging state laws.
     In addressing reform of punitive damages, the Committee 
determined that the adverse impacts of excessive awards on 
interstate and foreign commerce extend to a wide range of cases 
that are not limited to situations involving products. As 
Richard Willard testified before our Committee, ``[a]ll manner 
of service providers . . . are tied to the national economy.'' 
The fact that punitive damages are not provided for under the 
laws of many countries--punitive damages, for example, are 
basically unknown in Continental Europe--underscores how the 
potential for virtually unlimited punitive damage awards in the 
United States, with the enormous risks involved, places our 
country at a significant competitive disadvantage.
     The Committee acted to reform punitive damages not only to 
ameliorate adverse affects on interstate and foreign commerce 
but also to protect due process rights. Punitive damages are 
designed to punish an individual entity for wrongdoing or deter 
such conduct rather than to compensate an injured party. 
Allowing a jury to exercise virtually unlimited discretion to 
impose punishment or deterrence in the form of punitive damages 
is no more justifiable than allowing a criminal court to 
disregard the severity of an offense in its sentencing role. 
The issue of what limits to impose on punitive damage awards is 
a legislative policy decision that is within the competence of 
Congress.
     The constitutional and policy justifications for this 
legislation are sound. H.R. 956 addresses problems that require 
national solutions. Although many Members of our Committee 
believe strongly in states' rights, it was recognized that some 
problems are national in nature and cannot be solved by diverse 
state legislation, however well intended.
     Testimony at the February 13th hearing documented the need 
for this legislation. Richard Willard, who served as Assistant 
Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division of the 
Department of Justice from 1983 to 1988, described litigation 
reform as ``a necessary part of any effort to make real changes 
in the way government works'' and characterized ``the 
increasing number of unpredictable and outrageous claims for 
punitive damages'' as the ``most urgent problem in civil 
litigation.'' Patrick J. Head, with his extensive experience as 
a corporate counsel and his wide knowledge of product 
liability, referred to the ``widespread consensus that American 
businesses need to improve their competitiveness by reducing 
costs, by expanding the markets for their products, and by 
pursuing innovation.'' He noted that ``[o]ur current product 
liability system undermines all of these efforts.'' Peter 
Chevalier, a researcher, innovator, and medical device industry 
executive, observed that ``the current product liability system 
in the U.S. is having a severely detrimental effect on the 
ability of medical device manufacturers to innovate in this 
country.'' He pointed out that the ``environment for innovation 
and research has become so harsh'' that his company ``recently 
moved the headquarters--the business unit responsible for 
managing the development of breakthrough technologies, from our 
Minneapolis Corporate Center to the Netherlands.'' Charles E. 
Gilbert, Jr., a former Chairman of the Board of the Association 
for Manufacturing Technology, commented that ``[u]nder the 
current product liability system, everyone is hurt--the 
manufacturer; the injured claimants, who may be left 
uncompensated if all the manufacturers' resources are depleted 
due to the lack of available, affordable insurance; and the 
public, who is denied access to products.'' He went on to 
state: ``Innovation and job creation are hampered by fear of 
the unknown. New designs and the new equipment to produce new, 
safer products represent too high a business risk for many 
American firms.''
     The present patchwork of fifty separate state product 
liability laws and the potential for virtually unlimited 
punitive damage awards in a wide range of cases are simply 
costing America too much. Today, we discourage capital 
investment, dampen job creation, and deny consumers new, safer, 
and less expensive products. We also misuse the civil justice 
system to impose disproportionate punishments without basic 
safeguards.
     H.R. 956 was considered by the Full Committee on February 
23, 1996. It was ordered reported, as amended, by a roll call 
vote of 21 to 11, House Report No. 104-64, Part I.
    Title I of H.R. 956, as reported, included four distinct 
reforms. First, product sellers received protections against 
liability for manufacturer error in situations where claimants 
can collect from manufacturers. Second, a claimant whose 
alcohol or drug use is the primary cause of an accident would 
be barred from recovering from those with lesser degrees of 
responsibility. Third, a defendant's liability for non-economic 
damages was limited to the proportion of fault or 
responsibility of that defendant. Finally, most product 
liability actions were barred from being brought more than 15 
years after the product's delivery.
    Title II of H.R. 956 addressed the award of punitive 
damages. It required that, in order to recover punitive 
damages, a plaintiff show that egregious conduct was linked to 
the harm suffered by clear and convincing evidence. Punitive 
damages were limited to three times the economic loss or 
$250,000, whichever is greater. Consideration of such damages 
could occur in a separate proceeding at the request of either 
party.
    H.R. 956 was considered by the House of Representatives on 
March 8-10, 1995, and approved, with amendments, by a roll call 
vote of 265 yeas to 161 nays.
    The House agreed to the following amendments: The Pete 
Geren of Texas amendment, as modified pursuant to the rule, 
that applies liability rules applicable to product sellers to 
persons engaged in the business of renting or leasing products, 
but exempts them from liability for customer's illegal misuse 
of such product.
    The Hyde amendment eliminating the exception to the statute 
of repose for product liability that allows a claimant to bring 
a suit if he cannot receive full compensation for medical 
expenses from other sources.
    The Conyers amendment that requires any product liability 
action for injury sustained in the United States and that 
relates to the purchase or use of a product manufactured 
outside the United States by a foreign manufacturer to be heard 
by a Federal court and that such court shall have jurisdiction 
over the manufacturer (agreed to by a recorded vote of 258 ayes 
to 166 nays).
    The Oxley amendment that adds ``FDA defense'' provisions 
that bar punitive damages for the sale or manufacture of drugs 
or devices which have been approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration.
    The Cox of California amendment that eliminates joint and 
several liability (in which any of the defendants can be 
required to pay the entire amount) for noneconomic losses in 
all civil lawsuits that involve interstate commerce (agreed to 
by a recorded vote of 263 ayes to 164 nays).
    The Cox of California amendment that limits the maximum 
award of noneconomic damages in health care liability actions 
to $250,000 (agreed to by a recorded vote of 247 ayes to 171 
nays).
    The House also defeated a motion to recommit the bill to 
the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report it 
back forthwith containing an amendment that sought to restore 
provisions to require foreign manufacturers to appoint an agent 
to receive service of process in the United States; and change 
the limit on punitive damages to three times the amount of 
damages awarded to the claimant for economic loss on which the 
claimant's action is based, or $1 million, whichever is less 
(rejected by a recorded vote of 195 ayes to 231 nays).
    On May 10, 1995 the Senate approved an amended version of 
H.R. 956, and House conferees were appointed on November 9, 
1995. Also on November 9, 1995, the House of Representatives 
voted by roll call vote of 190 ayes to 231 nays, to instruct 
the conferees not to agree to any provision that would limit 
the total damages recoverable for injuries by aged individuals, 
women, or children to an amount less than that recoverable by 
other plaintiffs with substantially similar injuries.
    On January 29, 1996, the House of Representatives agreed to 
instruct the conferees to insist on the provisions relating to 
the treatment of foreign manufacturers, by a roll call vote of 
256 ayes to 142 nays, Record Vote No. 43.
    The Conferees filed their report on March 14, 1996, House 
Report No. 104-481. The conference agreement contained the 
following provisions:
    Scope. The Agreement set uniform standards for product 
liability actions brought in State or Federal Court.
    Limitation on Punitive Damage Awards. Punitive damage 
awards were limited to two times economic and non-economic 
damages, or $250,000, whichever is greater. Under certain 
circumstances, the court may increase the award of punitive 
damages, but in no event may the award exceed the level of 
punitive damages awarded by the jury.
    Special Rule for Small Entities. A special rule on punitive 
damages applied to individuals whose net worth did not exceed 
$500,000, or an owner of a business which had fewer than 25 
employees. In cases involving those defendants, the punitive 
damage award may not exceed the lesser of $250,000 or two times 
economic and non-economic damages. The court would not have 
authority to exceed this cap.
    Statute of Repose. The statute of repose for cases 
involving a durable good would be 15 years, except that a State 
statute providing a shorter period would prevail. This 
provision does not apply to cases involving toxic harm or 
vehicles used primarily for hire, nor does it supersede the 
General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 or express 
warranties as to the safety or life expectancy of a product 
which is longer than 15 years.
    Joint and Several Liability. Liability for non-economic 
damages would be several, rather than joint, based on the 
proportion of responsibility of each defendant for the harm 
involved.
    Product Renters and Lessors. A person in the business of 
renting or leasing a product would not be vicariously liable 
for the tortious acts of the renter or lessor.
    Defense Based on Intoxication or Drug Abuse. If the 
claimant was more than 50 percent responsible for the accident 
or event causing the harm due to being under the influence of 
intoxicating alcohol or any drug, the defendant would have a 
complete defense to the action.
    Misuse and Alteration. The damages for which a defendant is 
liable would be reduced by the percentage of responsibility for 
the harm attributed to the misuse or alteration of the product 
involved.
    Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Agreement established a 
mechanism for resolution of claims under voluntary, nonbinding 
alternative dispute resolution procedures.
    Workers' Compensation Subrogation. An insurer would have a 
right of subrogation against a manufacturer or product seller 
to recover any claimant's benefits relating to the harm that is 
the subject of the product liability action.
    Biomaterials Access Assurance. Suppliers of raw materials 
and component parts for medical devices would not be liable for 
harm to a claimant caused by an implant.
    Statute of Limitations. Claims must be filed within two 
years of discovery of the injury and the cause of the injury. 
The statute is tolled for persons with legal disabilities; they 
would have two years after the disability ceases to sue.
    Effective Date. The Agreement would apply to cases 
commenced on or after the date of enactment, regardless of when 
the conduct at issue occurred.
    On March 21, 1996, the Senate approved the Conference 
Report by roll call vote of 59 yeas to 40 nays. The House 
approved the Conference Report on March 29, 1996 by roll call 
vote of 259 yeas to 158 nays.
    The President vetoed the bill on May 2, 1996, House 
Document 104-207, and the House failed to override the veto on 
May 9, 1996, by roll call vote of 258 ayes to 163 nays.

Medical Malpractice

    On February 27 and 28, 1996, the Committee held hearings on 
medical malpractice liability reform. The witnesses were: The 
Honorable Mitch McConnell, Senator from Kentucky; Fredric 
Enten, Esq., Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the 
American Hospital Association; Philip Corboy, Esq., immediate 
past Chair of the American Bar Association Special Committee on 
Medical Professional Liability; George Sikeoi, Chairman, Legal 
Section, Physician Insurers Association of America; Robert 
Clarke, President and CEO of Memorial Health System of 
Springfield, Illinois, representing the Health Care Liability 
Alliance; Dr. Joseph Hanss, on behalf of the American College 
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Mark Hiepler, Esq.; Linda 
Ross; and, Dr. Nancy Dickey, Chair, American Medical 
Association Board of Trustees.
    Testimony was received as to the pros and cons of adopting 
reforms to the medical malpractice liability system, and as to 
the nature of such reforms.
     The proper functioning of the medical malpractice system 
is one of the most important safeguards against substandard 
medical care. The ability of victims to bring lawsuits in cases 
of medical malpractice achieves three important goals: It 
permits victims to receive just and adequate compensation for 
harm suffered, it deters poor quality health care, and it 
penalizes negligent providers.
     At least two factors have prompted calls for medical 
liability reform. First, some research suggests that the 
medical tort system is not achieving its goals. For example, it 
has been shown that only a fraction of malpractice injuries 
result in claims, compensation is often unrelated to the 
existence of medical malpractice, the legal system is slow at 
resolving claims, and legal fees and administrative costs 
consume almost half of the compensation awarded.
     From 1960 to 1984, medical malpractice awards in the 
United States increased by more than 1,000 percent. A 1988 
study showed that the average U.S. physician has a 37 percent 
chance of being sued for professional liability in his/her 
lifetime, and that surgeons and obstetricians have a 52 percent 
and 78 percent change respectively. Furthermore, once sued for 
malpractice, physicians and their patients/claimants can expect 
lengthy court battles. On average, it takes more than two years 
to resolve a medical liability case from the time it is filed 
and almost 5\1/2\ years for a complex case. For obstetrical 
claims, the average litigation time frame is 5 years, but 7 
years for cases involving brain-damaged infants.
     Studies indicate that 60 to 75 percent of medical 
malpractice cases have no merit and nearly 60 percent of 
malpractice insurers' defense costs are spent defending cases 
that ultimately are closed without any compensation being paid 
to the plaintiff. Of those cases that merit litigation and 
result in verdicts favorable to plaintiffs, the Rand 
Corporation estimates that only 43 cents of every dollar spent 
on the litigation actually reaches the injured patient. The 
majority of each dollar spent goes towards attorney fees, 
expert witnesses and insurance company overhead.
     The second factor militating toward reform is the 
perception that the current tort system places an unreasonable 
burden on hospitals and physicians. There is evidence 
suggesting that liability-related costs are too high and unduly 
influence the way hospitals and doctors practice medicine. The 
burden imposed on the health care system by medical malpractice 
litigation is not limited to the cost of malpractice insurance. 
The practice of defensive medicine, both in an affirmative and 
negative sense, takes a real toll on the system.
     When our legal system induces physicians to order 
additional or more complex diagnostic tests and procedures than 
they would otherwise, or leads them to schedule additional 
patient visits and to spend more time with the patient, the 
system bears the burden of these unnecessary expenditures. 
Negative defensive medicine is just as damaging to the health 
care system: by inducing doctors to restrict the scope of their 
practices to low risk patients or procedures, or to exit 
certain practice areas altogether, it reduces the availability 
of care and choice in the health care marketplace.
     There are many ways in which the system might be reformed 
to provide incentives for the better attainment of its goal. 
Some of the measures that have been adopted or considered by 
the various states include caps on non-economic and/or punitive 
damages, limitations on contingency fees, use of periodic 
payments, institution of shortened statutes of limitation, 
admission into evidence of collateral source payments, 
elimination of joint and several liability, and alternatives to 
litigation. The precise contours of each of these individual 
reforms is susceptible to endless permutations, and the 
combinations in which they might be packaged adds increased 
choice in crafting an effective reform package.
     Medical malpractice actions are governed largely by a 
patchwork of state laws (the exception being claims which must 
be brought under ERISA or the Federal Tort Claims Act). This 
leads to widely divergent outcomes depending on the locus of 
the lawsuit. One of the reasons the Committee held hearings was 
to discuss the advisability of enacting legislation at the 
Federal level which would address the problems of the medical 
liability system uniformly, and what reforms might be 
appropriate.
     Although no House bill developed from the hearings, the 
Committee was actively involved in working on the issue and in 
drafting medical malpractice liability provisions for inclusion 
in legislation relating to Medicare reform (H.R. 2419) (see 
section on Conference Appointments) and Health Insurance 
Portability (H.R. 3103) (see section on Committee 
Appointments).

Limitations on Volunteer Liability

     On February 27 and 28, 1996, the full Committee held 
hearings to consider, among other things, the unique liability 
issues raised in the context of volunteerism. Many believe that 
the fear of personal liability discourages people from 
volunteering their time and services. Whether this fear is 
justified or exaggerated, it nevertheless is creating 
impediments to the provision of services, including health care 
services, through non-governmental sources. Various approaches 
have been proposed by which to ameliorate this problem, and the 
hearings were designed to explore these many alternatives.
     The Committee heard testimony on two specific legislative 
proposals. The first, the ``Volunteer Protection Act of 1995,'' 
H.R. 911, was introduced by Congressman John Porter, and was 
ultimately co-sponsored by over 200 members. It would provide 
incentives for states to enact limitations on liability for 
volunteers working for non-profit organizations and 
governmental entities by increasing by one percent the fiscal 
year allotment received by a state under the Social Services 
Block Grant Program if the state enacts immunity legislation 
which complies with certain criteria. The immunity envisioned 
under H.R. 911 would only apply to volunteers acting in good 
faith and within the scope of his or her official functions and 
duties. Injuries caused by willful and wanton misconduct would 
not be covered. States would have the flexibility to enact 
certain further specific exceptions to the coverage of their 
acts.
     The second, the ``Charitable Medical Care Act of 1996,'' 
H.R. 2938, was introduced by Congressman Bob Goodlatte. H.R. 
2938 would make it easier for free medical clinics to recruit 
medical professionals to volunteer their services for the poor. 
It would exempt from liability those persons who provide 
services through free clinics, to the extent they commit simple 
negligence. No protection would be granted from suits alleging 
gross negligence or willful misconduct.
     Witnesses on the subject of volunteer liability limitation 
were Senator Mitch McConnell of Tennessee; Congressman 
Goodlatte of Virginia; Congressman Porter of Illinois; John H. 
Graham, IV, CEO, American Diabetes Foundation, on behalf of the 
National Coalition for Volunteer Protection; Sister Christine 
Bowman, O.S.F., for the Catholic Health Association; and Chris 
Franklin, Vice President, National Office of Volunteers, 
American Red Cross.
    The Committee took no further action on these measures in 
the 104th Congress.

                     Matters Held at Full Committee

Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

    Congress proposes constitutional amendments by two-thirds 
votes--of members voting--in both Houses of Congress. The 
alternative constitutional procedure of Congress calling a 
convention for proposing amendments--on application of the 
legislatures of two-thirds of the states--has never been 
utilized, although at one point 32 of the requisite 34 states 
called for a constitutional convention in response to the 
balanced budget issue. A constitutional amendment--whether 
proposed by two-thirds votes in Congress or by a constitutional 
convention--must be ratified by the legislatures or conventions 
in three-fourths of the states in accordance with the mode of 
ratification proposed by Congress.
    Balanced budget constitutional amendments enjoyed strong 
support in Congress for many years, but prior to the 104th 
Congress received House Floor consideration only after 
successful discharge petition efforts. The lopsided majorities 
in favor of such amendments in House Floor votes--236 yeas to 
187 nays in 1982, 279 yeas to 150 nays in 1990, 280 yeas to 153 
nays in 1992, and 271 yeas to 153 nays in 1994--fell short of 
the constitutionally required two-thirds vote. Although 
balanced budget constitutional amendment related hearings had 
been held in the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on 
Monopolies and Commercial Law in 1979-1980, 1981-1982, 1987, 
and in the successor Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial 
Law in 1990, the full Committee on the Judiciary never 
considered a balanced budget proposal in a markup session or 
reported a balanced budget amendment to the whole House prior 
to the 104th Congress.
    On the opening day of the 104th Congress, Representative 
Joe Barton, Chairman Henry J. Hyde, Representative Randy Tate, 
and Representative Pete Geren introduced H.J. Res. 1, proposing 
a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States. The following week, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary held two days of 
related oversight hearings (January 9 and 10, 1995) on H.J. 
Res. 1 and heard testimony from seventeen witnesses. Additional 
written submissions were received and printed as part of the 
hearing record (Serial No. 5). On January 11, 1995, the 
Committee on the Judiciary met to mark up H.J. Res. 1 (which 
had been held at the full Committee) and adopted by voice vote 
two amendments offered by Chairman Hyde. By a rollcall vote of 
20 to 13, the Committee approved reporting H.J. Res. 1, as 
amended, favorably to the House.
    The reported version of H.J. Res. 1 was designed to 
discourage the Federal government from engaging in deficit 
spending, increasing taxes, and raising the ceiling on debt 
held by the public. The Amendment generally required three-
fifths votes of each Houses total membership for laws providing 
for (1) an excess of outlays over receipts, (2) an increase in 
tax revenue, and (3) a higher debt limit. In addition, the 
Amendment required the President to submit balanced budgets to 
Congress. The Amendments requirements could be waived by 
Congress based on a declaration of war. An alternative waiver 
mechanism, also included in the Amendment, required a joint 
resolution (supported by a majority of the total membership of 
each House) that becomes law--declaring ``an imminent and 
serious military threat to national security.'' The 
constitutional amendment would take effect ``for the fiscal 
year 2002 or for the second fiscal year beginning after its 
ratification, whichever is later.'' The preamble specified that 
ratification would be by state legislatures, the process 
generally prescribed.
    The Committee viewed the rapidly mounting Federal debt and 
the impact of rising interest payments on future generations as 
providing the major impetus for the balanced budget 
constitutional amendment. In a era of deficit spending, the 
amendment was needed to give expression to balanced budget 
principles--and the practice of living within our means--that 
had been accepted and followed during most of our national 
history. A constitutional amendment, by incorporating a renewed 
recognition of economic constraints, would set the parameters 
for congressional budget deliberations.
    The resolution as reported by the Committee provided the 
necessary flexibility to deviate from balanced budget 
principles either by utilizing a limited waiver mechanism or by 
obtaining a broader consensus--through special voting 
requirements--than required for ordinary legislation. Such a 
broader consensus would help to level the playing field because 
the interests of groups advocating spending often had proved to 
be more focused than the general public interest in eliminating 
the deficit.
    The effectiveness of a constitutional amendment that puts a 
premium on bringing expenditures into line with receipts, the 
Committee concluded, would be enhanced by encouraging spending 
reductions rather than tax increases. For that reason, H.J. 
Res. 1 included a tax limitation provision. With a balanced 
budget constitutional amendment, tax increases would be viewed 
as a last resort because of their tendency to depress economic 
activity.
    H.J. Res. 1 directed Congress to ``enforce and implement'' 
the Amendment by ``appropriate legislation.'' The operational 
details of implementation would be spelled out in congressional 
enactments--as the language of the Amendment contemplated--with 
limited judicial involvement as a last resort. In that regard, 
the Committee anticipated good faith compliance by Congress and 
the President with the terms and requirements of the Amendment. 
Requirements for standing, of course, would restrict access to 
the courts. In those unusual situations where courts might 
reach the merits of cases involving the balanced budget 
constitutional amendment, judicial deference to congressional 
procedures and policy decisions generally could be anticipated. 
If courts ever reached the point of finding a constitutional 
violation by Congress in the context of the balanced budget 
amendment, prudential considerations would inhibit intrusive 
remedial action. In any event, Congress could be expected to 
delineate the details relating to the role of the courts before 
the beginning of fiscal year 2002--the earliest possible 
implementation date of the constitutional amendment.
    On January 26, 1995, the House, by a recorded vote of 300 
ayes to 132 nays, passed H.J. Res. 1. The House passed version 
of the Joint Resolution reflected an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute offered by Representative Schaefer of Colorado and 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole. The Substitute--and H.J. 
Res. 1 as passed by the House--differed most significantly from 
H.J. Res. 1 as reported by requiring a majority vote--rather 
than a three-fifths vote--of the total membership of each House 
to enact a tax increase.
    On March 2, 1995, the Senate voted on its amended version 
of H.J. Res. 1, but the 65 yeas to 35 nays fell 2 votes short 
of the two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment (with 
Senator Dole, an Amendment supporter, voting in the negative--
thus permitting him to seek reconsideration). The final Senate 
language was similar to its House counterpart except for the 
inclusion by the Senate of an explicit limitation on federal 
judicial authority. On reconsideration, the Senate again failed 
to pass the joint resolution--this time (June 6, 1996) by a 
vote of 64 yeas to 35 nays.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    On March 28, 1996, the House of Representatives adopted a 
floor amendment to H.R. 3136, the ``Contract with America 
Advancement Act of 1996,'' which created a new Title III to 
that bill. The amendment, authored by Chairman Hyde, is known 
as the ``Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996,'' and it is designed to provide important regulatory 
relief for America's small businesses. H.R. 3136, as amended, 
was approved in the House by a vote of 328 ayes to 91 nays, and 
signed into law by the President on March 29, 1996. P.L. 104-
121. (There was no separate vote on the adoption of the 
amendment, as the Rule made its inclusion self-executing.)
    The Hyde amendment (which, when enacted, became Title II of 
the Act) is vitally important to the small business community, 
which is particularly burdened by the effect of multiple, and 
many times conflicting, regulatory requirements. It should be 
viewed not as a total solution to all regulatory problems, but 
as a good first step of making rules more fair, more rational, 
and more carefully tailored to achieve the goal they are 
designed to accomplish.
    First, the amendment made important changes in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 601-612), 
allowing judicial review of certain aspects of that statute. 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980. Under 
its terms, federal agencies are directed to consider the 
special needs and concerns of ``small entities''--i.e., small 
businesses, local governments, farmers, etc.--whenever they 
engage in a rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedure 
Act. The agencies must then prepare and publish a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that 
the proposed rule will not ``have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.''
    From the beginning, the problem with this law has been the 
lack of availability of a judicial reviews mechanism to enforce 
the purposes of the law. If agencies did not actually conduct a 
regulatory flexibility analysis or fail to follow the other 
procedures set down in the Act, there was no sanction. Thus, 
the small business community had no remedy for a violation of 
the Act.
    The Hyde amendment cured this problem. Subtitle D of the 
amendment provides that in instances where an agency should 
have undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not, 
or where the agency needs to take corrective action with 
respect to a flexibility analysis that was prepared, small 
entities are now authorized to seek judicial review within one 
year after final agency action. A court will then review the 
agency's action under the judicial review provisions of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 701-706). The 
remedies that a court may order include remanding the rule back 
to the agency and deferring enforcement of the rule against 
small entities, pending agency compliance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
    Another important aspect of the Hyde amendment is the new 
congressional review procedure it creates. Subtitle E of the 
amendment permits Congress to review all proposed rules to 
determine whether or not they should take effect. Specifically, 
the amendment allows Congress to postpone for 60 days the 
implementation of any ``major'' rule, generally defined as 
having an annual affect on the economy of $100 million or more. 
The language allows the President to bypass the 60-day delay 
through the issuance of an Executive Order, if the rule 
addresses an imminent threat to the public health or safety, or 
other emergency, or matters involving criminal law enforcement 
or national security. Non-major rules would not be stayed, but 
would be subject to the review process.
    Subtitle E then provides a procedure whereby Congress may 
review rules to determine whether they should be ``vetoed'' 
prior to taking effect. Each agency is required to submit to 
Congress a copy of each new rule, along with a report 
describing its contents. In the event that Congress does not 
believe the rule should take effect, each chamber must pass a 
joint resolution of disapproval, which must then be signed by 
the President. The subtitle creates an expedited procedure for 
consideration of the joint resolution in the Senate, which 
continues in effect for 60 session days after receipt of the 
rule from the agency.
    The Hyde amendment also includes a provision which will 
require federal agencies to simplify forms and publish a 
``plain English'' guide to help small businesses comply with 
Federal regulations. See Subtitle A. These compliance guides 
will not be subject to judicial review, but may be considered 
as evidence of the reasonableness of any proposed fines or 
penalties. Federal agencies would also be directed to reduce or 
waive fines for small businesses in appropriate circumstances, 
if violations are corrected within a certain period.
    The legislation also creates an Ombudsman within the Small 
Business Administration to gather information from small 
businesses about compliance and enforcement practices, and to 
work with the various agencies so as to respond to the concerns 
of small businesses regarding those practices. See Subtitle B.
    In addition, some important changes are made to the Equal 
Access to Justice Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 504; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412). 
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) provides that certain 
parties who prevail over the federal government in regulatory 
or court proceedings are entitled to an award in attorneys fees 
and other expenses, unless the government can demonstrate that 
its position was substantially justified or that special 
circumstances would make the award unjust. Eligible parties are 
individuals (whose net worth does not exceed $2 million), or 
businesses, organizations, associations or units of local 
government (with a net worth of no more than $7 million and no 
more than 500 employees). The Act covers both adversary 
administrative proceedings and civil court actions, other than 
tort cases and tax cases.
    Subtitle C of the Hyde amendment changed the Equal Access 
to Justice Act so as to make it easier for small businesses to 
recover their attorneys fees, if they have been subjected to 
excessive and unsustainable proposed penalties. It amends the 
EAJA to create a new avenue for small entities to recover their 
attorneys fees in situations where the government has 
instituted an administrative or civil action against a small 
entity to enforce a statutory or regulatory requirement. In 
these situations, the test for recovering attorneys fees would 
become whether the final demand of the United States, prior to 
the initiation of the adjudication or civil action, was 
substantially in excess of the decision or judgment ultimately 
obtained and is unreasonable when compared to such decision or 
judgment. The important point here is that this legislation 
will level the playing field and make it far more likely that 
the United States will not seek excessive fines or penalties 
from small businesses and will be more likely to make fair 
settlement offers prior to proceeding with a formal regulatory 
enforcement action or before going to court to collect the 
civil fine or penalty.

Antiterrorism

    Legislative History.--On June 12 and 13, 1996 the Committee 
held a hearing on legislation (H.R. 1710) introduced by 
Chairman Hyde--the ``Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995.'' 
The following witness appeared during the two days of full 
Committee hearings: the Honorable Doug Bereuter, Member of 
Congress; the Honorable David Skaggs, Member of Congress; the 
Honorable Jamie S. Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice; the Honorable William P. Barr, former 
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Abraham Sofaer, 
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute of Stanford University; James 
P. Fleissner, Professor, Mercer University School of Law; Bruce 
Fein, Esq., former Associate Deputy Attorney General; Gregory 
Nojeim, Esq., Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties 
Union; Russell Seitz, Associate, Olin Institute for Strategic 
Studies at Harvard University; John Hay, U.S. Bureau of Mines; 
J. Christopher Ronay, President, Institute of Makers of 
Explosives; Bob Delfay, Executive Director, Sporting Arms and 
Ammunition Manufacturers Institute; Khalil E. Jahshan, 
Executive Director, National Association of Arab Americans; 
Aziza Al-Hibri, Esq., Professor of Law, University of Richmond, 
representing the American Muslim Council; Ruth Lansner, Chair, 
National Legal Affairs Committee, Anti-Defamation League of 
B'nai B'rith; and John H. Shenefield, Chair, Standing Committee 
on Law and National Security, American Bar Association.
    The Committee marked up H.R. 1710 for four days on June 14, 
15, 16 and 20, 1995. During the markup, 30 amendments were 
adopted and 18 amendments were rejected. On June 20, 1995 the 
Committee ordered reported H.R. 1710, as amended (H. Rept. 104-
383).
    On March 14, 1996 the House passed H.R. 2703, the 
``Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995,'' amended, by a vote 
of 229 ayes to 191 nays, and passed S. 735, substituting the 
language of H.R. 2703 as passed by the House. The House 
conferees were Chairman Hyde, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Schiff, Mr. 
Buyer, Mr. Barr, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Berman. A 
conference was held on March 27, 1996, and the conference 
report was filed on April 15, 1996, H. Rept. 104-518. On April 
17, 1996 the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote 
of 91 yeas to 8 nays, and on April 18, 1996 the House agreed to 
the conference report by a vote of 293 yeas to 133 nays. On 
April 24, 1996 the House and the Senate agreed to S. Con. Res. 
55, correcting the enrollment of S. 735, and the President 
signed S. 735, Public Law 104-132.
    Summary.--As enacted, the ``Antiterrorism and Effective 
Death Penalty Act of 1996'' will significantly strengthen the 
ability of the United States to deter and punish terrorist 
acts. In addition, among other things, S. 735 reforms the 
habeas corpus provisions that apply in federal court.
    The bill contained the following provisions:
    S. 735 provides for the designation of foreign terrorist 
organizations. This provision gives the Secretary of State, in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
Treasury, the authority to identify and designate foreign 
organizations that engage in terrorism that threatens the 
national security of the United States. The Secretary is 
required to notify Congress no later than 7 days before the 
publication of the designation in the Federal Register. Upon 
notification to Congress, the Treasury Secretary is authorized 
to order financial institutions, which are holding any assets 
of the foreign terrorist organization to be designated, to 
block all financial transactions with those assets until 
further directive from the Treasury Secretary, Act of Congress, 
or order of court. The designation is subject to judicial 
review if the designated foreign terrorist organization 
challenges the designation. The designation will last for two 
years and must be renewed at that time using the same process.
    S. 735 prohibits fundraising in the United States by 
designated terrorist organizations. There is an exception for 
medicine and religious articles. These provisions include 
authority for the Treasury Secretary to block all financial 
transactions involving any assets of the designated terrorist 
organizations held in the United States.
    S. 735 authorizes the State Department's Embassy officials 
overseas to deny entrance visas to members and representatives 
of those same designated foreign terrorist organizations.
    S. 735 allows the United States to stop or prohibit 
assistance to foreign countries that do not cooperate with the 
United States' antiterrorism efforts. The President has the 
authority to waive this provision to preserve the national 
interest.
    S. 735 will allow United States nationals to sue state 
sponsors of terrorism in United States courts when a terrorist 
act results in death or bodily injury. The countries that have 
their sovereign immunity stripped from them are those countries 
designated as pariah states under the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, North 
Korea, and Cuba.
    S. 735 also requires foreign air carriers that travel to 
and from United States airports to follow the identical safety 
measures that American air carriers must follow under FAA 
regulations.
    S. 735 allows for the removal of alien terrorists, fairly, 
and with due process, but also with adequate protections to 
safeguard sources and methods of classified information. These 
procedures become effective only if a Federal District Court 
Judge finds that there is probable cause to believe that the 
alien is a terrorist and that use of normal deportation 
proceedings would pose a risk to the national security of the 
United States. The alien will be given a declassified summary 
of the classified information which must be ``sufficient to 
enable the alien to prepare a defense.'' If the district court 
judge finds that the summary does not meet that standard, the 
proceeding must terminate. The judge can only order the alien 
deported based on the evidence introduced at the hearing.
    S. 735 creates expedited asylum procedures. Aliens who 
appear at our borders without proper immigration documents and 
state a fear of persecution or a wish to apply for asylum, will 
be referred for interview by an asylum officer. If the officer 
finds that the alien has asserted a ``credible fear of 
persecution'', the alien shall be detained for further 
consideration of the application for asylum. If the alien fails 
to meet that standard, and the officer's decision is upheld by 
a supervisory asylum officer, the alien will be ordered removed 
from the United States.
    S. 735 also eases the deportation of aliens who have been 
convicted of committing crimes in the United States. Alien 
criminals will be deported after their prison term without an 
additional deportation hearing.
     S. 735 provides new nuclear, biological and chemical 
weapons restrictions. The nuclear sections provide federal law 
enforcement officials the tools necessary to combat the threat 
of nuclear contamination and proliferation that may result from 
illegal possession of, and trafficking in nuclear materials, 
including nuclear by-products and non-weapons-grade materials. 
The biological weapons restrictions address the threat of the 
misuse or diversion to illegal use of potentially deadly human 
pathogenic substances. It adds attempt, threat, and conspiracy 
to the current prohibition on acquiring, possessing, or using 
biological weapons. The chemical weapons provisions 
criminalizes the use of chemical weapons within the United 
States, or against Americans outside the United States. It also 
provides for a study of the need for a training center to 
enhance law enforcement response capabilities to chemical and 
biological emergencies.
     S. 735 also fulfills the obligations of the United States 
to implement the Convention on the Marking of Plastic 
Explosives. These provisions require that chemical markers be 
placed in all plastic explosives manufactured in, imported 
into, or exported from the United States.
     S. 735 authorizes $1 billion for law enforcement, the 
courts, and necessary research and development of counter-
terrorism technologies.
     S. 735 requires federal judges to provide closed circuit 
television coverage of a trial to the original location when it 
has been moved from one district to another (more than 350 
miles away from the original location and out of the state in 
which the case was originally brought) . Only those designated 
by the court are allowed to view the closed circuit signal. The 
court must find that they have a compelling interest to view 
the trial, but are precluded from doing so because of the cost 
and inconvenience resulting from the change of venue.
     S. 735 sets out the policy that the Attorney General will 
have primary responsibility for investigations that are 
terrorist in motivation. This is triggered only if the 
motivational factors are met on a limited list of federal 
offenses. Any other federal law enforcement agency's 
traditional investigative authority over any of the crimes 
listed is not limited. This simply alleviates any confusion as 
to which agency has overall responsibility for crimes of 
terrorism.
     S. 735 includes mandatory victim restitution. Convicted 
defendants would be required to make their victims financially 
whole.
     S. 735 provides that killings, kidnappings, assaults, and 
property damage that involve conduct transcending national 
boundaries (meaning an act in furtherance of the offense took 
place outside the United States, as well as inside the United 
States) will be investigated and prosecuted by the United 
States. Also, it is a federal offense to engage in a conspiracy 
or to partake in any part of a conspiracy within the United 
States to injure another person or property overseas.
     S.735 amends current law to provide for federal 
jurisdiction for any threats, assaults, or murders, of any 
current or former federal employee, officer, or agent, if that 
offense is on account of the victim's employment relationship 
with the federal government.
     S. 735 also reforms federal habeas corpus. Time limits are 
imposed on the filing of federal habeas corpus petitions and 
motions. Motions filed with respect to federal court 
convictions must be filed within two years from the time when 
the conviction becomes final. Petitions relating to state court 
convictions must be filed within one year from the conclusion 
of direct review of the case. Prisoners must exhaust all state 
court remedies before they can file a petition in federal 
court. Second and successive habeas in capital cases is limited 
in claims raising doubt about a prisoner's factual guilt. In 
these cases, prisoners have six months to file their federal 
habeas claim once their state habeas is completed. Their 
execution is automatically stayed once they file their petition 
in federal court. Federal courts also have been given general 
time limits for consideration of federal habeas corpus 
petitions and motions.

The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996

     During 1996, there was an alarming increase in the number 
of houses of worship which have been reported as burned. Since 
October 1, 1991, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
(BATF)--the primary Federal agency with jurisdiction to 
investigate arson--has investigated 147 fire incidents at 
churches across the United States. Of these fires, 115 have 
proved to be arsons. Fifty-three of those 147 churches were 
made up of predominantly African-American congregations, many 
of them located in the Southeastern United States.
     The pace at which fires involving African-American 
churches reported to Federal authorities is increasing 
dramatically. In 1992, three African-American church burnings 
in the Southeast were reported and investigated by the BATF. 
Two were reported in 1993, four in 1994, and six in 1995. As of 
May 1996, there had been at least 26 such fires reported. In 
six incidents, the perpetrators were prosecuted and convicted--
four under Federal statutes, and two in state prosecutions. Of 
the 31 then pending investigations--where arson or suspicious 
circumstances had been discovered--six were in Tennessee, five 
in Louisiana, five in South Carolina, five in Alabama, three in 
Mississippi, five in North Carolina, one in Virginia, and one 
in Georgia. Arrests had been made in connection with six of 
these incidents, and most of the defendants were being 
prosecuted in state court under arson charges. Two of those 
were in South Carolina, where two arsonists who set two 
separate fires are acknowledged members of the Ku Klux Klan.
    There are a variety of Federal criminal statutes which may 
be used to prosecute these acts. An arsonist could be charged 
with a federal crime under the general arson statute, section 
844(i) of Title 18, United States Code, which does not require 
a showing of racial motivation. The authorized penalties under 
section 844(i) are prison for not less than 5 years and not 
more than 20 years, fines or both. If personal injury results, 
the prison term is increased to not less than 7 years and not 
more than 40 years. If death results, the arsonist is subject 
to the death penalty, prison for life, or for any term of 
years. The statute of limitations for prosecution under this 
section is ten years.
    The Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division of the 
United States Department of Justice could prosecute an arsonist 
under federal criminal civil rights statutes which prohibit 
conspiracies to interfere with federally protected rights. 
Three principal statutes could serve to prosecute the person 
responsible for a church burning that is found to be motivated 
by racism.
    In the event that the arson was committed by more than one 
person, the perpetrators can be charged under section 241 of 
Title 18, United States Code, which makes it unlawful for two 
or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or 
intimidate any inhabitant in the free exercise or enjoyment of 
any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or Laws of 
the United States. A violation of this section may lead to a 
fine of up to $250,000 and/or a term of imprisonment up to 10 
years. If death results, defendants may be sentenced to prison 
for any term of years or for life, or to death.
    If the perpetrator is acting alone, section 241 is not 
available as a means of prosecution. Instead, the Civil Rights 
Division would have to charge the defendant under section 247 
or section 248(a)(2) of Title 18. Under Section 248(a)(2) it is 
illegal to use force or threat of force or physical obstruction 
to injure, intimidate or interfere (or attempt to do so) with 
an individual's lawful exercise of his First Amendment right of 
religious freedom at a place of religious worship. Section 
248(a)(3) makes it a crime to intentionally damage or destroy 
the property of a place of religious worship. However, in the 
case of a first offense criminal penalties under this section 
are limited to a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment for 
not more than one year. A misdemeanor conviction is considered 
in most instances of church arson to be such insignificant 
punishment that Federal prosecutors are unwilling to charge the 
perpetrator under this section.
    Section 247 made it unlawful to intentionally deface, 
damage or destroy any religious real property or to 
intentionally obstruct, by force or threat of force, any person 
in the enjoyment of the free exercise of their religion. 
However, one of the elements of the violation is that, in 
committing the crime, the defendant either have (1) traveled in 
interstate or foreign commerce or (2) used a facility or 
instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in interstate 
commerce. In the case of many church burnings, there is no 
evidence that the defendant traveled across state lines, making 
it necessary to invoke the second clause of the jurisdictional 
requirement.
    Section 247 was targeted at the very crimes at issue today: 
vandalizing and destroying religious property. Unfortunately, 
as written, the legislation had proven to be totally 
ineffective. Since its enactment, only one case has been 
brought under section 247, and it had nothing to do with 
destroying religious property. The Department of Justice 
testified that the highly restrictive and duplicate language of 
its interstate commerce requirement had made section 247 
``nearly impossible to use.'' This meant that section 247 was 
of little assistance to federal prosecutors seeking to convict 
individual church arsonists. The Department of Justice also 
testified that the $10,000 dollar loss threshold contained in 
section 247 made its use impractical in many instances. Where 
the damage from a fire is minimal, or when hate is expressed, 
not through fire but through desecration or defacement of 
houses of worship, section 247 could not be used.
    Section 247 was also limited in usefulness in the context 
of damage to churches with predominantly African-American 
congregations, because the statute only made it a crime to 
damage religious property because of religious considerations. 
Thus, if an arsonist had burned a church because he or she 
hates Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or religion generally, the 
statute would be satisfied. If the motivation for the arson was 
racial animus, however--that is, that the congregation was 
African-American--the conduct would not constitute a crime 
under section 247.
    On May 21, 1996, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on 
the issue of church fires in the Southeastern United States. 
Testimony was received from 12 witnesses, including Congressman 
Donald Payne, on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, 
Assistant Attorney General Deval L. Patrick, Civil Rights 
Division, Department of Justice, Director John W. Magaw, Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Chief Tron W. Brekke, Civil 
Rights Program, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Assistant 
Secretary James E. Johnson, Enforcement Division, Department of 
the Treasury, Chief Robert M. Stewart, South Carolina Law 
Enforcement Division, Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, President, Southern 
Leadership Conference, Revered Earl Jackson, New Cornerstone 
Exodus Church, as National Liaison for Urban Development of the 
Christian Coalition, Reverend Terrance G. Mackey, Sr., Mt. Zion 
African Methodist Episcopal Church, Dr. Richard Land, 
President, Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission, Nelson 
Rivers, Southeast Region Director, National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People, and Revered Algie Jarrett, Mt. 
Calvary Baptist Church. Additional material was submitted for 
the record by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the 
U.S.A. and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
    Just two days after the hearing, Chairman Hyde and Ranking 
Member Conyers introduced the ``Church Arson Prevention Act of 
1996'' (H.R. 3525). As introduced, H.R. 3525 would have (1) 
simplified the interstate commerce requirement in current law 
and (2) reduced the minimum amount of property damage required 
from $10,000 to $5,000. Its purpose was to give new teeth to 
existing law and make it easier to punish those whose racial, 
ethnic or religious animus lead them to destroy religious 
property. At the Committee markup on June 11, 1996, Chairman 
Hyde and Ranking Member Conyers offered a substitute amendment 
which eliminated the dollar threshold altogether, and clarified 
that it would be a violation of the statute if the damage to 
religious property was motivated by racial or ethnic 
considerations. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The 
Committee then, by voice vote, ordered H.R. 3525, as amended, 
reported favorably to the full House. H. Rep. 104-621.
    A manager's amendment to H.R. 3525 was considered and 
adopted by the House on June 18, 1996, by a vote of 422 ayes to 
0 nays. The amendment differed from the bill as reported by the 
Judiciary Committee in that it added a provision making 
personal injury victims of section 247-type crimes eligible 
under the Victims of Crime Act.
    The Senate approved an amended version of H.R. 3525 on June 
26, 1996, the provisions of which were arrived at through bi-
partisan negotiations between the House and Senate sponsors. 
The Senate-passed version was then adopted by the House on June 
27, 1996, and was signed into law by President Clinton on July 
3, 1996. P.L. 104-155. As enacted, the bill amends section 247 
to make it a crime to destroy religious real property because 
of the religion, race, color, or ethnicity of persons 
associated with the property, and increases penalties under the 
section to conform to penalties available under the general 
arson statute. It also creates a loan guarantee recovery fund, 
allows compensation of victims under the Victims of Crime Act, 
authorizes additional law enforcement personnel to assist 
states and localities, and reauthorizes the Hate Crimes 
Statistics Act.

H.R. 994, the ``Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 1995''

    H.R. 994, ``The Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 1995'' 
provides the framework for a scheduled reexamination of 
regulations (i.e. ``rules'') in an effort to eliminate or 
change those which no longer achieve the purpose for which they 
were issued. Further, it requires existing rules to be analyzed 
to ensure that they are authorized by law and that they conform 
to the requirements which would apply if they were issued as 
new rules.
    The Act requires agencies periodically to review all 
significant rules (and other rules designated by the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs) for possible modification, consolidation or 
termination. It also establishes a petition process by which 
the public and certain committees of Congress may request 
agencies to review other rules for the same purpose. For rules 
which are proposed for change or termination, this ``sunset 
review'' procedure is a prelude to the notice and comment 
process traditionally applied under the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C Sec. 553.
    When it was first introduced, H.R. 994 was referred to both 
the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee 
because of its jurisdiction under House Rule X(j)(2) with 
respect to administrative practice and procedure, which 
includes the Administrative Procedure Act and the federal 
regulatory process in general.
    The Government Reform and Oversight Committee reported H.R. 
994 with amendments on July 18, 1995. Its committee report was 
filed on October 19. At that point, the Parliamentarian 
extended the Judiciary Committee's original referral until 
November 3, 1995.
    On October 31, 1995, the Judiciary Committee met in open 
session to consider the bill for markup. An en bloc amendment 
was offered by Chairman Hyde to make H.R. 994 consistent with 
the standard Federal rulemaking procedures set forth in the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The bill, as reported by 
the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, would codify a 
review and sunset procedure, but it would do so outside the 
framework of the APA. The Hyde amendment conformed this sunset 
review process with the public notice and comment requirements 
of the existing APA. Consequently, no rule could be amended or 
terminated unless the agency goes through the normal public 
notice and comment requirements of the APA. Under the Hyde 
amendment, the sunset review procedure would identify those 
rules that should be altered, consolidated or in fact 
terminated, and the ``tried and true'' procedures of the APA 
will be the final step in implementing that result.
    Consistent with this change, the Committee replaced the 
term ``termination date'' with ``review deadline'' throughout 
the bill. This made it clear that the end result of the sunset 
review process will either be the issuance of a notice of 
proposed rulemaking or a sunset review report concluding that 
no change in the rule is required. Instead, the review deadline 
is the time by which the agency must propose to continue, 
modify, consolidate with another rule, or terminate a rule. If 
the rule is to be modified, consolidated or terminated, the 
agency must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and conduct 
a rulemaking proceeding under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.
    Second, the Judiciary Committee amendment provided that a 
public petition for review of a rule will be reviewed by the 
agency which promulgated the rule. The Committee believed that 
the agency is better suited than the Administrator of OIRA to 
make this determination, because the agency has the expertise 
and familiarity with its own rules, and can better weigh the 
impact of review of the rule on agency operations.
    This amendment also brought the public petition process in 
conformance with the analogous provision of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 553(e), in that it internalized the petition process 
within the agency. The APA provision allows the public to 
petition an agency for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a 
current rule. H.R. 994 expands on this right by requiring that 
the agency respond to the petition within a particular time 
frame.
    Third, the Judiciary Committee amendment altered the 
standard of review under which the agency, in the case of 
public petitions, or the Administrator, in the case of 
Congressional petitions, must decide whether a rule should be 
designated for sunset review. It did this by applying the 
standard of ``in the public interest.'' The Committee was 
concerned that an ``unreasonable'' standard would not afford 
the agencies and the Administrator with sufficient discretion 
regarding public and Congressional petition requests.
    The Hyde en bloc amendment was adopted by unanimous 
consent. The Committee also adopted by voice vote an amendment 
by Mr. Conyers, which would require an agency conducting a 
sunset review to identify and make public the subject of all 
contacts made with non-governmental persons relating to the 
review. On October 31, 1995, the Committee ordered reported 
H.R. 994 by voice vote (H.Rept. 104-284, part II).

Civil asset forfeiture reform

    Federal forfeiture law dates back to the 1780's. The First 
Congress authorized civil forfeiture of vessels and cargoes for 
violations of U.S. customs laws. In the 1970's, Congress 
enacted statutes that expanded the Federal Government's 
forfeiture authority. These statutes, which included the 
Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and 
the Controlled Substances Act, authorized the U.S. Department 
of Justice and the U.S. Customs Service to confiscate assets 
associated with organized crime and drug trafficking.
    In 1984, Congress amended asset forfeiture provision 
through enactment of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 
1984. Prior to 1984, the Attorney General had several means for 
disposing of forfeited property, including retaining the 
property for official use or selling it. The proceeds from any 
sale of forfeited property, as well as any forfeited money, 
were to be used to pay forfeiture and sale-related expenses. 
Any remaining amounts were to be deposited in the general fund 
of the United States Treasury. The 1984 Comprehensive Crime 
Control law and subsequent acts modified the procedure for 
disposing of forfeited assets, establishing asset forfeiture 
funds and allowing for the equitable sharing of forfeited 
property. Under a 1992 law, the Customs forfeiture program was 
expanded into the Treasury Department forfeiture program.
    Concern about the unfairness of current civil asset 
forfeiture procedures and the need to infuse due process 
protection into the process led Chairman Hyde to introduce the 
``Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act'' (H.R. 1916), as he had 
done in the previous Congress. See H.R. 2417, 103rd Congress. 
According to one estimate, in more than 80 percent of civil 
asset forfeiture cases, the property owner is not charged with 
a crime. Nevertheless, government officials usually keep the 
seized property. Furthermore, to justify its seizure the 
government need only present evidence of what its agents see as 
``probable cause.'' That is the same standard required to 
obtain a search warrant but, in that situation, police are 
permitted to seek evidence of a crime, not to permanently take 
someone's property. Even worse, under present law the burden of 
proof is on the property owner, who must establish by a 
``preponderance of the evidence'' that his or her property has 
not been used in a criminal act or not otherwise forfeitable.
    The basic presumption in American law--that you are 
innocent until proven guilty--has been reversed. Property 
owners who lease their apartments, cars, or boats risk losing 
their property because of renters' conduct--conduct over which 
the actual owner has no actual control. Currently, when a 
property owner goes to federal court to challenge a seizure of 
property, all the government must do is make an initial showing 
of probable cause that the property may have been used in a 
crime. The property owner then has to prove that the property 
is ``innocent.'' Thus, the government can seize someone's 
property by merely alleging criminality, not actual proof of 
criminality.
    To contest government forfeiture, owners are allowed only a 
few days within which to file a claim and post a 10 percent 
cash bond based on the value of the property. Even if the owner 
is successful in getting the property returned, the government 
is not liable for any damage to the property which occurs while 
the government is in possession.
    These are but a few of the most serious defects of our 
current system. H.R. 1916 would change the rules of engagement 
in the civil asset forfeiture process to eliminate these 
problems. First and foremost, the bill places the burden of 
proof on the government to establish the forfeitability of the 
property. Section 4 of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act 
would require the government to prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that the seized property was subject to forfeiture. 
And, the bill seeks to clarify the so-called ``innocent owner'' 
defense. Property used in the commission of certain crimes--
such as a car, boat or real property--is subject to forfeiture 
unless used without the ``knowledge or consent'' of the actual 
owner. A number of federal courts have ruled that to benefit 
from this innocent owner defense, a property owner must show 
both lack of consent and lack of knowledge. Section 8 of the 
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act would make clear that either 
lack of knowledge or lack of consent by the owner is sufficient 
if the owner took reasonable steps to prevent the illegal use 
of the property.
    Second, the bill would expand to 30 days from the date of 
first publication the time a property owner has to challenge a 
forfeiture proceeding. Current law allows them only 10 days to 
challenge a federal judicial forfeiture and 20 days to 
challenge a federal administrative forfeiture.
    Section 5 of H.R. 1916 would also eliminate the cost bond 
requirement. Right now, a property owner wanting to contest an 
administrative forfeiture in federal court must post a bond of 
the lesser of $5,000 or 10% of the value of the property seized 
(but not less than $250). The Act would eliminate the cost bond 
requirement.
    At this time, the federal government is exempt from 
liability for damage caused by the negligent handling or 
storage of property while it is in the possession of law 
enforcement. Section 2 of the Act would amend the Federal Tort 
Claims Act (28 USC Sec. 2680) so as to allow property owners to 
sue the government for negligence when the seized property is 
damaged or lost while in the government's possession.
    In addition, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (section 
6) provides that property can be released by a federal court 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). The court may 
place conditions on the release of the property necessary to 
ensure its availability for forfeiture should the government 
eventually prevail.
    Finally, under current law, indigents have no right to 
appointed counsel in civil forfeiture cases. Section 7 of the 
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act would allow the court to 
appoint counsel for individuals financially unable to obtain 
representation and directs that the funds come from the Justice 
Assets Forfeiture Fund to pay for the cost of court-appointed 
counsel.
    On July 22, 1996, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 
1916. The witnesses included three individuals who described 
incidents where current law has operated unfairly: Willie 
Jones, King Cutkomp, and Stephen Komie, on behalf of the 
Illinois State Bar Association. Also testifying were Stefan D. 
Cassella, Deputy Chief of the Asset Forfeiture and Money 
Laundering Section of the Department of Justice; Jan P. 
Blanton, Director of the Treasury Executive Office for Asset 
Forfeiture of the Department of the Treasury; James W. McMahon, 
Superintendent of the New York State Police, on behalf of the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police; Mark Kappelhoff, 
Legislative Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union; 
E.E. (Bo) Edwards, co-chair of the Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task 
Force of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; 
and Terrance G. Reed, Chairperson of the RICO, Forfeiture, and 
Civil Remedies Committee of the Section of Criminal Justice of 
the American Bar Association.

National Gambling Impact Study Commission--H.R. 497, P.L. 104-169

    Summary.--The Commission on the Review of the National 
Policy Toward Gambling published the federal government's last 
national study of gambling in 1976. Since that time, legalized 
gambling has grown exponentially. According to the American 
Gaming Association, some form of legalized gambling now exists 
in 48 of the 50 states. Thirty-six states and the District of 
Columbia now have state lotteries--rapid growth from the one 
state lottery begun by New Hampshire in 1963. The AGA reports 
that in 1994, Americans made more than 125 million visits to 
casinos. In short, legalized gambling is now a large force in 
the national economy.
    Representative Frank Wolf introduced H.R. 497 which 
establishes a national commission to study the impact of the 
explosive growth of legalized gambling on the country. 
Proponents of H.R. 497 argue that legalized gambling has 
numerous negative effects, including increased crime in the 
areas around gambling establishments and increased incidence of 
compulsive gambling. They assert that gambling does not have 
the positive economic effects that gambling operators claim. 
Rather, they claim that the dollars spent on gambling are 
dollars that would otherwise be spent on other businesses. In 
their view, the social costs of crime and problem gambling more 
than outweigh the benefits of the increased tax revenues that 
gambling generates.
    Under current law, most gambling operations are regulated 
by state law. The proponents of H.R. 497 claim that in 
legislative battles in the states, those who support gambling 
have vast amounts of money to spend on lobbying, whereas the 
opponents usually do not. Thus, gambling operations can 
overwhelm state efforts at regulation. Gambling operations run 
by Indians are regulated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a 
federal law passed in 1988. Many state government officials 
feel that they do not have sufficient control over Indian 
gambling operations under this law.
    Given these problems with state regulatory powers over 
commercial and Indian gambling operations, the proponents of 
H.R. 497 believe that there should be a national study of the 
impact of gambling with an eye towards developing a national 
policy on gambling. They believe that the tremendous growth of 
legalized gambling is a national problem that demands a 
national solution.
    Opponents of H.R. 497 contend that gambling provides jobs 
and generates tax revenues. They argue that the increased crime 
surrounding gambling operations is nothing more than the 
natural result of the increased number of people in the area. 
They claim that a similar effect occurs around other 
entertainment attractions. Likewise, they contend that gambling 
operations do not draw dollars out of surrounding businesses 
any more than any other entertainment business. Finally, 
opponents of H.R. 497 acknowledge the existence of problem 
gambling, but contend that the industry is making efforts to 
address it.
    Owners of commercial gambling operations believe that the 
current law properly places the regulation in the hands of the 
states. They contend that creating the national commission 
contemplated in H.R. 497 would violate principles of 
federalism. Owners of Indian gambling operations do not 
necessarily object to a national commission subject to certain 
conditions. Ultimately, the opponents of H.R. 497 argue that 
gambling exists because the public demands it and that 
therefore it is not a problem in need of study.
    Hearing and Legislative History.--Representative Frank Wolf 
introduced H.R. 497 on July 18, 1995. The full Committee held a 
hearing on the bill on September 29, 1995 (Serial No. 34). The 
witnesses were: Hon. Frank R. Wolf, United States 
Representative, 10th District of Virginia; Hon. Paul Simon, 
United States Senator, State of Illinois; Hon. Richard G. 
Lugar, United States Senator, State of Indiana; Hon. John 
Ensign, United States Representative, 1st District of Nevada; 
Hon. Barbara F. Vucanovich, United States Representative, 2nd 
District of Nevada; Hon. Harry Reid, United States Senator, 
State of Nevada; Hon. Richard H. Bryan, United States Senator, 
State of Nevada; Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, United States 
Representative, 2nd District of New Jersey; Mr. William Jahoda; 
Mr. Paul R. Ashe, President, National Council on Problem 
Gambling, Altamonte Springs, Florida; Mr. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, 
Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, American Gaming 
Association, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Tom Grey, Executive 
Director, National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, 
Galena, Illinois; Professor Earl Grinols, Department of 
Economics, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois; Mr. 
Rick Hill, Chairman, National Indian Gaming Association, Green 
Bay, Wisconsin; and Mr. Jeremy Margolis, Altheimer & Gray, 
Chicago, Illinois.
    On November 8, 1995, the Committee marked up H.R. 497 and 
ordered it favorably reported, as amended, by a voice vote. The 
Committee filed its report on H.R. 497 on December 21, 1995. 
(H. Rept. No. 104-440, Part I) H.R. 497 was then sequentially 
referred to the Committee on Resources until February 28, 1996. 
On March 5, 1996, the bill, as amended, passed the House on a 
voice vote under suspension of the rules. The Committee then 
engaged in extensive negotiations with the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs which had jurisdiction over similar 
legislation in the Senate. These negotiations resulted in an 
agreed draft.
    On July 17, 1996, the Senate passed this draft as amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 497. On July 22, 1996, 
the House concurred in the Senate amendment on a voice vote 
under suspension of the rules. On August 3, 1996, the President 
signed the bill into law. (Public Law No. 104-169)

Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment--H.J. Res. 173 and 174

    Summary.--The modern victims' rights movement began in 
1973, when the chief probation officer in Fresno County, 
California began including victim impact statements with 
presentence investigation reports. Since that first stirring, 
the movement has grown tremendously.
    In 1982, California passed the first state constitutional 
amendment to provide rights to victims of crimes. Shortly 
thereafter, the report of the Presidential Task Force on 
Victims of Crime recommended an amendment to the Sixth 
Amendment of the federal constitution. This rather limited 
amendment would have provided victims only the right to be 
present and be heard at all critical stages of the proceedings. 
Since the California amendment and the report of the 
Presidential Task Force, twenty more states have adopted some 
form of a constitutional amendment to provide rights to victims 
of crime. All fifty states have some form of victims' rights 
legislation.
    Beginning in 1995, victims' rights advocates began to work 
on plans for a federal constitutional amendment. Some have 
questioned why such an amendment is needed if there is already 
a statute in every state. Victims' rights advocates contend 
that most of these statutes specifically prohibit any action 
against prosecutors who refuse to enforce the statutory rights. 
For that reason, they argue that these rights depend on the 
good will of prosecutors. They believe that the rights of 
victims will never be taken seriously until they are formally 
recognized in the federal constitution.
    The various proposals generally contain a list of 
constitutional rights that victims of crime could assert at 
various stages of criminal proceedings, including, among other 
things, rights to be present and be heard, to be informed of 
releases and escapes, to be protected from physical harm by the 
defendant, and to receive restitution. The Committee expects to 
continue working on this issue in the 105th Congress.
    Hearing.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.J. Res. 173 and H.J. 
Res. 174 on April 22, 1996. On July 11, 1996, the full 
Committee held a legislative hearing on these two proposals 
(Serial No. 91). The witnesses were: Hon. Jon Kyl, United 
States Senator, State of Arizona; Hon. Dianne Feinstein, United 
States Senator, State of California; Hon. Ed Royce, United 
States Representative, 39th District of California; Hon. John 
Schmidt, Associate Attorney General, United States Department 
of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Mrs. Roberta Roper, Director, 
Stephanie Roper Committee and Foundation, Inc., Upper Marlboro, 
Maryland; Ms. Christine Long-Wagner, Chairperson, Victims' 
Rights Committee, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, 
Johnstown, Ohio; Mr. Chet Hodgin, State Vice-President, North 
Carolina Victim Assistance Network, Jamestown, North Carolina; 
Hon. Jeffrey Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island, 
Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of the National Association 
of Attorneys General; Ms. Elizabeth Semel, Semel & Feldman, San 
Diego, California, on behalf of the National Association of 
Criminal Defense Lawyers; Ms. Ellen Greenlee, Chief Defender, 
Defender Association of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, on behalf of the National Legal Aid and Defender 
Association.

Encryption--H.R. 3011, the ``Security and Freedom through Encryption 
        (SAFE) Act''

    Summary.--Encryption is the process of encoding data or 
communications in a form that only the intended recipient can 
understand. Until fairly recently, society generally considered 
encryption to be the exclusive domain of national security and 
law enforcement agencies. However, with the advent of computers 
and digital electronic communications, encryption has become 
increasingly important to persons and companies in the private 
sector because they want to be able to transmit data securely. 
Many people feel that the Internet has not become as successful 
a commercial medium as it might because those who would use it 
do not feel the data transmitted is secure. For example, people 
do not want to transmit their credit card numbers when those 
numbers may be stolen by hackers.
    To understand the issues involved, it is necessary to 
understand some basic terminology. In the digital world, data 
and communications are expressed in a string of ones and zeroes 
that are intelligible to computers, but not the average person. 
An encryption scheme converts ones to zeroes and zeroes to ones 
according to an algorithm or mathematical formula. The intended 
recipient knows the formula or ``key'' which he uses to decode 
the encrypted data.
    The complexity of an encryption scheme determines how 
difficult it is to break the code and therefore how well the 
scheme protects the data. The complexity of the encryption 
scheme is usually expressed as a number known as the ``bit 
length.'' A bit is one digit in the key. A bit length of 40 is 
considered relatively weak, whereas a bit length of 128 is 
considered very strong.
    The encryption debate encompasses two main issues. The 
first is whether there should be any restrictions on the 
domestic use and sale of encryption products, and in 
particular, whether domestic users should be required to place 
their keys in escrow with the government or some other neutral 
third party, e.g. an existing computer company or an entity 
created solely for the purpose of holding keys. Current law 
does not have any such restrictions.
    The second issue is whether there should be restrictions on 
the export of encryption products. Current law regulates the 
export of encryption products under the Arms Export Control 
Act, 22 U.S.C. Sec. 2751 et seq., and the International 
Trafficking in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. Sec. 120 et seq. The 
State Department, which administers the Act and the 
Regulations, has as a matter of practice generally allowed the 
export of encryption products with bit lengths of 40 or less. 
The State Department treats these relatively weak encryption 
products as non-defense products subject to the jurisdiction of 
the Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act, 
50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2401 et seq.
     With respect to the domestic use of encryption, the 
Administration had favored some form of a key escrow system. It 
was not clear whether this system would be voluntary or 
mandatory. It was also not clear whether the key would be 
escrowed with a government agency or some other trusted third 
party.
    The law enforcement and national security agencies believe 
that some form of key escrow system is necessary to maintain 
their ability to perform legitimate wiretaps and to read 
computer data seized through lawful means. They argue that 
widespread use of strong encryption without key escrow would 
end the use of wiretapping as a tool for fighting crime. For 
example, they argue that instances occur when law enforcement 
agencies learn in the course of a wiretap that someone is about 
to commit a serious crime. If strong encryption prevented a 
contemporaneous understanding of this information, the agencies 
would not be able to prevent the crime. Likewise, if strong 
encryption prevented the reading of lawfully seized computer 
data, it could unreasonably delay criminal investigations. They 
further argue that a key escrow system would have the salutary 
side effect of providing a backup for those users who might 
lose their keys.
    The computer industry, the larger business community, and 
privacy groups vehemently oppose any mandatory key escrow 
system. They argue that a mandatory system would unnecessarily 
invade the privacy of users. They believe that law enforcement 
can solve its problems by acquiring better technology to decode 
encrypted materials. They argue that our law and tradition does 
not require private citizens to take positive action to assist 
the government in surveilling them in any other instance. 
Moreover, they contend that private citizens should not be 
required to hand over access to their most precious assets to 
anyone else regardless of whether it is the government or a 
third party. In the digital age, information is often the most 
valuable property that a company owns. They further argue that 
the good that the widespread use of encryption can do by 
preventing crime far outweighs the harm done by the relatively 
few instances in which the use of encryption hampers law 
enforcement.
    With respect to the export control issue, the 
Administration had opposed the lifting of the current export 
controls. It argues that the controls are still effective and 
that our allies would be distressed about the damage to law 
enforcement efforts if we lifted the controls. It also argues 
that the lifting of the controls might not help business that 
much because other countries would respond by imposing import 
controls. Finally, the Administration argues that it is making 
efforts to find ways to relax the controls on a case by case 
basis.
    The computer industry and the privacy groups argue that the 
controls ought to be substantially relaxed, if not eliminated. 
They argue that the controls are easily evaded because many 
encryption products are available to anyone over the Internet 
and because it is legal for anyone to come into the United 
States, buy encryption products, and take them out of the 
country. Because the controls are so easily evaded, they 
further argue that the controls serve only to put American 
companies at a competitive disadvantage and to discourage 
investment in the development of better encryption products. If 
the situation does not change, they believe that America will 
no longer dominate this field.
    With respect to domestic law, H.R. 3011 would have codified 
the existing law that there are no restrictions on the domestic 
use or sale of encryption products. With respect to export 
controls, H.R. 3011 would have substantially relaxed the export 
controls, but it would not have totally eliminated them.
    Subsequent to the Committee's hearing, the Administration 
announced a new initiative on encryption. Under this 
initiative, the details of which are still sketchy, the 
Administration would provide an immediate, but slight 
relaxation of the export controls. To receive the benefits of 
this relaxation, computer companies would have to commit to 
build products with key escrow features within the next two 
years. The Committee looks forward to examining the details of 
this proposal further when they become available. The Committee 
expects to consider this issue further in the 105th Congress.
    Hearing.--Representative Bob Goodlatte introduced H.R. 3011 
on March 5, 1996. Senator Burns (S. 1726) and Senator Leahy (S. 
1587) introduced similar legislation in the Senate. On 
September 25, 1996, the full Committee held a hearing on H.R. 
3011. The witnesses were: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, United States 
Representative, 6th District of Virginia; Hon. Jamie Gorelick, 
Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C.; Hon. William Crowell, Deputy Director, 
National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland; Ms. Melinda 
Brown, Vice President and General Counsel, Lotus Development 
Corporation, on behalf of the Business Software Alliance; Ms. 
Roberta Katz, Vice-President and General Counsel, Netscape 
Communications Corporation, Mountain View, California, on 
behalf of the Information Technology Association of America and 
the Software Publishers Association; Ms. Patricia Ripley, 
Managing Director, Bear, Stearns & Company, Inc., New York, New 
York; Dr. Charles Deneka, Senior Vice-President and Chief 
Technology Officer, Corning, Inc., Corning, New York, on behalf 
of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Title 49 Codification Update

    On September 12, 1995, Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 2297, 
a bill to codify without substantive change laws related to 
transportation and to improve the United States Code. At a 
markup on April 24, 1996, the full Committee--by voice vote--
approved an amendment offered by Ranking Member Conyers to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Chairman 
Hyde. H.R. 2297, as amended, was approved by voice vote and 
ordered favorably reported.
    On July 29, 1996, the House considered H.R. 2297 with 
further changes incorporated into a floor manager's amendment 
and--by voice vote--passed H.R. 2297, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules. The House passed version of H.R. 2297 
passed the Senate under unanimous consent on September 28, 
1996. The President approved H.R. 2297 on October 11, 1996 as 
Public Law 104-287.
    Congress codified Title 49 into positive law in segments--
initially completing the task with the July 5, 1994 enactment 
of Public Law 103-272. Later that year, Congress enacted Public 
Law 103-429 to make technical improvements and incorporate in 
Title 49 transportation related laws enacted after the June 30, 
1993 cutoff date for Public Law 103-272 or not otherwise 
included in Title 49. With the enactment of Public Law 104-287, 
Title 49 again was updated--this time to incorporate an 
additional law not already included in the codification and 
make further technical corrections. Some of these technical 
changes were necessitated by events after the September 25, 
1994 cutoff date for the previous transportation related 
codification--including the enactment of Public Law 104-88, the 
ICC Termination Act of 1995, on December 29, 1995.
    H.R. 2297 was drafted by the Office of the Law Revision 
Counsel under its statutory authority to prepare and submit 
periodically revisions of positive law titles of the Code to 
keep those titles current.

                          Oversight Activities

    Pursuant to Rule X, clause 2(d), the Committee adopted an 
oversight plan for the 104th 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 explored in 
the context of legislative hearings. The following is a 
discussion of the oversight activities of the full Committee. 
The oversight activities of each of the subcommittees will be 
discussed separately.

Full committee oversight hearings

    April 6, 1995, International Terrorism: Threats and 
Responses, Serial No. 24.
    May 9, 1995, Telecommunications: The Role of the Department 
of Justice, Serial No. 7.
    February 6, 1996, Professional Sports Franchise Relocation: 
Antitrust Implications. H.R. 2699--To require the consideration 
of certain criteria in decisions to relocate professional 
sports teams, and for other purposes. ``Fans Rights Act of 
1995''. H.R. 2740--To protect sports fans and communities 
throughout the Nation, and for other purposes. ``Fan Freedom 
and Community Protection Act of 1995''. Serial No. 57.
    February 27 and 28, 1996, Health Care Reform Issues: 
Antitrust, Medical Malpractice Liability, and Volunteer 
Liability. H.R. 911--To encourage the States to enact 
legislation to grant immunity from personal civil liability, 
under certain circumstances, to volunteers working on behalf of 
nonprofit organizations and governmental entities. ``Volunteer 
Protection Act of 1995''. H.R. 2925--To modify the application 
of the antitrust laws to health care provider networks that 
provide health care services; and for other purposes. 
``Antitrust Health Care Advancement Act of 1996''. H.R. 2938--
To encourage the furnishing of health care services to low-
income individuals by exempting health care professionals from 
liability for negligence for certain health care services 
provided without charge except in cases of gross negligence or 
willful misconduct, and for other purposes. ``Charitable 
Medical Care Act of 1996''. Serial No. 66.
    May 21, 1996, Church fires in the Southeast.
           SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

  GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman

JACK REED, Rhode Island              HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
JOHN BRYANT, Texas \1\               BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JERROLD NADLER, New York             STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois
ZOE LOFGREN, California \2\          BOB BARR, Pennsylvania

----------
\1\ John Bryant, Texas, resigned from the Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law effective March 12, 1996.
\2\ Zoe Lofgren, California, was assigned to the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law effective March 12, 1996.

    Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the subcommittee

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................    66
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....     1
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................     3
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     2
Legislation reported to the House.................................    12
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................     4
Legislation pending in the House..................................     4
Legislation passed by the House...................................    12
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     3
Legislation vetoed by the President...............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     9
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    23
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    23

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has 
legislative and oversight responsibility for the Legal Services 
Corporation, the Office of Solicitor General, the 
Administrative Conference of the United States, the U.S. 
Bankruptcy Courts, and the Executive Office for the U.S. 
Trustees 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/Practice and Procedure

H.R. 1802, Reorganization of the Federal Administrative Judiciary Act

    The nearly 1,300 Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) assigned 
to 31 Federal agencies, over 80% of whom are at the Social 
Security Administration, function as decisionmakers in disputes 
between private parties and the government. Such disputes 
generally fall into one of three categories: regulatory, 
entitlement, and enforcement cases. Many ALJ decisions are 
``recommended decisions'' and, as such, are reviewable. That is 
, they can be reversed or modified by an agency head, board, or 
commission. An injured private party can then file in an 
Article III venue to reverse the agency decision. Without the 
system of ALJs, the Federal courts would be overwhelmed by an 
estimated four-fold increase in their caseload.
    Over a ten-year period, two concerns have been uppermost in 
shaping and advancing various legislative proposals to 
establish an ALJ corps independent of any particular agency or 
department of government. A major impetus has been the desire 
to achieve greater economy and efficiency within the system of 
ALJ adjudication. Workloads over time have varied between the 
agencies, for example, and the ALJ Corps bill is intended to 
facilitate the retraining, transfer, and reassignment of judges 
as needed. A second concern has been to insure adherence to 
constitutional and statutory standards of fairness in the ALJ 
process and to convey to the public that this is indeed the 
case. Since ALJs are currently employees of the agencies in 
which they serve, the appearance of impartiality has sometimes 
been questioned.
    The Subcommittee held two legislative hearings on H.R. 
1802, the Reorganization of the Federal Administrative 
Judiciary Act, a bill introduced by Representative Gekas that 
would consolidate all agency administrative law judges (ALJs) 
into an independent, unified corps functioning within the 
executive branch. These were held on July 26, 1995 (Serial No. 
12, Part 1) and March 28, 1996 (Serial No. 12, Part 2). H.R. 
1802 is identical to the ALJ corps bill that passed the Senate 
during the 103rd Congress and is similar to a bill reported by 
the House Judiciary Committee during the 102nd Congress.
    Under the terms of H.R. 1802, all ALJs now employed by 
Federal agencies would be transferred to the Corps, which would 
operate under the direction of a Chief Administrative Law Judge 
appointed by the President. The bill would create a central 
panel, the Council of the Corps, to develop procedures and 
guidelines governing the operation of the Corps, to appoint and 
assign judges, to prescribe rules of practice and procedure, 
and to supervise a system of discipline and removal. H.R. 1802 
would also authorize the appropriation of sums necessary to 
operate the Corps.
    Witnesses at the July 26, 1995, hearing were: Senator 
Howell Heflin; Representatives Tom Bevill, Barney Frank, and 
Paul Kanjorski; John W. Hardwicke, Chief Administrative Law 
Judge, Office of Hearings and Appeals, State of Maryland; John 
T. Miller, Jr. on behalf of the American Bar Association; 
Professor Victor G. Rosenblum, Professor of Law and Political 
Science, Northwestern University School of Law; Administrative 
Law Judge Christine Moore on behalf of Administrative Law Judge 
William A. Pope, II, President, Federal Administrative Law 
Judges Conference; Administrative Law Judge Eli Nash, Jr., 
President, Forum of United States Administrative Law Judges; 
and Administrative Law Judge Melford Cleveland, President, 
Association of Administrative Law Judges, Inc.
    Witnesses for the March 28, 1996, hearing were: Elizabeth 
A. Moler, Chair, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; William 
B. Gould, IV, Chairman, National Labor Relations Board; Rita 
Geier, Deputy Associate Commissioner For Hearings and Appeals, 
Social Security Administration; Stephen Calkins, General 
Counsel, Federal Trade Commission; Administrative Law Judge Ron 
Bernoski, Social Security Administration; Chief Administrative 
Law Judge David Davidson, National Labor Relations Board; and 
Administrative Law Judge Seymour Fier, Social Security 
Administration.
    H.R. 1802 was favorably reported by the Subcommittee 
without amendment on September 14, 1995, by a vote of 6 to 3. 
The full Committee did not consider H.R. 1802 during the 104th 
Congress.

H.R. 2977, Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996

    The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (5 U.S.C. 571-
583), initially signed into law by President George W. Bush in 
1990, was designed to encourage and provide a framework to 
facilitate the use of alternative means of dispute resolution 
by agencies in the discharge of their administrative 
responsibilities. The Act, which expired on October 1, 1995, 
grew out of efforts by the Administrative Conference of the 
United States (ACUS) and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
Service (FMCS) that dated from the early 1980's to encourage 
flexible alternatives for the resolution of disputes regarding 
agency programs.
    Administrative dispute resolution (ADR) is defined as a 
procedure such as mediation, arbitration, facilitation, mini-
trials, or various combinations of these, used voluntarily to 
resolve issues in controversy. ADR's purpose is to lower the 
cost to all parties of agency decisions, while at the same time 
encouraging the kind of compromise and settlement that 
recognize and address the valid concerns of all parties to a 
dispute. It developed in response to the growth in formal 
hearings and litigation challenging agency actions that 
threatened to overburden the regulatory and judicial process. 
By all indications ADR has been successful, as the testimony 
before the Subcommittee indicated at the oversight hearing on 
December 12, 1995. Witnesses included: Peter R. Steenland, Jr., 
senior counsel for Administrative Dispute Resolution, Office of 
the Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Joseph M. McDade, assistant general counsel, Office of the 
General Counsel, Department of the U.S. Air Force; Diane Liff, 
ADR counsel, on behalf of John C. Wells, director, Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service; Philip J. Harter, chair of 
the section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice of 
the American Bar Association; Gail Bingham, president, RESOLVE; 
and James C. Diggs, vice-president and assistant general 
counsel, TRW, Inc.
    On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee reported H.R. 2977 
by voice vote. The bill permanently reauthorized the 
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act with several amendments, 
particularly with respect to confidentiality, designed to 
improve its function. On March 12, 1996, the full Judiciary 
Committee ordered reported the bill by voice vote without 
amendment. H.R. 2977 was passed by the House with a technical 
amendment under suspension by voice vote on June 4, 1995.
    On June 12, 1996, the Senate passed H.R. 2977 with an 
amendment substituting the language of S. 1224, as amended by 
the Senate, insisted upon its amendment and requested a 
conference . On September 19, 1996, the House disagreed to the 
Senate amendment and agreed to a conference.
    The Senate amendment differed in several respects from the 
House bill. First, it contained a reauthorization of the 
Negotiated Rulemaking Act, a law designed to provide for 
improved agency rulemaking through the participation of special 
committees representing the expertise of those who would be 
affected by a proposed rule. Secondly, it amended the 
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act by changing current law 
to authorize the Government to engage in binding arbitration. 
The current law permitted arbitration but provided that an 
agency could vacate an arbiter's award. Thirdly, the Senate 
amendment provided greater protection from disclosure of ADR 
communications through the Freedom of Information Act than did 
the House bill. Finally, the Senate amendment contained a 
provision modifying the jurisdiction of the United States 
district court over bid protests. Sometimes referred to as 
``Scanwell'' jurisdiction, the current law permitted protests 
by disappointed bidders for government contracts to be filed in 
district courts as well as the United States court of claims. 
The Senate amendment would have withdrawn this district court 
jurisdiction and concentrated it within the court of claims.
    On September 24, 1996, the Conferees filed a conference 
report which, among other things, contained compromise language 
dealing with Scanwell jurisdiction. It was not taken to the 
floor. Instead, on September 26, 1996, a new bill, H.R. 4194, 
was introduced by Chairman Hyde. It contained the language of 
the conference report pertaining to the reauthorization of the 
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act, but no language concerning the issue of 
Scanwell jurisdiction. The House passed H.R. 4194 on September 
27, 1996, by voice vote under suspension of the rules; on 
September 30, 1996, the Senate passed the legislation, which 
included another compromise of the Scanwell issue. The House 
concurred with the Senate amendment on October 4, 1996, and the 
bill was then signed by the President on October 19, 1996. 
Public Law 104-320.

H.R. 2291, To extend the Administrative Conference of the United States

    On September 8, 1995, Representative Gekas introduced H.R. 
2291, a bill to authorize an annual appropriation of $1.8 
million for FY 1995 through FY 1998 for the Administrative 
Conference of the United States (ACUS). In addition to the 
four-year reauthorization, H.R. 2291 also included three cost-
saving and technical changes to the Conference's enabling 
legislation: a reduction in the effective rate of pay of the 
ACUS Chairman from Level II to Level III of the Executive 
Schedule; a clarification that Conference members from the 
private sector do not perform duties that make them subject to 
the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution; and a specific 
quorum requirement for actions taken at Conference assemblies. 
As noted earlier, an oversight hearing on ACUS had been held on 
May 11, 1995 (Serial No. 6).
    On September 14, 1995, the Subcommittee held a markup at 
which H.R. 2291 was ordered favorably reported to the full 
Committee by a vote of 5 to 3. However, funding for ACUS in FY 
1996 was deleted by House-Senate conferees on the Treasury-
Postal Service appropriations bill (H.R. 2020) Public Law 104-
52. Consequently, no further action was taken on H.R. 2291. The 
Administrative Conference of the United States officially 
ceased operations on October 31, 1995.

                               Bankruptcy

H.R. 234, Boating and Aviation Operation Safety Act of 1994

    Sec. 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a list of debts 
that will be nondischargeable at the conclusion of the 
bankruptcy process. It includes those arising from ``death or 
personal injury caused by the debtor's operation of a motor 
vehicle if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was 
intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance.'' 
(Sec. 523(a)(9)) This provision is made applicable to personal 
bankruptcies filed under various Bankruptcy Code chapters--
including both Chapter 7 (liquidation) and Chapter 13 
(adjustment of debts of an individual with regular income).
    H.R. 234 would simply insert ``watercraft, or aircraft'' 
after ``motor vehicle,'' in 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(9). Having 
previously made the policy judgement that the equities of 
persons injured by drunk drivers outweigh the responsible 
debtor's interest in a fresh start, Congress now would be 
clarifying that the policy applies not only on land but also on 
the water--and in the air--thus bringing to an end conflicting 
judicial opinions in such cases.
    On July 13, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing (Serial 
No. 10) on H.R. 234, the Boating and Aviation Operation Safety 
Act, introduced by Representative Ehlers. Testimony presented 
at the Subcommittee hearing by Bruce A. Gilmore, Director of 
Boating Administration, Maryland Department of Natural 
Resources, described the hazards associated with the 
irresponsible operation of watercraft, including an increasing 
number of injuries and deaths attributable to new design 
personal watercraft capable of speeds exceeding 40 knots. 
Testimony was also received from: Representative Vernon J. 
Ehlers; Stephen H. Case, Vice Chair of the Legislative 
Committee of the National Bankruptcy Conference; and Gerald M. 
O'Donnell, President of the National Association of Chapter 13 
Trustees.
    On September 14, 1995, the Subcommittee reported H.R. 234 
by voice vote and on October 31, 1995, the Committee on the 
Judiciary, by voice vote, ordered the bill favorably reported 
to the House of Representatives. (H. Rept. 104-356.) The year 
``1994'' in the title of the bill became ``1995,'' as a result 
of a technical change. On June 4, 1996 the House passed H.R. 
234 under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. The Senate 
took no action on H.R. 234, however, before the end of the 
104th Congress.

H.R. 2604, Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1995

    H.R. 2604, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1995, was 
introduced by Representative Gekas at the request of the 
Judicial Conference of the United States. It would provide five 
permanent and six temporary judgeships in eight judicial 
districts reflecting a reassessment and reduction from a 1993 
Judicial Conference request for 19 new positions that was not 
acted upon by the 103rd Congress. It also more faithfully 
reflected Congressional policy favoring the creation of 
temporary as opposed to permanent bankruptcy judgeships 
whenever possible and appropriate.
    Bankruptcy judges are appointed for 14 year terms by the 
regional United States Courts of Appeals. A person appointed to 
a temporary judgeship may serve a full term and be eligible for 
reappointment, just as a person appointed to a permanent 
judgeship. The aggregate numbers of judgeships in district that 
receive temporary positions, however, eventually revert to 
former levels because certain vacancies are not filled.
    The Judicial Conference recommendations are based on a 
comprehensive analysis of each court's caseload statistics and 
an on-site review of its work and procedures. A weighted-hours 
system is the first factor considered in this process, under 
which each of 17 different categories of bankruptcy cases is 
assigned a time value so that the sheer number of cases alone 
does not constitute the workload profile. Other pertinent 
factors taken into account include the nature and mix of the 
court's caseload, historic caseload data and filing trends, 
geographic, economic and demographic factors in the district, 
the effectiveness of case management efforts by the court, the 
availability of alternative solutions and resources for 
handling the court's workload, and the impact that the approval 
of the requested additional resources would have on the court's 
per judgeship caseload. Bankruptcy filings have risen in nearly 
every judicial district and at the time of Subcommittee 
consideration of H.R. 2604 were approaching one million new 
cases annually.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2604 on December 7, 
1995, at which time there were 326 authorized bankruptcy 
judgeships nationwide, with ten current vacancies (Serial No. 
36). The witnesses were: Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the 
United States District Court, District of Minnesota, and 
Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on Administration 
of the Bankruptcy System; Chief Bankruptcy Judge Paul Mannes, 
District of Maryland, and Chairman of the Judicial Conference 
Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; Bankruptcy Judge 
William A. Anderson, Western District of Virginia; and Harry D. 
Dixon Jr., Chairman of the Board of the American Bankruptcy 
Institute.
    On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee ordered the bill 
favorably reported, by voice vote and without amendment, to the 
Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee considered the 
bill on March 12, 1996, and ordered it favorably reported 
without amendment, by voice vote (H.Rept. 104-569). No further 
action was taken on H.R. 2604 prior to the end of the 104th 
Congress.

                     The Legal Services Corporation

H.R. 2277, The Legal Aid Act of 1995

    For many years the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) has 
been controversial. In fact, due to the controversy surrounding 
the Corporation, it has not been reauthorized since 1980. 
During the first session of this Congress, the Committee 
reported a bill to authorize a new delivery system for legal 
aid to the poor.
    H.R. 2277, ``The Legal Aid Act of 1995,'' would have 
repealed the Legal Services Corporation Act, abolished the 
Legal Services Corporation, and created a new program to 
provide categorical grants to the states for the provision of 
legal aid to the poor. The legislation required the Attorney 
General to direct the Office of Justice Programs to make grants 
to states to provide legal services for the poor and to insure 
compliance with the new Legal Aid Grant Act. The legislation 
specifically defined persons who could provide legal services, 
persons eligible to receive legal services, and, in general, 
the types of causes of action a provider could engage in on 
behalf of a qualified client. The bill required States to make 
federal funds available for legal services pursuant to a 
competitive bid process and to award contracts to the bidder 
who was best qualified and who bid to provide the greatest 
number of hours of legal services to eligible clients.
    H.R. 2277, which was introduced on September 7, 1995, by 
Representative Gekas was the product of three days of hearings 
held by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. 
The first hearing held on May 16, 1995, was designed to allow 
members of the Subcommittee to hear from proponents of the 
Legal Services Corporation. The Subcommittee heard testimony at 
this hearing from: Abner J. Mikva, Counsel to the President, 
The White House; Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice; John Carey, General Counsel, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency; Alexander D. Forger, President, 
Legal Services Corporation; Douglas F. Eakeley, Chairman of the 
Board, Legal Services Corporation; Thomas F. Smegal, Jr., 
Member of the Board, Legal Services Corporation; and Ernestine 
P. Watlington, Member of the Board, Legal Services Corporation.
    The second day of hearings, conducted on June 15, 1995, 
focused primarily on testimony from critics of the LSC. 
Witnesses at this hearing included: David Keene, Chairman, 
American Conservative Union; Howard Phillips, Chairman, 
Conservative Caucus; Ken Boehm, Chairman, National Legal and 
Policy Center; Harry Bell, President, South Carolina Farm 
Bureau on behalf of the American Farm Bureau; Judy Mauch, Mauch 
Farms; Jodie Stearns, Mitchell, Stearns & Hammer; Stan Eury, 
North Carolina Grower's Association; Dan Gerawan, Gerawan 
Ranches; Libby Whittley, Farm Business Coalition; John Hiscox, 
Director, Macon Housing Authority; Harriet Henson, Northside 
Tenants Reorganization; Zelma Boggess, Director, Charleston 
Housing Authority; Michael Pileggi, Philadelphia Housing 
Authority; and John McKay, Chairman of the Equal Justice 
Coalition.
    The third hearing, held on July 17, 1995, focused on 
solutions to problems facing the LSC and inadequacies of the 
current statute. With an eye toward drafting legislation, the 
Subcommittee heard from the following public witnesses: Alan D. 
Bersin, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California 
on behalf of the Department of Justice; Thomas J. Madden, 
Former General Counsel, Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration, Department of Justice; Rev. Fred Kammer, S.J., 
President, Catholic Charities, U.S.A.; Robert E. Adams, 
Executive Director, Legal Services of the Fourth Judicial 
District, South Carolina; Jack Martin, Vice President, the Ford 
Motor Company; Neal I. Hogan, General Counsel, Dublin Castle 
Group; Edouard R. Quatrevaux, Inspector General, Legal Services 
Corporation; Penny Pullen, Former Board Member of the Legal 
Services Corporation; Hon. Howard H. Dana, Former Board Member 
of the Legal Services Corporation; Terrance Wear, Former 
President of the Legal Services Corporation; and Mike Wallace, 
Former Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation.
    The Committee on the Judiciary reported favorably H.R. 
2277, amended, to the House on September 21, 1995; it had been 
ordered favorably reported by a vote of 18 to 13 (H. Rept. 104-
255). The House took no further action on this measure.

                Regulatory Reform/Regulatory Flexibility

H.R. 9 (titles VI, VII, VIII), The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement 
        Act of 1995 and H.R. 926 (titles I, II, III), The Regulatory 
        Reform and Relief Act

    Early in the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee considered 
regulatory reform as represented in titles VI, VII and VIII of 
H.R. 9, legislation which formed one of the provisions of the 
Contract With America. On February 3, 1995, the Subcommittee 
held a hearing on proposed amendments to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act contained in title VI of H.R. 9, and on a 
proposed regulatory bill of rights and whistle blowers' 
protection provisions to protect citizens from abuse at the 
hands of federal agencies, embodied in title VIII of that bill. 
On February 6, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on title 
VII of H.R. 9, which provided for the creation of a Regulatory 
Impact Analysis by agencies to accompany the promulgation of 
major rules.
    Witnesses testifying on title VI were: Representatives Ike 
Skelton and Tom Ewing; John Spotila, General Counsel, Small 
Business Administration; Jere Glover, Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy, Small Business Administration; Joseph Stehlin, Green 
Cove Maritime, Inc.; Rick Stadelman, Executive Director, 
Wisconsin Towns & Townships; Bennie Thayer, President, National 
Association of Self-Employed; Donald Dorr, representing the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; James P. Carty, Vice President of 
Small Manufacturers, National Association of Manufacturers; Kim 
McKernan, Director of House Governmental Affairs, National 
Federation of Independent Businessmen; and David C. Vladeck, 
Director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group.
    Witnesses testifying on title VII were: Sally Katzen, 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget; Cornelius E. 
Hubner, President of the American Felt and Filter Company; 
Brian Maher, President of Maher Terminals; Al Wenger, Executive 
Officer, Wenger Feed Mills; Ed Dunkelberger, representing the 
National Food Processors Association; C. Boyden Gray; David 
Hawkins, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; 
James C. Miller, representing Citizens for a Sound Economy; 
Thomasina Rogers, Chair of the Administrative Conference of the 
United States, accompanied by Ernest Gellhorn; Gary Bass, 
Executive Director, OMB Watch; and George C. Freeman, Jr., 
Chairman of the American Bar Association's Working Group on 
Regulatory Reform.
    Witnesses testifying on title VIII were: Representative Tom 
DeLay; Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General, Department of 
Justice; Edward Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies, CATO 
Institute; and Susan Eckerly, Deputy Director of Economic 
Policy, Heritage Foundation. The prepared statement of 
Professor Thomas O. McGarity of the University of Texas School 
of Law, was made part of the hearing record.
    Subsequent to the hearings, and based upon testimony 
received by the Subcommittee, H.R. 926 was introduced by 
Representative Gekas. Titles I, II & III of H.R. 926 correspond 
with titles VI, VII & VIII of H.R. 9.
            H.R. 926, Title I
    Title I of H.R. 926, ``Strengthening Regulatory 
Flexibility,'' amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.) which was designed to relieve the regulatory 
burden on small entities that results when agencies promulgate 
rules that have not been fashioned in a manner that considers 
and takes into account the fact that the regulatees will be of 
varying sizes--the so-called ``one-size-fits-all'' syndrome. 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Reg-Flex), enacted in 1980, 
requires that agencies prepare, where appropriate, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis that will consider how to mitigate 
potentially adverse impacts of a regulation on smaller 
entities. Unfortunately, Reg-Flex had not been able to fulfill 
its potential because it did not provide regulatees with the 
opportunity for judicial review of whether an agency has 
complied with its provisions. Title I of H.R. 926 provided 
judicial review to small entities to determine whether rules 
have been adopted in compliance with the RFA, and required 
agencies to circulate proposed rules to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to permit him an 
opportunity to comment upon the effect they would have on small 
entities. This title also provided a sense of the Congress that 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy should be authorized to file 
briefs as an amicus curiae in actions before any federal court.
            H.R. 926, Title II
    Title II of H.R. 926, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis,'' was 
intended to provide the public greater opportunity to 
participate in the agency rulemaking process. This provision 
would have required agencies to give advance notice to the 
public of impending rulemaking activity, and would have created 
new procedures by which citizens could affect agency 
determinations regarding whether or not to hold a public 
hearing or to extend a public comment period for rulemaking 
purposes. Most significantly, title II would have required 
agencies to complete and publish a regulatory impact analysis 
with regard to every major rule issued by an agency and would 
have provided authority to the director of the Office of 
Management and Budget to enforce agency compliance with such 
requirements. The impact analysis criteria set forth in title 
II was intended to require agencies to undertake a cost and 
benefit analysis of every major rulemaking and explain why the 
method chosen by the agency to implement a law was the least 
costly.
            H.R. 926, Title III
    The protections against regulatory abuse provided in title 
VIII, ``Protection Against Federal Regulatory Abuse,'' of H.R. 
9 were divided into two subtitles: (A) a regulatory ``bill of 
rights,'' based in part on the rights currently available to 
criminal defendants, for parties subject to a Federal agency 
investigation or enforcement action; and (B), provisions to 
protect private whistle blowers against reprisal for disclosing 
information they believe is indicative of a prohibited 
regulatory practice. Subtitle B included a list of eight 
prohibited regulatory practices, ranging from inconsistent 
application of the law to arbitrary action, mismanagement, and 
waste of resources.
    Title III of H.R. 926, ``Protections,'' responded to the 
problem of abuse and retaliation by government regulators 
originally addressed by title VIII of H.R. 9. It directed the 
President, within 180 days of enactment, to prescribe 
regulations for employees of the executive branch to protect 
persons against abuse, reprisal, or retaliation in connection 
with the enforcement of Federal laws and regulations. Such 
regulations must also insure that persons are treated fairly, 
equitably, and with due regard for their Constitutional rights.
          * * * * * * *
    H.R. 926 was considered by the full Committee and ordered 
reported favorably by voice vote on February 16, 1995. Three 
amendments were adopted to the bill during full Committee 
consideration, all by voice vote. The first was an amendment 
offered by Representative Gekas which provided an exemption 
from the pre-publication notification requirements of the RFA 
for certain monetary agencies. The second was an amendment 
offered by Representative Schumer which provided an exemption 
for certain monetary agencies from OMB enforcement authority 
over the regulatory impact analysis requirements of title II. 
The third was an amendment offered by Representative Reed which 
limited the period for review of the Director of OMB to 90 days 
regarding preliminary and final impact analyses and proposed 
and final rules.
    H.R. 926 was considered by the House on March 1, 1995, and 
passed by a vote of 415 to 15. The only amendment adopted was 
offered by Representative Ewing to extend the period during 
which an affected entity can seek judicial review of an 
agency's compliance with reg-flex from 180 days in the original 
bill to one year notwithstanding any other provision of law. 
H.R. 926 was not acted upon by the Senate which considered 
instead a larger regulatory reform package represented by S. 
343. Although debated on the floor, S. 343 was not passed. 
Ultimately, reforms similar to those contained in title I of 
H.R. 926 were enacted into law as a part of H.R. 3136 (The 
Contract With America Advancement Act) (Public Law 104-121), 
which included numerous other provisions.

H.R. 450/S. 219, The Regulatory Transition Act of 1995

    H.R. 450 was introduced by Representative Tom Delay to 
ensure economy and efficiency of Federal Government Operations 
by establishing a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking actions, 
and for other purposes.
    H.R. 450 was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight and in addition to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
favorably reported H.R. 450 to the House as amended in H. Rept. 
104-39, part 1, on February 16, 1995; on February 23, 1995, 
pursuant to the rule, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
discharged from further consideration; on February 24, 1995, 
the bill was passed by the House with additional floor 
amendments and was sent to the Senate. S. 219, the companion 
bill to H.R. 450, was following a similar path of progression 
in the Senate (S. Rept. 104-15) and was passed by the Senate as 
amended on March 29, 1995: on March 30, 1995, it was held at 
desk in the House; on May 17, 1995, the House passed S. 219, 
striking all after the enacting clause and substituting the 
language of H.R. 450 as passed by the House; and on June 16, 
1995, the Senate disagreed to the House amendment and requested 
a conference.
    No further action was taken.

H.R. 1047, Voluntary Environmental Self-Evaluation Act

    The Subcommittee conducted a hearing on June 29, 1995, on 
H.R. 1047, as introduced by Representative Joel Hefley of 
Colorado. The legislation was designed to encourage cooperation 
between the Government and private sector in following and 
enforcing environmental laws and regulations by creating a 
privilege from disclosure of certain information acquired 
pursuant to a voluntary environmental self-evaluation and 
providing for limited immunity from penalties if such 
information would be voluntarily disclosed. The bill was 
intended to promote the use of environmental self-audits by 
providing for a privilege and immunity, which the Environmental 
Protection Agency and other agencies have encouraged as a means 
to promote compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
    Witnesses heard by the Subcommittee included: 
Representatives Joel Hefley and Ed Bryant; Carl A. Mattia, Vice 
President, Environment, Health and Safety Management Systems, 
The B.F. Goodrich Company, on behalf of the Corporate 
Environmental Enforcement Council, Inc.; Bruce R. Adler, Senior 
Environmental Health & Safety Counsel, Corporate Environmental 
Programs Department, General Electric Corporation, on behalf of 
the Compliance Management & Policy Group; Mark V. Stanga, 
Environmental Affairs Counsel, Litton Industries, Inc., on 
behalf of Electronic Industries Association; Alan Liebowitz, 
Director, Environmental Health and Safety, ITT Defense and 
Electronics Corp.; Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; Lois Schiffer, Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment & Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, accompanied by Randall Rathbun, United 
States Attorney, District of Kansas; Harry Kelso, Director of 
Enforcement and Policy, Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality; David W. Ronald, Assistant Attorney General, 
Environmental Enforcement Section, Office of Attorney General 
of Arizona; Cynthia L. Goldman, Of Counsel, Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher, on behalf of the Colorado Association of Commerce and 
Industry; Peter Gish, Counsel, Clean Harbors Environment 
Service, Inc.; Robert L. DeSchamps, III, County Attorney of 
Missoula, Montana, representing the National District Attorneys 
Association; and Joseph G. Block, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & 
Civiletti.
    The Subcommittee took no further action.

H.R. 1670, The Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995

    H.R. 1670, introduced by Representative Clinger to revise 
and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal Government, 
to reorganize the mechanisms for resolving Federal procurement 
disputes, and for other purposes.
    H.R. 1670 was referred to the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight and in addition to the Committee on 
National Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
Committee on Small Business. The Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight favorably reported H.R. 1670 to the House as 
amended in H. Rept. 104-222, part 1, on August 1, 1995; on 
September 12, 1995, the Committee on Small Business was 
discharged from further consideration; on September 13, 1995, 
the Committee on National Security and the Committee on the 
Judiciary were discharged from further consideration; on 
September 14, 1995, H.R. 1670 passed the House as amended; and 
on September 18, 1995, it was referred to the Senate Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.
    Although no further action was taken on H.R. 1670, portions 
of H.R. 1670 contained related provisions included in S. 1124, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996,'' which was signed into law on February 10, 1996, 
becoming Public Law 104-106.

Delegation of Congressional Authority to Federal Agencies

    On September 12, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the role of Congress in monitoring administrative rulemaking. 
Three bills had been introduced which had provided in varying 
degrees for congressional approval of administrative rules 
before they could become formally effective. The bills were: 
H.R. 47, The Regulatory Relief and Reform Act (Rep. Taylor); 
H.R. 2727, The Congressional Responsibility Act of 1995 (Rep. 
Hayworth); and H.R. 2990, The Significant Regulation Oversight 
Act of 1996 (Rep. Smith of Michigan).
    Witness at the hearing included: Representatives Nick 
Smith, J. D. Hayworth, Charles H. Taylor, Bill K. Brewster, and 
Garry A. Condit; Professor David Schoenbrod, New York Law 
School; Professor Ernest Gellhorn, George Mason University 
School of Law; Gregory S. Wetstone, Legislative Director, 
Natural Resources Defense Council; Jerry Taylor, Director of 
Natural Resources Studies, Cato Institute; and Professor Marci 
A. Hamilton, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva 
University.
    The hearing considered the question of whether the Congress 
has abdicated its proper responsibilities by permitting federal 
agencies to promulgate rules and amendments thereto without 
having these approved by the Congress in advance of their 
taking effect. Proponents of the three bills argued that 
Congressional oversight would best be exercised by requiring 
its approval, while those opposed to such a process argued that 
this would overly tax the powers of the Congress. The 
Subcommittee took no action on the bills.

H.R. 3307, The Regulatory Fair Warning Act

    Regulatory reform was a priority for the 104th Congress. 
One such bill, the ``Regulatory Fair Warning Act'' (H.R. 3307) 
was introduced to provide some relief to the business community 
regarding the imposition of penalties by agencies.
    Specifically, H.R. 3307 would have amended the 
Administrative Procedure Act and title 28 of the U.S. Code to 
provide a statutory basis for affirmative defenses against 
penalties imposed by agencies or courts for the violation of 
rules where: (1) a rule or other policy document published in 
the Federal Register (or of which a person had actual notice) 
failed to give a regulated party fair warning of the conduct 
prohibited or required; or (2) a person reasonably relied upon 
a written statement by a Federal or State official that his or 
her conduct was in compliance with the rule. The legislation 
would have codified the decisions of several recent U.S. 
circuit courts of appeals that have addressed the principles 
involved in the adequate notice or fair warning defense. H.R. 
3307 was intended to protect regulated individuals or entities 
that are subject to agency penalties, who in good faith could 
prove the defenses provided for in the bill.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 3307 on May 2, 
1996. Testimony at this hearing was received from: James F. 
Simon, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice, 
accompanied by Edward L. Dowd, Jr., United States Attorney, 
Eastern District of Missouri; Roger J. Marzulla, former 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division of the Department of Justice; David Hawkins, Senior 
Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; Laurent R. 
Hourcle, Assistant Professor of Environmental Law, The National 
Law Center, The George Washington University; Susan Eckerly, 
Director of Regulatory Policy, Citizens for a Sound Economy; 
Robert J. Brace, Robert Brace Farm, Inc.; Vitas M. Plioplys, 
Manager of Safety Services, R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Co.; and 
Robert McMackin, with additional material submitted by Andrew 
S. Liscow, Vice President, Cincinnati Preserving Co.
    The Subcommittee, on June 20, 1996, reported the amended 
bill favorably by voice vote. H.R. 3307 was ordered favorably 
reported by the full Committee, amended, on August 1, 1996, by 
a vote of 16 to 9. H.Rept. 104-859. The House took no further 
action on the measure.

                             State Taxation

H.R. 394, To amend title 4 of the United States Code to limit State 
        taxation of certain pension income

    Under the Constitution, States have the power to tax both 
on the basis of residence and on the basis of income source. In 
the area of pension income taxation, States have typically 
followed the Federal model of deferring payment of income taxes 
on pension contributions and related investment earnings in 
return for being able to tax pension payments when they are 
distributed to the taxpayer after retirement. Complications 
arise, however, when the taxpayer has relocated to another 
State. In some cases, the State that granted the original tax 
deferral will seek to collect taxes on pension payments made to 
the relocated retiree. This practice has caused great concern 
among retirees, particularly those who have moved to a State 
that does not assess a State income tax, providing nothing 
against which to apply a credit for payments to the taxing 
State.
    Responding to the retiree concerns, Chairman Gekas 
scheduled a hearing on June 28, 1995, on three bills that would 
limit State taxation of pension income paid to individuals who 
are no longer residents of the taxing State (Serial No. 11). 
The bills were H.R. 371, introduced by Representative Stump, 
H.R. 744, introduced by Representative Pickett, and H.R. 394, 
introduced by Representative Vucanovich. Testifying at the 
hearing were the three bills' sponsors, as well as: Senator 
Harry Reid of Nevada; Professor James C. Smith of the 
University of Georgia School of Law; William Hoffman of the 
Retirees to Eliminate State Income Source Tax; W. Christopher 
Farrell, Legislative Representative for the National 
Association of Retired Federal Employees, Harley Duncan, 
Executive Director of the Federation of Tax Administrators; and 
Randall L. Johnson, Director of Benefits Planning for Motorola, 
Inc., on behalf of several employer groups.
    The Subcommittee met to mark up H.R. 394 on October 19, 
1995, and the bill was favorably reported by voice vote to the 
full Committee in the form of a single amendment in the nature 
of a substitute incorporating an amendment adopted during 
markup. At the Judiciary Committee markup on October 31, 1995, 
the bill was reported favorably to the House, as amended--with 
an additional full Committee amendment--by voice vote. (H. 
Rept. 104-389) The bill in the form of a manager's substitute 
amendment passed the House, under suspension of the rules, on 
December 18, 1995. On December 22, 1995, H.R. 394 passed the 
Senate without amendment and on January 10, 1996, it was 
approved by the President as Public Law 104-95.

H.R. 3163, Taxation of Federal Employees Working on the Columbia River

    On September 28, 1996, the House considered H.R. 3163 (Rep. 
Hastings of Washington) under suspension of the rules. The 
bill, which had been introduced on March 26, 1996, and referred 
to the Subcommittee, was defeated by a vote of 199-209. The 
bill provided that Oregon could not tax compensation paid to a 
resident of Washington for services as a Federal employee at a 
Federal hydroelectric facility located on the Columbia River. 
Sponsors of the legislation asserted that Oregon unfairly taxes 
Washington residents working at Federal facilities which span 
the Columbia River where the state boundary sometimes divides 
work-environments so that employees have to keep detailed 
records of how much of their duties are performed in spaces 
which are respectively only feet apart. Opponents of the 
legislation argued that Oregon should be entitled to tax 
individuals earning money within its borders. The Subcommittee 
did not conduct hearings on the bill which was taken directly 
to the floor as the 104th Congress was drawing to a close.

                          Interstate Compacts

    The Subcommittee considered a number of interstate 
compacts, which under the Constitution the Congress must 
approve.

H.R. 2064, The Historic Chattahoochee compact

    On October 19, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on and 
reported favorably by voice vote H.R. 2064 (Rep. Everett), 
granting the consent of the Congress to several technical 
amendments to the Historic Chattahoochee Compact between the 
states of Georgia and Alabama. The Judiciary Committee ordered 
the measure favorably reported by voice vote on October 31, 
1995, and the committee report was filed on November 30, 1995 
(H. Rept. 104-376). The bill passed the House on March 12, 
1996, under suspension of the rules, and was sent to the 
Senate. The Senate passed H.R. 2064 on May 3, 1996, and it was 
signed by the President on May 16, 1996, to become Public Law 
104-144.

H.J. Res. 78, The Bi-State development compact

    On October 19, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on and 
reported (with a technical amendment) by voice vote H.J. Res. 
78 (Rep. Talent), granting the consent of the Congress to 
several amendments to the Bi-State Development Agency compact 
between the states of Missouri and Illinois. The compact, 
entered into by the two states in 1950, formed the Bi-State 
Development Agency which was designed to promote planning, 
development and transportation in the area surrounding St. 
Louis on both sides of the Mississippi River. In 1993, the 
Agency began operating a light rail system passing through 
several municipalities and counties, and crossing states 
boundaries. However, the original compact did not grant the 
Agency the specific authority to appoint or employ a security 
force or to enact rules and regulations governing fare evasion 
or other conduct on its facilities and conveyances. 
Consequently, the Agency had difficulty insuring that fare 
evasion and other prohibited conduct was uniformly punished. In 
addition, issues had arisen regarding the jurisdiction of local 
law enforcement to arrest persons for conduct occurring on the 
system. The Agency sought from its respective legislatures 
power to employ personnel to maintain safety and order to 
enforce Agency rules and regulations. In addition, the Agency 
sought the authority to adopt rules and regulations for proper 
operation of the passenger transportation facilities and for 
users of the system. Missouri and Illinois approved the 
granting of these powers.
    The Judiciary Committee ordered H.J. Res. 78 favorably 
reported, as amended, by voice vote on October 31, 1995, and 
the report was filed on November 30, 1995 (H. Rept. 104-377). 
The resolution, as amended, was passed by the House on March 
12, 1996, by a vote of 405-0 and by the Senate on March 15, 
1996. The President signed it into law as Public Law 104-125 on 
April 1, 1996.

H.J. Res. 113, The Jennings Randolph Project

    On June 27, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on and 
reported H.J. Res. 113 (Rep. Mollohan) granting the consent of 
the Congress to an interstate compact adopted by Maryland and 
West Virginia providing for joint natural resources management 
and enforcement of laws relating to boating and natural 
resources at the Jennings Randolph Lake Project situated in 
Garrett County, Maryland and Mineral County, West Virginia. An 
identical resolution had passed the Senate on September 20, 
1995, as S.J. Res. 20.
    The Jennings Randolph Lake Project, authorized by federal 
law, was completed in 1982. The lake is approximately 6.6 miles 
long and contains a surface area of 952 acres. It is located 
astride the border between Maryland and West Virginia along the 
North Branch of the Potomac River 230 miles upstream from the 
Washington, D.C. area. While creation of the lake has had many 
positive results relating to mine drainage, waste treatment and 
recreation, it has obliterated the border between the two 
states in that area. H.J. Res. 113 remedied this situation by 
approving a compact between the two states under which they 
recognized--together with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--
their joint responsibility for the management and enforcement 
of laws and regulations relating to natural resources and 
boating at the Project. In recognition of that joint 
responsibility, the compact provided for the concurrent 
jurisdiction of the signatories over the lands and waters in 
the Project concerning natural resources and boating laws and 
regulations, notwithstanding the pre-existing border.
    The Judiciary Committee ordered H.J. Res. 113 favorably 
reported on July 16, 1996, by a recorded vote of 25-0. The 
Committee filed its report on July 24, 1996 (H.Rept. 104-706), 
and the House approved H.J. Res. 113 on July 29, 1996, under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote. The House thereupon 
substituted S.J. Res. 20 in lieu of the House passed 
resolution, and it was signed by the President on August 6, 
1996, to become Public Law 104-176.

H.J. Res. 129, The Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate Public Water Supply 
        Compact

    On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing and 
reported favorably on H.J. Res. 129 (Rep. Sanders), granting 
congressional consent to an interstate compact between New 
Hampshire and Vermont enabling municipalities in one of the 
States to enter into agreements with neighboring cross-border 
municipalities in the other to erect and maintain joint public 
water supply facilities. The compact was developed in response 
to the situation which confronted Guildhall, Vermont and 
Northumberland (commonly referred to as Groveton), New 
Hampshire. Some residents of Guildhall have been receiving 
water from a spring located in Northumberland for generations. 
Although Guildhall owns the spring, the water is sent through 
transmission lines owned by New Hampshire. The Surface Water 
Treatment Rule issued pursuant to the Safe Water Act of 1986 
(Public Law 99-330) required that water from the spring 
(because it is surface water) be refiltered or that the water 
system be converted to a groundwater system. Guildhall 
determined that a groundwater system on its side of the border 
was too expensive and it joined with Northumberland's plans for 
an upgraded groundwater system. Guildhall reportedly owed 
Northumberland $75,200 for its proportionate share of 
developing the groundwater system and it planned to upgrade the 
water transmission lines on the Vermont side of the border so 
that village would have enough water for fire protection and 
necessary infrastructure. However, Guildhall could not afford 
to make payment to Northumberland or upgrade its transmission 
lines without Federal assistance, and in order to be eligible 
for the Federal assistance it sought, there had to be in effect 
an interstate water compact. Witnesses before the Subcommittee 
included: Representatives Charles F. Bass of New Hampshire and 
Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
    On March 12, 1996, the full Judiciary Committee ordered 
H.J. Res. 129 favorably reported by voice vote. On March 18, 
1996, the Committee filed H.Rept. 104-485 on the resolution--
and on March 19, 1996, the House passed it under suspension by 
voice vote, thereupon substituting for it previously passed 
Senate legislation (S.J. Res. 38) so that it could be presented 
directly to the President for signature. The President signed 
the legislation as Public Law 104-126 on April 1, 1996.

H.J. Res. 166, The Cities of Bristol Compact

    On June 27, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing and 
reported favorably on H.J. Res. 166 (Rep. Boucher) to grant 
Congressional consent to an interstate compact between the 
cities of Bristol, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee providing 
for a mutual aid agreement to pool their respective law 
enforcement resources under specified circumstances. The state 
boundary runs through a populous area of the two Bristols and 
the governments of the respective cities had concluded that it 
was to their mutual advantage to provide for shared response in 
certain law enforcement and public safety situations. The 
agreement was submitted in legislation for approval by the 
Congress pursuant to statutes in both states which permit such 
agreements between its local entities to be considered 
interstate compacts subject to Congressional approval. 
Witnesses at the hearing included: Representatives Rick Boucher 
of Virginia and James H. Quillen of Tennessee.
    The full Judiciary Committee ordered H.J. Res. 166 
favorably reported on July 16, 1996 (H. Rept. 104-705). The 
House passed the resolution under suspension of the rules by 
voice vote on July 29, 1996, and the Senate concurred on July 
31, 1996. The President signed H.J. Res. 166 on August 6, 1996, 
as Public Law 104-81.

H.J. Res. 189, Granting the consent of Congress to the Interstate 
        Insurance Receivership Compact

    The Subcommittee held a hearing on September 18, 1996, on 
H.J. Res. 189 (Rep. Moorhead), which would grant the consent of 
Congress to the Interstate Insurance Receivership Compact. The 
witnesses were: Robert G. Lange, Director of the Nebraska State 
Department of Insurance and Chairman of the Interstate 
Insurance Receivership Compact Commission, and Leo W. Fraser, 
Jr., a New Hampshire State Senator and immediate Past President 
of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators.
    The purpose of the compact is to facilitate orderly, 
efficient, cost-effective and uniform insurance receivership 
laws and operations. It establishes an Interstate Insurance 
Receivership Commission with the power to promulgate rules 
binding upon the compacting States, to oversee, supervise and 
coordinate the activities of receivers, and to act itself as a 
receiver. Receivership law currently differs in many ways among 
the various States, including distribution priorities and the 
right to object to a claim. Testimony at the hearing indicated 
that the compact will overcome costly gaps and uneven treatment 
of policyholders and other claimants of the insolvent multi-
state insurer and reduce disputes and litigation between 
parties in different States. It will also facilitate the prompt 
and full payment of legitimate insurance claims owed to policy 
holders by the insolvent company.
    To date, five states have adopted the compact, but Congress 
has yet to consent to the proposed compact. The Subcommittee 
took no further action with regard to H.J. Res. 189 prior to 
the end of the 104th Congress.

H.J. Res. 193, Emergency Management Mutual Assistance Compact

    On September 17, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing and 
reported favorably on H.J. Res. 193 (Rep. Inglis) to grant 
Congressional consent to a mutual assistance compact--which has 
already been agreed to by thirteen states--designed to help 
manage duly declared disasters, including use of the National 
Guard. The compact also provides for mutual cooperation in 
training exercises preparatory to responding to such disasters.
    The compact is based upon the recognition that many 
disasters that befall states are regional in nature, such as 
hurricanes, and they often overtax an individual state's 
ability to respond. The ability to collectively manage such 
situations promotes effective response and fosters the public 
good. The compact clarifies who would be liable in the event of 
an accident involving out-of-state personnel involved in 
disaster assistance and established common procedures for the 
dispatching of assistance and the subsequent reimbursement for 
it. The compact requires member states to devise strategies for 
the speedy dispatching of assistance in the event of disasters 
in order to promote cooperation and collective planning. It 
originated as a regional initiative promoted by the Southern 
Governors' Association in 1992 but since has been endorsed by 
other regional Governors' Associations and was entered into by 
its first non-southern state (South Dakota) in 1996.
    Witnesses at the hearing included: John P. Carey, General 
Counsel of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Eric 
L. Tolbert, Chief, State of Florida, Department of Community 
Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, Bureau of 
Preparedness and Response; Tom Feuerborn, Director, Oklahoma 
Department of Civil Emergency Management; and David McMillion, 
Director, State of Maryland, Emergency Management Agency.
    On September 24, 1996, the Judiciary Committee was 
discharged from further consideration of H.J. Res. 193 and the 
House passed it under suspension of the rules by voice vote. It 
passed the Senate on October 3, 1996, and was signed by the 
President on October 19, 1996, to become Public Law 104-321.

H.J. Res. 194, The Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Regulation 
        Compact

    On September 18, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
and reported H.J. Res 194 (Rep. Davis), granting consent of 
Congress to certain amendments to the Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Regulation Compact. H.J. Res 194 contained several 
amendments intended to improve a compact among the Washington, 
D.C. Metropolitan area jurisdictions aimed at fostering 
regional mass transportation. Principally included were 
amendments that: added Loudon County, Virginia to the formal 
Transit Zone; recognized the granting of home rule to the 
District of Columbia, subsequent to the creation of the 
compact; clarified that the Council of the District of Columbia 
has the sole power to appoint its members to the WMATA Board of 
Directors; and rewrote the provisions of the Compact regarding 
procurement in order to simplify the choice of competitive 
bidding procedures by authorizing either sealed bids or 
competitive proposals. Witnesses at the hearing were: 
Representative Thomas M. Davis; and Robert Polk, General 
Counsel, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
    On September 24, 1996, the Judiciary Committee was 
discharged from further consideration of H.J. Res. 194 and the 
House passed the resolution by voice vote under suspension of 
the rules with a technical amendment. The Senate passed H.J. 
Res. 194 on October 3, 1996, and the President signed it on 
October 19, 1996, to become Public Law 104-322.

                          Oversight Activities

              administrative law, practice and procedures

Administrative Conference of the United States

    The mission of ACUS has been to oversee administrative 
procedures governing regulatory, benefit, licensing and other 
government programs and to recommend improvements and reforms. 
It has advised the President and Federal departments and 
agencies on ways to enhance the fairness and efficiency of 
administrative procedures; counseled the Judicial Conference of 
the United States on the relationship between agency action and 
subsequent judicial review; and provided nonpartisan advice to 
the Congress on agency administrative procedure. It has acted 
as a clearinghouse through which experts in administrative law 
have combined their expertise, disseminated information, 
conducted research, and issued reports on various aspects of 
the administrative process.
    On May 11, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held an oversight hearing on the 
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) (Serial 
No. 6). The hearing witnesses were: Thomasina V. Rogers, the 
Chairman of ACUS; C. Boyden Gray, member of the ACUS Council 
and former White House Counsel to President Bush; Richard E. 
Wiley, ACUS Senior Fellow and former Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission; and two Public Members of ACUS, Dean 
Peter M. Shane of the University of Pittsburgh Law School and 
David C. Vladeck, Director of the Public Citizen Litigation 
Group. Without exception they praised the performance of ACUS 
and supported its reauthorization.
    See: Legislation--Administrative Law, Practice and 
Procedure--H.R. 2291, To Extend the Administrative Conference 
of the United States.

Performance of the Social Security Administration's Office of Hearings 
        and Appeals in Mobile, Alabama

    In an exercise of its jurisdiction over the Administrative 
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on June 5, 1996, regarding the performance of the 
Social Security Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals 
in Mobile, Alabama (Serial No. 71). This hearing was requested 
by Representative Sonny Callahan, whose district includes 
Mobile. Representative Callahan asserted that there was an 
unwarranted backlog of disability claims in the Mobile SSA 
office because of inefficient and improper case management by 
the administrative law judges. Statistics presented to the 
Subcommittee demonstrated that in recent years the Mobile 
hearings office has ranked well below the regional average for 
disability case dispositions. Testimony at the Subcommittee 
hearing indicated that there has been recent improvement and 
reform in the operations of that office.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from: Representative 
Callahan and John H. Burge, a disabled constituent with case 
experience with the Mobile SSA office; Chief SSA Administrative 
Law Judge Charles R. Boyer; Atlanta Regional Chief SSA 
Administrative Law Judge Henry G. Watkins; SSA Administrative 
Law Judges Frank M. De Bellis and Robert S. Habermann, both 
previous Chief ALJs in the Mobile office; and SSA 
Administrative Law Judge Melford Cleveland of Montgomery, 
Alabama, President of the Association of Administrative Law 
Judges.

                     the legal services corporation

    On June 26, 1996, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The LSC is a 
private, not for profit, entity created through enactment of 
the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-355) and 
designed to provide legal assistance to the poor in non-
criminal proceedings. When the 104th Congress convened, it was 
intent on cutting the deficit, and in May of 1995 passed a 
budget resolution which, among other things, endorsed a phased 
elimination of funding for the LSC. Consequently, the budget 
agreement for FY 1996, which was signed into law by President 
Clinton in April of 1996, included a spending level of $278 
million for LSC; a cut of $122 million for the program. 
Additionally, the appropriations legislation which funded the 
Corporation, imposed several restrictions on the types of cases 
LSC grantees could pursue. The purpose of the oversight hearing 
was to determine the effects of the budget cuts and the new 
restrictions on grantee activities.
    Witnesses who testified at the hearing included: Professor 
Charles E. Rounds, Jr., Suffolk University Law School; Ken 
Boehm, Chairman, National Legal and Policy Center; Jack Londen; 
Allyson Tucker, Executive Director, Individual Rights 
Foundation; Chris Searer; Robert E. Adams, Former Executive 
Director, Legal Services of the Fourth Judicial District; John 
D. Robb; and Sallie Colaco. At this hearing, the Subcommittee 
learned that several LSC grantees were dividing their employees 
into two separate entities in order to avoid the necessity of 
complying with the new congressional restrictions and yet 
continue to receive federal funding as a grantee of the 
Corporation.

                         negotiated rulemaking

    On June 27, 1996, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on reauthorization of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 
U.S.C. 581-590) (Serial No. 77). The Act, which was signed by 
President George W. Bush on November 29, 1990 as Public Law 
101-648, was scheduled to expire on November 30, 1996. 
Otherwise known as ``Reg-Neg'', the Act was designed to 
encourage agencies to cooperate with the private sector to 
improve rulemaking by coming together in an effort to draft a 
proposed rule that takes into account the needs of the various 
interests, as well as the requirements of the underlying 
statute. The Act provides for the creation of a regulatory 
negotiation committee to draft a proposed rule. Even if the 
committee is unsuccessful in reaching a consensus, the agency 
learns about the views and problems of the parties which 
hopefully gives it a better understanding of the effect a rule 
will have on the public. If consensus is achieved, the proposed 
rule is published by the agency and is still subject to the 
notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure 
Act. However, the rule that is promulgated hopefully will have 
been based on a more thorough consideration of problems that 
might otherwise have occasioned negative reaction during the 
notice and comment period.
    The testimony received by the Subcommittee was uniformly 
positive, as every witness supported reauthorization of the Act 
based upon positive experience with it. They indicated that 
rules that had been developed through the reg-neg process often 
proved superior to those drafted by an agency itself. 
Representatives from agencies indicated that use of reg-neg has 
often meant that a rule will less likely be subject to legal 
challenges and sometimes areas so contentious as to defy 
successful rulemaking became areas of consensus when interested 
parties were allowed to contribute to the outcome. The 
witnesses were: Philip Harter, Chair, Section of Administrative 
Law and Regulatory Practice, American Bar Association; Eric 
Waterman, National Erectors Association; Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety & Health 
Administration; Wilma Liebman, Deputy Director, Federal 
Mediation & Conciliation Service; and Neil B. Eisner, Assistant 
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of 
Transportation.
    The Senate had included reauthorization of the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act as a part of S. 1224 and this was included in 
the legislation passed by the House as H.R. 4194.

                           Regulatory Reform

    See: Legislation--Regulatory Reform--H.R. 9, the ``Job 
Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995,'' and H.R. 926, the 
``Regulatory Reform and Relief Act.''
    Hearings: Two days of oversight hearings were held during 
the 104th Congress: February 3 and 6, 1995, entitled ``Job 
Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995'' (Serial No. 3).

                    Local Taxation of Wireless Cable

    On July 25, 1996, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the issue of whether the Congress should adopt 
legislation that would exempt from local taxation wireless 
service providers who transmit satellite-delivered video 
programming (Serial No. 76). The hearing came in response to 
questions that were raised during House consideration of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 602 of that law, 
enacted during the 104th Congress, provided an exemption from 
taxation by ``any local taxing jurisdiction'' for providers of 
``direct-to-home'' satellite service. The statement of managers 
accompanying the Conference Report to the Act based the 
exemption on the fact that direct-to-home (DTH) satellite 
service is ``programming delivered via satellite directly to 
subscribers equipped with satellite receivers at their premises 
. . . and does not require the use of public rights-of-way or 
the physical facilities or services of a community.'' There was 
thus an insufficient basis supporting local taxation of a 
service being supplied in interstate commerce.
    During consideration of the Telecommunications Act, the 
question arose as to whether the DTH exemption should include 
wireless cable providers. Wireless cable transmits programming 
received at a central facility directly across the air-waves to 
subscribers without the use of wires. During the Subcommittee's 
hearing, representatives of the wireless cable industry argued 
that there is no qualitative difference between their service 
and DTH satellite service, neither of which, they asserted, 
uses public rights-of-way. They reiterated the arguments made 
by DTH representatives against exposure to local taxation, and 
went on to emphasize that since DTH was exempted by the 
Telecommunications Act from local taxation so also should 
wireless cable be exempted. To do otherwise, they indicated, 
would place them at a competitive disadvantage. A witness 
representing local taxing authorities argued against extending 
an exemption to wireless cable on the ground that it would 
place undue burdens on those who must provide local municipal 
services by depriving them of a legitimate source of revenue.
    Witnesses at the hearing included: Frank Shafroth, Director 
of Policy & Federal Relations, National League of Cities; Shant 
S. Hovnanian, Chief Executive Officer, Cellular Vision, U.S.A.; 
Dr. Michael R. Kelley, Capitol Connection, George Mason 
University; Theodore Steinke, Chairman, National Instructional 
Television, Fixed Service Association, The University of 
Wisconsin-Milwaukee; and Richard A. Alston, President, Wireless 
Cable Association.
    The Subcommittee took no further action on the issue.

                             U.S. Trustees

    On July 26, 1996, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the United States Trustee (UST) program. United 
States Trustees, appointed by the Attorney General, supervise 
private bankruptcy trustees and the administration of cases 
filed under Chapters 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.
    The UST program was established initially on a pilot basis 
(in 18 of the 94 federal judicial districts) pursuant to the 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-598, as part of a 
major restructuring of the bankruptcy system. Prior to that 
time, judicial, supervisory, and administrative functions in 
bankruptcy cases were all performed by the presiding judge. In 
pilot districts, the new separation of functions was 
implemented by shifting supervisory and administrative 
responsibilities to the Department of Justice. This enabled the 
bankruptcy courts to concentrate on their judicial tasks and 
responded to significant concerns regarding the integrity of 
the bankruptcy system.
    The Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family 
Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986, Public Law 99-554, authorized a 
nationwide U.S. Trustee program (with provision for delayed 
implementation in two states). This replaced the pilot program 
that had been operating in selected districts.
    The oversight and monitoring of private bankruptcy trustees 
by the UST is one of several areas within the Department of 
Justice designated as ``high risk.'' The private trustee system 
is particularly vulnerable to fraud because of the large number 
of trustees, collectively administering tens of billions of 
dollars in estate funds, and the limited resources available to 
conduct and thoroughly follow up on trustee audits and reports. 
Fraudulent activities of trustees may include the embezzlement 
of estate funds, the theft and/or sale of estate assets by 
trustees to insiders, and illegal fee arrangements.
    It is now generally acknowledged that the UST program has 
enhanced the integrity of the bankruptcy system and improved 
case administration by imposing more stringent standards of 
accountability on private trustees. Steps taken have included 
more rigorous selection of trustees, standardized reporting 
requirements, training United States Trustees in their 
supervisory role, more comprehensive audits, and the 
overarching demand that private trustees rigorously adhere to 
fiduciary standards.
    Testimony was received at the oversight hearing from: 
Joseph Patchan, Director of the Executive Office for U.S. 
Trustees; two regional U.S. Trustees, M. Scott Michel of 
Chicago and Clarkson McDow of Columbia, S.C.; Henry E. 
Hildebrand III, Legislative Chairman of the National 
Association of Chapter 13 Trustees; Lawrence P. Morin, 
President of the Association of Bankruptcy Professionals; 
Jeffrey Freedman, Vice President of the National Association of 
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, David Ray, member of the board 
of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees; Bankruptcy 
Judge William Bodoh, representing the American Bankruptcy 
Institute; Jean FitzSimon, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Bankruptcy Administration and U.S. Trustees of the American Bar 
Association; Professor Frank Kennedy of the University of 
Michigan Law School, representing the National Bankruptcy 
Conference; and Harry W. Greenfield, representing the 
Commercial Law League of America.
    Testimony at the Subcommittee hearing focused on 
allegations of U.S. Trustee micromanagement, judicial review of 
trustee expenses and removals, and the proposed rules 
promulgated by the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees relating 
to qualifications and standards of conduct for standing 
trustees.
                    Subcommittee on the Constitution

   CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, 
             Chairman

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York 1     MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr. 
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado         Wisconsin
MAXINE WATERS, California 2     MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio
                                     LAMAR SMITH, Texas
                                     BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia

----------
1 Jose E. Serrano, New York, resigned from the Committee effective 
March 14, 1996.
2 Maxine Waters, California, elected to the Committee pursuant to 
House Resolution 414 (approved by the House on April 25, 1996). Ms. 
Waters was assigned to the Constitution Subcommittee effective June 11, 
1996.

    Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the Subcommittee

Legislation referred to Subcommittee..............................   162
Legislation reported favorably to full Committee..................    12
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......................     2
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     2
Legislation reported to the House.................................    10
Legislation discharged from the full Committee....................     2
Legislation pending in the House..................................     2
Legislation passed the House......................................     9
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     1
Legislation failed passage by the House...........................     1
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden)..............     1
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     6
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    10
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    34

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee has legislative and oversight 
responsibility for the Civil Rights Division, Environment and 
Natural Resources 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

Private Property Rights

    On February 10, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
``Protecting Private Property from Regulatory Takings.'' 
Witnesses testifying were the Honorable John Schmidt, Associate 
Attorney General, Department of Justice; James Ely, Jr., 
Professor of Law and History, Vanderbilt University School of 
Law; J. Peter Byrne, Professor of Law, Georgetown University 
Law Center; Nancy Cline, a concerned property owner; Rev. Joan 
Campbell, General Secretary, National Council of Churches in 
the U.S.A.; Roger Pilon, Ph.D., J.D., Senior Fellow and 
Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; 
Roger J. Marzulla, Chairman, Board of Directors, Defenders of 
Property Rights; Honorable Alletta Belin, Assistant Attorney 
General, State of New Mexico; Honorable Richard L. Russman, New 
Hampshire State Senate, on behalf of the National Conference of 
State Legislatures; Jonathan Adler, Associate Director of 
Environmental Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute.
    On February 16, 1995, the full Committee ordered favorably 
reported H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act, a bill 
to require the federal government to compensate owners of 
private property for the effect of certain regulatory 
restrictions on the property, with amendments by a voice vote. 
H. Rept. 104-46. H.R. 925 passed the House with additional 
floor amendments on March 3, 1995 by a vote of 277-148.

Fair Housing

    H.R. 660, the ``Housing for Older Persons Act'' amended the 
Fair Housing Act to exempt certain seniors only housing from 
prohibitions on discrimination based on familial status. The 
provisions in H.R. 660 were part of the Republican ``Contract 
with America.'' The Subcommittee ordered H.R. 660 reported on 
March 15, 1995 by a voice vote. The measure was ordered 
favorably reported with an amendment by a vote of 26 to 6 on 
March 22, 1995. H. Rept. 104-91. The House passed H.R. 660 on 
April 6, 1995 by a vote of 424-5. The Senate passed H.R. 660 on 
December 6, 1995 by a vote of 94-3 and the bill was signed into 
law by the President on December 28, 1995. Public Law 104-76.
    On September 5, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2927, and H.R. 4019 and related issues to examine concerns 
over recent federal agency actions and court decisions 
involving the interpretation of the Fair Housing Act Amendments 
of 1988. H.R. 2927, a bill to amend the Fair Housing Act 
regarding local and State laws and regulations governing 
residential care facilities, was introduced by Rep. Brian 
Bilbray (R-CA). H.R. 4019, the Fair Housing Reform and Freedom 
of Speech Act of 1996, a bill to amend the Fair Housing Act, 
and for other purposes, was also introduced by Rep. Brian 
Bilbray. Some of these actions and decisions had been 
criticized as failing to carefully balance the need to protect 
against discrimination in housing with the ability of local 
jurisdictions to enact reasonable zoning restrictions and the 
rights of individuals in communities to have a voice in the 
process by which site decisions are made. The hearing was 
conducted pursuant to the Subcommittee plan set forth at the 
beginning of the 104th Congress.

Racial and Gender Preferences--The Equal Opportunity Act

    During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution held a total of four hearings (not including the 
Adarand oversight hearings) on the topic of racial and gender 
preference programs. On April 3, 1995, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing in Washington, D.C. on ``Group Preferences and the 
Law.'' The witnesses at that hearing were Hugh Davis Graham, 
Professor of History, Vanderbilt University; Mary Frances 
Berry, Chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Professor, 
University of Pennsylvania; Linda Chavez, President and John M. 
Olin Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity, Washington, D.C.; 
William Taylor, attorney and Vice-Chairman, Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights; Glynn Custred, Professor of 
Anthropology, California State University-Hayward and coauthor 
of the California Civil Rights Initiative; Anne Bryant, 
President, American Association of University Women; Laura 
Ingraham, an attorney and member of the Independent Women's 
Forum; Nancy Archuleta, Chairman and CEO, Mevatec Corp; and 
Joseph Broadus, Professor, George Mason University School of 
Law.
    The Subcommittee held a field hearing in San Diego, 
California on June 1, 1995, on ``Group Preferences and the 
Law.'' The witnesses at that hearing were Representatives Brian 
Bilbray (R-CA) and Edward Royce (R-CA); Larry Alexander, 
Professor, University of San Diego Law School; Sister Sally 
Furay, Vice-President and Provost, University of San Diego; Lee 
Cheng, law student, University of California at Berkeley; 
Harold Brown, Associate Dean, College of Business 
Administration, San Diego State University; Arthur L. Bierer, 
student, University of California at San Diego; Joe Martinez, 
President, Martinez, Cutri & McArdle; and Ezola Foster, 
President, Americans for Family Values.
    On October 25, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing in 
Washington, D.C. on ``The Economic and Social Impact of Race 
and Gender Preference Programs.'' Witnesses at this hearing 
were James Kuklinski, Professor, Department of Political 
Science and Institute of Government and Public Affairs, 
University of Illinois; William Coleman, O'Melveny & Meyers; 
Will Marshall, Founder and President, Progressive Policy 
Institute; John Lunn, Professor of Economics, Hope College; 
Jonathan Leonard, Professor of Economics, University of 
California at Berkeley; and Dr. Farrell Block, labor economist 
and consultant.
    The ``Equal Opportunity Act of 1995'' was introduced in 
both the House of Representatives (H.R. 2128) and the Senate 
(S. 1085) on July 27, 1995. Subcommittee Chairman Charles T. 
Canady was the lead sponsor of this legislation in the House. 
To summarize, H.R. 2128 would prohibit the federal government 
from discriminating against or granting any preferences to any 
person or group based in whole or in part on race, color, 
ethnicity, or sex in federal employment or contracting or the 
administration of any federal program.
    The ``Equal Opportunity Act of 1995'' was the subject of a 
Subcommittee hearing on December 7, 1995. The witnesses at this 
hearing were Representatives Susan Molinari (R-NY) and Sheila 
Jackson Lee (D-TX); Carl Cohen, Professor of Philosophy, 
University of Michigan; John Payton, Wilmer, Cutler & 
Pickering; Clint Bolick, Vice-President and Director of 
Litigation, Institute for Justice; Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-
President, National Women's Law Center; Glenn C. Loury, 
Professor of Economics, Boston University; Honorable Deval L. 
Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 
Department of Justice; Kingsley R. Browne, Associate Professor, 
Wayne State University Law School; Frank H. Wu, Assistant 
Professor, Howard University School of Law; Andrew Kull, 
Professor, Emory University School of Law; Jorge Amselle, 
Communications Director, Center for Equal Opportunity; Barbara 
Herman, Board Member, National Council of Jewish Women; Luis 
Pelayo, Executive Director, Hispanic Council; Arthur Baer, 
Associate Counsel, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education 
Fund.
    On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered H.R. 2128 favorably reported, without amendment, by a 
vote of 8-5. No further legislative activity occurred regarding 
H.R. 2128 during the 104th Congress.

Reform of Laws Governing Lobbying

    On May 23, 1995, the Subcommittee held the first of three 
hearings on the issue of reform of the laws governing lobbying. 
The witnesses were Representative John Bryant (D-TX); 
Representative Robert Dornan (R-CA); Representative Paul McHale 
(D-PA); Representative Martin T. Meehan (D-MA); Representative 
Christopher Shays (R-FL); Representative James Traficant, Jr. 
(D-OH); Representative Fred Upton (R-MI); Representative Frank 
Wolf (R-VA); Representative Dick Zimmer (R-NJ); James Christy, 
Vice-President of Government Relations, TRW, Inc., on behalf of 
the National Association of Manufacturers; David Keene, 
Chairman, American Conservative Union; Edythe Ledbetter, Vice-
President for Administration, Center for Marine Conservation; 
Robert Schiff, staff attorney, Public Citizen's Congress Watch; 
Thomas Susman, Chair, Professional Ethics and Standards 
Committee, American League of Lobbyists.
    On September 7, 1995, the Subcommittee held its second day 
of hearings on lobbying reform. The witnesses were 
Representative Christopher Shays (R-FL); Representative Paul 
McHale (D-PA); Representative Michael Castle (R-DE); 
Representative Scott Klug (R-WI); Representative John Bryant 
(D-TX); Senator Carl Levin (D-MI); Timothy Jenkins, Partner, 
O'Connor & Hannan, L.L.P.; Deborah Lewis, Legislative Counsel, 
the Alliance for Justice; Jeffrey H. Joseph, Vice President of 
Domestic Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Susan Bitter Smith, 
Chair-elect, American Society of Association Executives; Ann 
McBride, President, Common Cause; and David Mason, Vice 
President of Government Relations, The Heritage Foundation.
    On November 2, 1995, the Subcommittee favorably reported to 
the full Committee the bill H.R. 2564, a bill identical to S. 
1060, the Senate-passed Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by a 
voice vote. On November 8, 1995, the full Committee favorably 
reported the bill without amendment to the full House by a vote 
of 30-0. H. Rept. 104-339, part 1. The bill passed the House on 
November 29, 1995 by a vote of 421-0. The text of H.R. 2564 was 
passed as S. 1060 and was signed by the President on December 
19, 1995, as Public Law 104-65.
    On March 22, 1996, the Subcommittee held its third day of 
hearings on the issue of reform of the laws governing lobbying 
in conjunction with issues related to the status of the 
honoraria ban. The witnesses were Representative Michael 
Patrick Flanagan (R-IL); Representative Phil English (R-PA); 
Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR); Representative Jon D. Fox 
(R-PA); Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Representative 
James A. Traficant, Jr. (D-OH); Representative Fred Upton (R-
MI); Representative Dick Zimmer (R-NJ); Brent Thompson, 
Executive Director, Fair Government Foundation; Donald J. 
Simon, Counsel, Common Cause; Robert M. Tobias, National 
President, National Treasury Employees Union.
    On June 21, 1995, the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 
782, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a voice 
vote. The bill, the Federal Employee Representation Improvement 
Act of 1995, protects the rights of Federal employees as 
representatives of their employee organizations to communicate 
with Federal departments and agencies in appropriate 
circumstances. The bill had been the subject of a Subcommittee 
hearing on May 23, 1995. On July 12, 1995, the full Committee 
ordered the bill favorably reported by a voice vote. H. Rept. 
104-230. The bill passed the House on October 24, 1995. The 
Senate passed H.R. 782 with an amendment on July 25, 1996, with 
the House concurring in the Senate amendment on August 1. The 
bill was signed by the President on August 6, 1996, as Public 
Law 104-177.
    On May 30, 1995, the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 
3435, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a 
voice vote. The bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Technical 
Amendments Act of 1996, provided for technical corrections to 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act. On July 16, 1996, the full 
Committee ordered the bill favorably reported, as an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, by a vote of 25-0. H. Rept. 104-
699. The bill passed the House on July 29, 1996 under 
suspension of the rules, receiving the two-thirds required 
vote. The Senate took no action on the bill.
    Also on May 30, the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 
3434, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a 
voice vote. The bill, the Revolving Door Act of 1996, placed 
additional post-employment restrictions on former Members of 
Congress and employees of the legislative and executive 
branches. The bill had been one of the subjects of the 
Subcommittee hearing conducted on March 22, 1996.

Religious Freedom

    The Subcommittee held a number of hearings on the issue of 
school prayer and adverse treatment of individuals in public 
institutions because of their religious affiliation or their 
efforts to exercise their right to freely exercise their 
religion. The Subcommittee held a hearing on the issue of 
``Religious Liberty and the Bill of Rights'' in Washington, 
D.C. on June 8, 1995. The witnesses at this hearing were 
Representative Ernest Istook, Jr. (R-OK); William Ball, of 
Counsel, Ball, Skelly, Murren & Connell; Dr. Derek Davis, 
Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies; Norman 
Redlich, Attorney, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Michael 
Stokes Paulsen, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School; 
and Michael McConnell, Wm. B. Graham Professor of Law, 
University of Chicago Law School.
    The Subcommittee then held a number of field hearings 
across the country: June 10, 1995, Harrisonburg, VA; June 23, 
1995, Tampa, Florida; July 10, 1995, New York City; and July 
14, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. At each of these hearings 
the Subcommittee heard from clergy, local political leaders, 
students, and academics.
    On July 23, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
``Legislation To Further Protect Religious Freedom,'' with 
particular focus on H.J. Res. 184, a proposed constitutional 
amendment to further protect religious freedom, introduced by 
Representative Richard Armey (R-TX), the Majority Leader. The 
witnesses at this hearing were Representative Ernest Istook, 
Jr. (R-OK); Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center 
For Law and Justice; Gregory Baylor, Assistant Director, Center 
for Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society; Dr. 
Richard Land, President, Christian Life Commission, Southern 
Baptist Convention; Dr. William Donohue, President, Catholic 
League for Religious and Civil Rights; Carl H. Esbeck, Isabell 
Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor of Law, University of Missouri; 
Brother Bob Smith, Principal, Messmer High School in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin; Anna Doyle accompanied by her daughters Katie and 
Rebecca Doyle; Forest Montgomery, Counsel for the Office of 
Governmental Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals; 
Reverend Louis Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition; 
Craig Parshall, Attorney, Concerned Women of America; Dr. Anne 
Bryant, Executive Director, National School Boards Association; 
Reverend Elenora Giddings Ivory, Director, Washington, D.C. 
office of Presbyterian Church USA; Reverend Oliver S. Thomas, 
Special Counsel, National Council of Churches; Rabbi James 
Rudin, Director of Interreligious Affairs, American Jewish 
Committee; Carole Shields, President, People for the American 
Way; Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United 
for Separation of Church and State.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

    The Subcommittee held two hearings on partial-birth 
abortion. The first hearing was held on June 15, 1995. The 
witness who testified were Pamela Smith, M.D., Director of 
Medical Education, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. 
Sinai Hospital in Chicago; J. Courtland Robinson, M.D., 
Associate Professor, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 
Johns Hopkins University; Robert J. White, M.D., Professor of 
Surgery, Case Western Reserve University in Ohio; Tammy Watts; 
Mary Ellen Morton, R.N., Neonatal Specialist and Flight Nurse; 
and David Smolin, Professor of Law, Cumberland Law School, 
Samford University. The second hearing was held on March 21, 
1996, to examine the ``Effects of Anesthesia During a Partial-
Birth Abortion.'' Witnesses testifying were the Representative 
Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK); Norig Ellison, M.D., President of the 
American Society of Anesthesiologists; David J. Birnbach, M.D., 
President of the American Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and 
Perinatology; David H. Chestnut, M.D., Chairman, Department of 
Anesthesiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Jean A. 
Wright, M.D., Medical Director, Egleston Children's Hospital, 
Emory University; Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N.; Coreen Costello; 
Mary-Dorothy Line; and Helen M. Alvare, Esq., Director of 
Planning and Information for Pro-Life Activities, National 
Conference of Catholic Bishops.
    On June 21, 1995, the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 
1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a bill to ban ``an 
abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially 
vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and 
completing the delivery,'' by a vote of 7-5. On July 18, 1995 
the full Committee ordered H.R. 1833 favorably reported with 
amendments by a vote of 20-12. H. Rept. 104-267. H.R. 1833 
passed the House on November 1, 1995 by a vote of 288-139, and 
passed the Senate on December 7, 1995, with amendments by a 
vote of 54-44. The House passed the Senate amended version of 
H.R. 1833 on March 27, 1996 by a vote of 286-129. The President 
vetoed H.R. 1833 on April 10, 1996. On September 19, 1996, the 
House voted to override the President's veto of H.R. 1833 by a 
vote of 285-137. On September 26, 1996, however, the Senate 
failed (by a vote of 57 yeas to 41 nays, less than the two-
thirds required) to pass the measure and override the 
President's veto.

Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act

    On October 26, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
examine the ``Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act of 
1995'' (H.R. 1946), a bill to clarify the fundamental right of 
parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The 
following witnesses testified: Representative Steve Largent (R-
OK); Representative Mike Parker (R-MS); Senator Charles 
Grassley (R-IA); Vicki Rafel, member of the Health and Welfare 
Commission, National PTA Board of Directors; Greg Erken, 
Executive Director, Of the People; Martin Guggenheim, 
Professor, NYU School of Law; Colleen Pinyan, Coordinator, 
Office of Public Affairs, The Rutherford Institute; Marilyn Van 
Derbur, former Miss America; Michael P. Farris, Esq., 
President, Home School Legal Defense Association; George W. 
Dent, Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; 
Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, Professor, University of 
Pennsylvania School of Law; Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., Director, 
National Fatherhood Initiative. No further action was taken on 
the measure.

Office of Government Ethics

    On April 17, 1996, the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 
3235 without amendment by a voice vote. The bill, the Office of 
Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1996, amended the Ethics 
in Government Act of 1978 to extend the authorization of 
appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics for 3 years 
and provided the agency with gift acceptance authority. The 
bill had been the subject of a Subcommittee hearing on May 17, 
1995. On April 24, 1996, the full Committee favorably reported 
the bill without amendment by a voice vote. H. Rept. 104-595. 
The bill passed the House on June 4, 1996 under a suspension of 
the rules, receiving the two-thirds vote necessary for passage. 
H.R. 3235 was passed by the Senate on July 24, 1996 and signed 
by the President on August 6, 1996 as Public Law 104-179.

Bilingual Voting Requirements

    On April 18, 1996, the Subcommittee held one day of 
hearings on H.R. 351, a bill to repeal the bilingual voting 
requirements that were added to the Voting Rights Act in 1975. 
The witnesses were Representative John Edward Porter (R-IL); 
Representative Bob Livingston (R-LA); Representative Xavier 
Becerra (D-CA); Representative Nydia Velazquez (D-NY); 
Representative Peter King (R-NY); Dr. John Silber, President, 
Boston University; Karen Narasaki, Executive Director, National 
Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; Ronald Rotunda, the 
Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Illinois; 
Honorable Deval Patrick, Asst. Attorney General for Civil 
Rights, Department of Justice; Linda Chavez, President, Center 
for Equal Opportunity; Antonia Hernandez, President and General 
Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund; 
Frances Fairey, County Clerk and Recorder, Yuba County, 
California. The hearing was conducted pursuant to the 
Subcommittee plan set forth at the beginning of the 104th 
Congress.
    On May 23, 1996, the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 
351, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a vote 
of 5-2. On July 16, 1996, the full Committee ordered the bill 
favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute by a vote of 17-12. H. Rept. 104-728. The bill was 
subsequently incorporated in H.R. 123, the English Language 
Empowerment Act of 1996, and was passed by the House on August 
1, 1996 by a vote 259-169. The Senate took no action on the 
bill.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

    The United States Commission on Civil Rights is designed to 
serve as an independent, bipartisan, fact-finding agency of the 
executive branch. The Commission was first established as a 
temporary agency under the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The 
authorization for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights expired 
on September 30, 1996. On October 19, 1995, the Subcommittee 
held an oversight hearing on the Commission to investigate 
disturbing allegations of abuse and mismanagement, and pursuant 
to the Oversight Plan approved by the Full Committee on 
February 7, 1995, to examine the priorities, structure, mission 
and authorization request of the Commission. The witnesses at 
this hearing were Representative Mark Foley (R-FL); 
Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY); Representative Clay 
Shaw (R-FL); Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); Mary 
Mathews, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; 
Stephanie Moore, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights; and Robert Ross, President, Florida 187 
Committee.
    On July 24, 1996, the Subcommittee held an additional 
oversight hearing to consider legislation H.R. 3874, which 
would extend the authorization of the Commission for an 
additional year with funding of $8.74 million and make minor 
changes to its authorizing statute. Witnesses included Mary 
Frances Berry, Chairperson, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; 
Mary Mathews, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; 
Wade Henderson, Executive Director, Leadership Conference on 
Civil Rights; and Robert George, Commissioner, U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights.
    The Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 3874 by a vote of 
5-2 on July 25, 1996. The measure was ordered favorably 
reported, without amendment, by the full Committee on September 
18, 1996, by a vote of 12-6. H. Rept. 104-846.

Same-Sex Marriage--The Defense of Marriage Act

    H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act, was introduced on 
May 7, 1996. The Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation 
on May 15, 1996. The witnesses were the Honorable Terrance Tom, 
Hawaii State House of Representatives; Honorable Edward Fallon, 
Iowa State House of Representatives; Honorable Marilyn 
Musgrave, Colorado State House of Representatives; Honorable 
Ernest Chambers, Nebraska State Senate; Honorable Deborah 
Whyman, Michigan State House of Representatives; Hadley Arkes, 
Ney Professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions, 
Amherst College; Andrew Sullivan, Editor, The New Republic; 
Dennis Prager, author, commentator, and radio talk show host, 
KABC/Los Angeles; Nancy McDonald, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Lynn Wardle, 
Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School; 
Elizabeth Birch, Executive Director, Human Rights Campaign; 
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center, 
Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief 
Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice; with additional 
material submitted by Maurice Holland, Professor of Law, 
University of Oregon Law School.
    On May 30, 1996, the Subcommittee met and ordered reported 
the unamended bill H.R. 3396, by a vote of 8-4. On June 12, 
1996, the full Committee on the Judiciary ordered reported 
favorably the bill H.R. 3396 without amendment by a vote of 20-
10. H. Rept. 104-664.
    The full House approved H.R. 3396 without amendment on July 
12, 1996 by a vote of 342-67 (2 Members voting ``present''). 
The Senate passed H.R. 3396, again without amendment, on 
September 10, 1996, by a vote of 85-14, and President Clinton 
signed the bill into law on September 21, 1996. Public Law 104-
199.

Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act

    The Subcommittee completed a review of the applicability of 
the civil rights laws to the executive staff of the President 
as contained in H.R. 3452. The bill was signed by the President 
on October 26, 1996 as Public Law 104-331.

                       Constitutional Amendments

Balanced Budget

    On January 9 and 10, 1995, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution held two days of hearings on H.J. Res. 1, the 
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. On January 9, 
testimony was heard from Representative Joe Barton (R-TX); 
Representative Bob Franks (R-NJ); Representative Dan Schaefer 
(R-CO); Representative Bill Archer (R-TX); Honorable Alice 
Rivlin, Director, Office of Management and Budget; Honorable 
William Barr, former Attorney General; Dr. Martin Anderson, 
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution at Stanford University; and 
Dr. William Niskanen, Chairman, Cato Institute. The following 
day's witnesses were Representative Richard Gephardt (D-MO), 
the Minority Leader; Representative Charles Stenholm (D-TX); 
Representative Robert Wise (D-WV); Representative Karen 
McCarthy (D-MO); Honorable Jeffrey Wennberg, Mayor of Rutland, 
Vermont, on behalf of the National League of Cities; Honorable 
John Hamre, Under Secretary of Defense; Robert Ball, former 
Commissioner, Social Security Administration; Dr. Robert 
Eisner, Professor of Economics Emeritus, Northwestern 
University; and Alan Morrison, Esq.
    While hearings were held by the Subcommittee, H.J. Res. 1 
was held at full Committee. For further information regarding 
Committee consideration of H.J. Res. 1, see discussion of full 
Committee activities.

Term Limits

    The Republican ``Contract with America'' promised the 
first-ever floor vote on a constitutional amendment to limit 
the terms of members of the House and Senate. On February 3, 
1995, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on 
H.J. Res. 2. The Subcommittee heard from Representative Tillie 
Fowler (R-FL); Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL); 
Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA); Representative Douglas 
``Pete'' Peterson (D-FL); Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ); 
Representative Ray Thornton (D-AR); Senator Fred Thompson (R-
TN); Senator Mitchell McConnell (R-KY); former Senator Dennis 
DeConcini; Charles Kesler, Director of the Henry Salvatori 
Center, Claremont McKenna College; John Kester, Attorney, 
Williams and Connolly; Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution; 
Honorable Thomas Fetzer, Mayor of Raleigh, North Carolina; 
Cleta Deatherage Mitchell, General Counsel, Term Limits Legal 
Institute; Fred Wertheimer, President Common Cause; and Becky 
Cain, League of Women Voters.
    The full Committee reported H.J. Res. 2, amended, to the 
House without recommendation. The vote was 21-14. H. Rept. 104-
67. The House voted on H.J. Res. 73, a successor term limits 
amendment, on March 29, 1995, but failed to approve it by the 
necessary two-thirds vote.

Flag Protection

    On May 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held 
a hearing on H.J. Res. 79, a proposed constitutional amendment 
to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States. The witnesses at this hearing were Representative 
Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-NY); Representative G.V. ``Sonny'' 
Montgomery (D-MS); Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor 
of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; Clint 
Bolick, Vice President and Director of Litigation, Institute 
for Justice; Rose E. Lee, Washington Representative, Gold Star 
Wives of America; Commander William Detweiler, National 
Commander, The American Legion; Adrian Cronauer, Senior 
Associate, Maloney & Burch; Bruce Fein, Attorney and Columnist; 
Robert Nagel, Ira Rothgerber Professor of Constitutional Law, 
University of Colorado; with additional material submitted by 
The American Legion, the Emergency Committee to Defend the 
First Amendment and the American Bar Association.
    The Subcommittee held a markup on H.J. Res. 79 on May 25, 
1995 and favorably reported the legislation to the full 
committee by a vote of 7-5. The full Committee ordered H.J. 
Res. 79 favorably reported on June 7, 1995 by a vote of 18-12. 
H. Rept. 104-151. The House passed H.J. Res. 79 on June 28, 
1995 by a vote of 312-120. The amendment failed to receive the 
necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Tax Limitation Amendment

    On March 6, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.J. 
Res. 159, a proposed constitutional amendment to require a 
supermajority vote to raise taxes. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from Representative Joe Barton (R-TX); Representative 
David Skaggs (D-CO); Representative Pete Geren (D-TX); 
Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ); Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ); 
Honorable Ken Blackwell, Treasurer, State of Ohio; Bruce 
Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale 
University; John McGinnis, Professor of Law, Benjamin N. 
Cardozo Law School; Dr. William Niskanen, Chairman, Cato 
Institute; Dean Samuel Thompson, University of Miami School of 
Law; Dr. Lawrence Hunter, President, Business Leadership 
Council; and Dr. Lowell Gallaway, Edwin & Ruth Kennedy 
Economics Distinguished Professor, Ohio University. On April 
15, 1996 the House failed to adopt the measure when the vote of 
243 yeas to 177 nays, fell short of the two-thirds required.

                          Oversight Activities

Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice

    The Subcommittee held a hearing on May 10, 1995, to 
consider the enforcement record, new priorities and 
authorization request of the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division of the Department of Justice. Lois J. Schiffer, 
assistant attorney general, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, testified before the 
Subcommittee.
    The Environment and Natural Resources Division is charged 
with representing federal agencies in litigation concerning 
federal land and water, Indian disputes, wildlife protection, 
the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, the acquisition of 
private property for federal use, civil and criminal 
enforcement of environmental regulations, and defense of 
challenges to environmental programs. The Division employs 728 
people who are organized into nine litigating sections and an 
executive office.
    Subcommittee members examined the impact of the Division's 
enforcement efforts on the private property rights of citizens, 
the role of states in enforcing federal mandates, and criminal 
prosecution for violations of regulations where there is no 
evidence of adverse impact to the environment and no specific 
intent to violate the regulation.

Office of Government Ethics

    On May 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held 
an oversight and reauthorization hearing on the United States 
Office of Government Ethics (OGE). The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Director Stephen D. Potts. The hearing focused 
on OGE's role in providing the overall direction of executive 
branch policies with regard to employee conflicts of interest.
    In addition, the hearing focused on questions regarding the 
length of OGE's reauthorization and gift acceptance authority 
for the agency. The oversight hearing was conducted pursuant to 
the oversight plan of the Subcommittee set forth at the 
beginning of the 104th Congress.

Clinton Administration Adarand Review

    On June 12, 1995, the Supreme Court decided Adarand 
Constructors v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995). There are dozens, 
perhaps hundreds of federal programs that classify citizens on 
the basis of race and treat them differently based on the color 
of their skin. Prior to Adarand, constitutional challenges to 
such laws triggered the so-called intermediate scrutiny test, 
under which they would be sustained if the government could 
show that they were substantially related to an important 
government interest. See, e.g., Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. 
FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990). In Adarand, the Court held for the 
first time that federal racial classifications--like such 
classifications enacted by state and local governments, see 
Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)--are subject 
to the strict scrutiny test, which requires them to be narrowly 
tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
    Adarand thus marked a sea-change in the constitutional 
limits on the ability of the federal government to classify 
citizens based on skin color or ethnicity. On July 19, 1995, 
President Clinton signed an executive order instructing the 
Administration to undertake a comprehensive review of all 
federal programs to determine what changes would be required by 
Adarand.
    That review, and the Administration's view of Adarand in 
general, was the primary focus of the Subcommittee's July 20, 
1995 Authorization and Oversight Hearing of the Civil Rights 
Division of the Department of Justice. (Other topics addressed 
at this hearing related to Civil Rights Division's enforcement 
activities relating to school desegregation, voting rights, 
mortgage lending, and other areas.) The witnesses at this 
hearing were the Honorable Deval Patrick, Assistant Attorney 
General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice; Clint 
Bolick, Vice President and Litigation Director, Institute for 
Justice; Theodore Shaw, Associate Director and Counsel, NAACP 
Legal Defense and Education Fund; and William Perry Pendley, 
President and Chief Legal Officer, Mountain States Legal 
Foundation and counsel for the Plaintiff in the Adarand case.
    On September 22, 1995, the Subcommittee and the Senate 
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and 
Property Rights held a joint Oversight Hearing on the ``Impact 
of Adarand v. Pena: The Constitutionality of Race-Based 
Preferences.'' The witnesses at this hearing were the Honorable 
John Schmidt, Associate Attorney General, Department of 
Justice; Michael A. Carvin, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge; 
Georgina Verdugo, Regional Counsel, Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund; Dr. George LaNoue, Director, 
Project on Civil Rights and Public Contracts, University of 
Maryland-Baltimore; Leon Goldstein, Chairman, Prior Tire 
Company, Atlanta, Georgia; Anthony Robinson, President, 
Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, 
Inc.; and Thomas Stewart, President, Frank Gurney, Inc., 
Spokane, Washington.

Birthright Citizenship

    On December 13, 1995, the Subcommittee held a joint hearing 
with the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on ``The 
Societal and Legal Issues Surrounding Children Born in the 
United States to Illegal Alien Parents.'' A number of Members 
of Congress testified as well as a representative from the 
Administration and various State officials.

Roe v. Wade

    On April 22, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
examine the ``Origins and Scope of Roe v. Wade. The following 
witnesses testified: Steven Calvin, M.D., Assistant Professor, 
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of 
Minnesota; Sharon Dunsmore, R.N., Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, 
Michigan Hospital; Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of 
Law, Harvard Law School; Ronald M. Green, Ph.D., John Phillips 
Professor of Religion, Dartmouth College, and Director, 
Dartmouth Ethics Institute; Gianna Jessen, an abortion 
survivor; Douglass W. Kmiec, Professor of Constitutional Law, 
University of Notre Dame Law School and Straus Distinguished 
Visiting Professor, Pepperdine University School of Law; 
Kimberly Schuld, Vice President, The Polling Co.; and Mark 
Tushnet, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, 
Georgetown University Law Center.

Physician-Assisted Suicide

    On April 29, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
examine ``Assisted Suicide in the United States.'' The 
following witnesses testified: Lonnie L. Bristow, M.D., 
President, American Medical Association; Charles H. Baron, 
Professor of Law, Boston College Law School; Diane Coleman, 
J.D., M.B.A., Executive Director, Progress Center for 
Independent Living; Kathleen M. Foley, M.D., Director, Project 
on Death in America; Carlos Gomez, M.D., Assistant Professor of 
Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine; Herbert 
Hendin, M.D., Executive Director, American Suicide Foundation; 
Yale Kamisar, Clarence Darrow Distinguished University 
Professor, University of Michigan Law School; Leon R. Kass, 
M.D., Addie Clark Harding Professor, the College and Committee 
on Social Thought, University of Chicago; Samuel Klagsbrun, 
M.D., Executive Medical Director, Four Winds Hospital; Charles 
Krauthammer, M.D.; Barbara Coombs Lee, chief petitioner, 
Oregon's Death with Dignity Act; Victor Rosenblum, Nathaniel L. 
Nathanson Professor of Law and Political Science, Northwestern 
University School of Law; Bishop John Spong; Roy Torscano, 
representing Albert Rosen, M.D.
    Based on testimony at the April 29, 1996, hearing, Chairman 
Canady issued a report to the Subcommittee on the history and 
current status of ``Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia 
in the Netherlands.''

School Desegregation Litigation

    On September 18, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing in 
Cleveland, Ohio on the ``Effectiveness of Mandatory Busing in 
Cleveland.'' This hearing was the first step in a process 
designed to explore whether legislation might be helpful and 
appropriate in assisting federal courts to determine when court 
supervision of public school districts should be terminated. 
The witnesses were Daniel McMullen, the court-appointed special 
master in Reed v. Rhodes, the Cleveland school desegregation 
lawsuit initiated in 1973; Ohio State Representative Ron Mottl; 
Dr. Thomas Bier, Director, Housing Policy Research Program at 
Cleveland State University; Louis Erste, Fellow, Citizens 
League Research Institute; Lawrence Lumpkin, President, 
Cleveland Board of Education; Don Sopka, Councilman, Broadview 
Heights City Council; Richard McCain, Plaintiff Class 
Representative in Reed v. Rhodes; Genevieve Mitchell, Executive 
Director, Community Services, Black Women's Center; Joyce Haws, 
Communications Director, National Association of Neighborhood 
Schools; and a variety of citizens who spoke during the ``open-
mike'' segment at the end of the hearing.
    On April 16, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
``Legislative Responses to School Desegregation Litigation.'' 
The witnesses were Representative William Lipinski (D-IL); 
Representative Martin Hoke (R-OH); Dr. David Armor, Research 
Professor, Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University; 
William Taylor, attorney and Vice-Chairman, Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights; Charles J. Cooper, Shaw, Pittman, 
Potts & Trowbridge and former Assistant Attorney General for 
the Office of Legal Counsel; Theodore Shaw, Associate Director-
Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; and Marcy 
Canavan, Chairman, Board of Education of Prince George's County 
Public School District.
                 subcommittee on immigration and claims

   LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman

JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         SONNY BONO, California
XAVIER BECERRA, California           FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina
                                     ED BRYANT, Tennessee

    Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the subcommittee

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................   102
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............     5
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......................     7
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     0
Legislation reported to the House.................................     5
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................     7
Legislation pending in the House..................................     0
Legislation passed by the House...................................    12
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     4
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden)..............     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     8
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................     5
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    20
Private bills:
    Claims bills referred to subcommittee.........................    47
    Immigration bills referred to subcommittee....................    14
    Bills on which hearings were held.............................     0
    Bills heard/reported favorably to committee...................     0
    Claims bills not heard/reported favorably to committee........     8
    Immigration bills referred to subcommittee....................     3
    Bills reported adversely to full committee....................     0
    Claims bills ordered reported to the House....................     9
    Immigration bills ordered reported to the House...............     2
    Claims bills which passed the House...........................     8
    Immigration bills which passed the House......................     2
    Claims bills pending in the House.............................     1
    Immigration bills pending in the House........................     0
    Claims bills pending in the Senate............................     6
    Immigration bills pending in the Senate.......................     0
    Bills recommitted to the Committee............................     0
    Bills passed and referred to U.S. Claims Court................     0
    Claims bills which became law.................................     2
    Immigration bills which became law............................     2

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims has legislative 
and oversight 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

Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The Illegal Immigration Reform and 
        Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

                          Legislative History

    More complete detail on the background, specific 
provisions, and legislative history of the ``Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996'' 
may be found in the following Reports: Immigration in the 
National Interest Act of 1995: Report of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H.R. 2202 (Rept. 104-
469, Part I) (March 4, 1996); and Conference Report: Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
(Rept. 104-828).

                               Background

    The United States is a nation of immigration. This proud 
tradition has been tarnished in recent decades by failures to 
set clear priorities in our system of legal immigration and to 
enact and enforce the measures necessary to prevent the rising 
tide of illegal immigration. Unlimited immigration is a moral 
and practical impossibility. In the words of the 1981 report of 
the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, 
``[o]ur policy--while providing opportunity for a portion of 
the world's population--must be guided by the basic national 
interests of the United States.''
    In the intervening years, this basic message was not 
heeded. Despite several immigration reform efforts, there was a 
failure to clearly define the national interests at stake in 
immigration policy. The American public, as well as people 
seeking to abuse the generosity of this nation, came to believe 
that the Federal Government lacked the will and the means to 
enforce existing laws and to enact new ones. The statistics 
supported this perception: more than 4 million illegal aliens 
resided in the United States at the start of the 104th 
Congress, with an average net increase each year of 300,000; 
approximately half of these illegal residents had arrived with 
legal temporary visas and had overstayed; each year, tens of 
thousands of illegal aliens were ordered deported but were not 
removed from the United States due to lack of resources and 
legal loopholes; and the legal immigration system failed to 
unite nuclear families promptly, encouraged the ``chain 
migration'' of extended families, and admitted the vast 
majority of immigrants without regard to their level of 
education, job skills, or language preparedness.
    These failures in immigration enforcement imposed genuine 
social costs. Every three years, enough illegal immigrants 
entered the country to populate a city the size of Boston, 
Dallas, or San Francisco. More than 25 percent of the 
population of Federal prisons consisted of illegal aliens, most 
of whom had been convicted of drug crimes. Up to 50 percent of 
illegal immigrants used fraudulent documents to obtain work or 
public benefits. There was a 580 percent increase over 12 years 
in the number of immigrants receiving Supplemental Security 
Income, a form of welfare. The principle that immigrants should 
be self-sufficient and not become public charges was frequently 
violated. In addition, the phenomenon of ``chain migration'' 
led to demands on the legal immigration system that could not 
be satisfied: as of 1995, more than 3.5 million persons were 
waiting in backlogs for admission under the various family-
based categories, including more than a million spouses and 
minor children of lawful permanent residents. These backlogs 
created an additional incentive for aliens to enter the U.S. 
illegally and wait here for their visa to be issued. Hundreds 
of thousands of aliens have done exactly this. By so broadly 
defining the category of ``family'' that can be admitted via 
relative petitions, the legal immigration system fails to 
provide a system for selecting immigrants that is more 
objectively linked to the national interest.
    The Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995 
(``Act''), originally introduced as H.R. 1915 and re-introduced 
as H.R. 2202, set out to change these realities by enacting the 
most comprehensive reform of American immigration policy in the 
past generation. Previous legislation, notably the Immigration 
Act of 1965, the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform 
and Control Act of 1986, and the Immigration Act of 1990, have 
had a profound impact on U.S. immigration policy. Some 
provisions of these laws, however, contributed to the problems 
we now face by failing to set clear priorities for our 
immigration system, and failing to provide tough sanctions 
against those who violate our immigration laws. In addition, 
these laws failed to treat migration as a comprehensive 
phenomenon, and failed to make the tough choices on priorities 
that would restore credibility both to our systems of admitting 
legal immigrants and deterring, apprehending, and removing 
illegal immigrants. More fundamentally, the law failed to 
provide adequate resources and enforcement tools to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to carry out its 
critical functions.

                                Hearings

    The Immigration in the National Interest Act was originally 
introduced as H.R. 1915 on June 22, 1995. Prior to 
introduction, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, 
chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith (TX), held eight hearings, with a 
total in excess of 100 witnesses, to discuss problems and 
proposed solutions in the areas of illegal immigration and 
legal immigration: border security; detention and removal of 
illegal and criminal aliens; worksite enforcement of employer 
sanctions; the impact of illegal immigration on public benefit 
programs and the American labor force; visa overstays; 
verification of eligibility for employment and public benefits; 
and legal immigration reform proposals.

                    Commission on Immigration Reform

    Much of the framework for H.R. 2202 was based on the work 
of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, 
chaired by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. The Commission 
was created by the Immigration Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-649) 
and mandated to report to Congress with analysis and 
recommendations regarding the implementation of and impact of 
U.S. immigration policy. The Commission has issued two major 
reports: U.S. Immigration Policy: Restoring Credibility (1994) 
and Legal Immigration: Setting Priorities (1995). The 
Commission held public hearings and consultations in cities 
across the United States, as well as undertaking a systematic 
analysis of immigration enforcement procedures, the economic 
and social characteristics of recent immigrants, and the impact 
of immigration on the labor market, business, and public 
benefit programs.
    The Commission's recommendations in the 1994 Report 
included: enhanced border enforcement, including deployment of 
personnel directly on the border to deter illegal immigrations; 
streamlining of processes to remove illegal aliens, 
particularly criminal aliens, from the United States; and an 
improved verification system to prevent illegal aliens from 
being employed or receiving public benefits. The 
recommendations in the 1995 Report were for a restructuring of 
the legal immigration system to reflect the following 
priorities: unification of the nuclear families of U.S. 
citizens and lawful permanent residents; admission of highly-
skilled immigrants to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. 
companies and encourage economic growth; providing humanitarian 
protection to refugees; and enforcing established limits within 
each of the legal immigration categories.

                  Summary of Legislation as Introduced

    On June 22, 1995, H.R. 1915, the ``Immigration in the 
National Interest Act of 1995,'' was introduced by 
Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. The bill was referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on National 
Security, Economic and Educational Opportunities, Government 
Reform and Oversight, Ways and Means, Commerce, Agriculture, 
and Banking and Financial Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker.
    The Act as introduced included eight titles, each 
reflecting a key area of immigration policy in need of reform.

Border Security

    Title I mandated improvements in the security of the 
nation's land borders by requiring an increase of 1,000 per 
year through FY 2000 in the number of U.S. Border Patrol 
agents. In order to prevent illegal immigration, the new agents 
were to be deployed in sectors of the border with the highest 
number of illegal crossings into the U.S., and agents in these 
sectors were to be ``forward deployed'' to provide a visible 
deterrent to illegal entry. In addition, new fences and roads 
to deter illegal entries would have to be constructed, 
including a 14-mile triple fence extending eastward from San 
Diego, the most heavily-traveled corridor for illegal entry 
into the U.S. These provisions followed closely the 
recommendations of the Jordan Commission, which called for 
increased personnel and technology resources, appropriate use 
of fences, and adoption of strategies of prevention and 
deterrence similar to ``Operation Hold-the-Line,'' a successful 
initiative of the Border Patrol in El Paso, Texas. The 
Commission also recommended, and the legislation included, 
provisions to ensure the security of the Border Crossing 
Identification Card, a document issued chiefly to Mexican 
citizens for the purpose of short-term visits to the border 
area of the U.S. These documents have been subject to 
fraudulent use and counterfeit; the legislation called for re-
issuance of such cards, with enhanced security features. 
Finally, Title I called for establishment of a pilot program to 
repatriate deported aliens to the interior of their home 
country, in order to deter repeated attempts to the U.S., and 
for a pilot program to track departures of aliens from the 
United States, in order to better identify the extent of the 
visa-overstay problem.

Alien Smuggling

    Title II focused on the problem of alien smuggling. In line 
with the Commission's recommendations, this title increased 
penalties for alien smuggling, established liability under the 
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for 
alien smuggling crimes, increased penalties for document fraud, 
expanded the investigatory authority of the INS, and expanded 
the use asset forfeiture against those involved in alien 
smuggling.

Removal of Illegal and Criminal Aliens

    Title III was the heart of the Act's reform of procedures 
dealing with illegal aliens. The Commission recommended that 
greater priority and resources be given to the apprehension, 
detention, and removal of criminal aliens. Title III expanded 
on this recommendation to propose a thorough reform of all 
procedures to inspect, apprehend, detain, adjudicate, and 
remove illegal aliens from the U.S. In addition, Title III 
authorized greater resources to be devoted to the effort of 
removing illegal aliens.
    The first aspect of the reforms in Title III concerned the 
legal status of aliens entering or attempting to enter the U.S. 
One urgent problem in recent years has been the arrival at U.S. 
airports of smuggled aliens who possess fraudulent or otherwise 
invalid travel documents, or who have destroyed their documents 
en route, and who make claim to asylum in order to be able to 
remain in the U.S. Because of delays in the asylum system, 
hearings were often scheduled for months later. If not 
detained, the aliens would most often disappear and become 
long-term illegal residents. Title III addressed this problem 
by establishing a system of ``expedited removal'': aliens 
arriving with fraudulent or no documents would not be eligible 
for a hearing before an immigration judge, or for any rights of 
appeal, because they clearly had no right to enter the U.S. As 
such, these aliens could be returned immediately to their point 
of departure. If an alien claimed asylum, an expedited 
procedure would be provided, including an interview by a 
trained asylum officer, to determine if the alien had a 
``credible fear'' of persecution. This standard, lower than the 
``well-founded fear'' standard needed to receive asylum, was 
intended to separate meritorious claims from clearly non-
meritorious claims. It was also intended to make this 
determination in a prompt but fair manner, so that aliens in 
need of protection could remain in the U.S., while those making 
frivolous claims would be removed.
    The second aspect of reforms in Title III concerned the 
status of and procedures afforded to aliens who have already 
entered the U.S. The first basic step was to modify the 
``entry'' doctrine, an interpretation of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) which held that an alien who has made an 
entry onto U.S., even if illegal and transitory, is entitled to 
the same rights in deportation proceedings as a long-term legal 
resident of the U.S. The second step was to eliminate the 
distinction between ``exclusion'' and ``deportation'' 
proceedings, a distinction that caused needless litigation and 
procedural delay and which had outlived its usefulness. 
Instead, a single form of ``removal'' proceeding would be 
established, with different burdens of proof assigned on the 
basis of the alien's status in the U.S. Thus, an illegal alien 
would have the burden to prove his or her right to remain in 
the U.S., while in the case of a long-term permanent resident 
of the U.S., the burden would be on the Government to establish 
why the alien should be removed. Just as important, the 
legislation amended the rules regarding eligibility for relief 
from deportation, which is based in part on the length of an 
alien's residence in the U.S. The reforms ended the accrual of 
time-in-residence on the date an alien is placed into removal 
proceedings, thus removing the incentive for aliens to prolong 
their cases in the hope of remaining in the U.S. long enough to 
be eligible for relief. The reforms also toughened the other 
standards for granting such relief to illegal aliens and, in 
particular, to criminal aliens.
    The Title III reforms also imposed greater accountability 
for the detention and removal of aliens at the close of the 
hearing process. The Inspector General of the Department of 
Justice has found that the vast majority of aliens who are not 
detained at the close of deportation proceedings abscond and 
are not removed from the U.S., while the vast majority of those 
who are detained do depart the U.S. The reforms thus required 
increased detention of aliens who are ordered removed, and for 
removal to be completed within 90 days of a final order of 
removal. The reforms also ended the practice of granting an 
automatic stay of removal to aliens who appeal their orders to 
the Federal courts. Finally, the process for appeals was 
streamlined and the scope of judicial review narrowed.
    Title III also provided for special removal procedures to 
be employed in cases involving terrorists and in which the use 
of normal procedures would pose a risk to national security. 
These proceedings would be conducted by Federal district court 
judges specially appointed for this task by the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court. Aliens would have the right to be 
represented by attorneys appointed at Government expense. 
Classified information could be examined in camera, with a 
summary of such evidence provided to the alien. In rare 
circumstances where even the presentation of a summary would 
case harm to the national security or to any person, the 
proceeding could go forward without providing a summary of 
evidence to the alien. In such cases involving a lawful 
permanent resident, the withheld information would be provided 
to a special attorney representing the alien, but who could not 
disclose the information to the alien or to any other 
individual. The special attorney could, however, contest the 
veracity, reliability, or sufficiency of the evidence as a 
basis for removing the alien from the U.S. The alien or the 
Government would have the right to appeal as adverse ruling to 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and to 
seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    The remainder of Title III made a number of other changes 
to policies and procedures for the removal of illegal aliens. 
It established membership in a terrorist organization as a 
basis for exclusion from the U.S.; denied immigration benefits 
and relief to alien terrorists; made air carriers liable for 
the detention costs (not actual detention) of certain aliens 
brought to the U.S.; raised carrier fines for bringing unlawful 
aliens to the U.S.; broadened the definition of ``conviction'' 
to make it easier to deport criminal aliens from the U.S.; 
defined the status of immigration judges in the removal 
process; provided civil penalties for aliens who fail to depart 
the U.S. under an order of removal; and enhanced criminal 
penalties for certain immigration crimes, including illegal 
reentry and passport and visa fraud.

Employer Sanctions and Verification

    The availability of jobs in the U.S. economy is a primary 
magnet for illegal immigration. The employment of illegal 
aliens, in turn, cases deleterious effects for U.S. workers. 
The Commission on Immigration Reform found that ``[f]or years, 
U.S. policy tacitly accepted illegal immigration, as it was 
viewed by some to be in the interests of certain employers and 
the American public to do so.''
    Following the recommendation of the 1981 Select Commission, 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibited the 
employment of illegal aliens and introduced the requirement 
that all employers verify the status of their new employees to 
determine their eligibility to work. The verification procedure 
is carried out through the ``I-9'' form, which requires new 
employees to provide one of 29 different documents to establish 
their eligibility to work. Criminal sanctions apply to 
employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Enforcement of 
this scheme of verification and employer sanctions has been 
hampered by the rampant use of fraudulent documents, confusion 
on the part of employers, and continued access by illegal 
aliens to jobs and public benefits.
    The Commission on Immigration Reform recommended several 
key changes to improve the verification process and sanctions 
enforcement. The Commission concluded that the most promising 
option for secure, non-discriminatory verification is a 
computerized registry using data provided by the Social 
Security Administration (SSA) and the INS. The key to this 
process would be the social security number: the new 
verification system would permit employers to quickly check 
whether a social security number provided by a new employee is 
valid and has been issued to an individual authorized to work 
in the U.S. Such a system would be more resistant to fraud 
because it would not rely on identification documents, most of 
which are easily counterfeited and available for sale. The 
system would reduce the temptation to discriminate against 
persons of apparent foreign origin because all employees would 
be subject to the same ``color-blind'' test. Finally, employers 
would save in time, resources, and paperwork by not having to 
check documents and maintain paper records. The Commission also 
recommended that the system be designed to allow the 
verification of the accuracy of data in the registry, to 
continually monitor the accuracy of such data, to protect the 
privacy of information in the registry, and to phase in the 
system through pilot projects. Finally, the Commission 
recommended enhanced worksite enforcement to target employers 
and industries that knowingly and/or frequently employ illegal 
aliens.
    Title IV of H.R. 1915 included a modified version of the 
Commission's recommendations. It provided for increased 
personnel to enforce employer sanctions and wage and hour laws 
at the worksite. It streamlined the I-9 process by reducing 
from 29 to 6 the number of documents that may be presented to 
an employer to establish eligibility to work: a passport or 
alien registration card or resident alien card, or a social 
security card in combination with a driver's license or state 
ID card. It also required the establishment, by October 1, 
1999, of a nationwide mechanism to verify the eligibility of 
employees through checking their social security numbers or 
alien registration numbers. The verification mechanism would be 
instituted on a pilot basis within 6 months of the enactment in 
5 of the 7 states with the highest population of illegal 
aliens.
    The verification mechanism under H.R. 1915 would work as 
follows: As under current law, once an applicant has accepted a 
job offer, he or she would present certain documents to the 
employer. The employer, within three days of the hire, must 
examine the document(s) to determine whether they reasonably 
appear on their face(s) to be genuine and complete an I-9 form 
attesting to this examination. The employer would also have 
three days from the date of hire (which can be before the date 
the new employee actually reports to work) to make an inquiry 
by phone or other electronic means to the confirmation office 
established to run the mechanism. If the new hire claimed to be 
a citizen, the employer would transmit his or her name and 
social security number. The confirmation office would compare 
the name and social security number provided against 
information contained in the Social Security Administration 
database. If the new hire claimed to be a non-citizen, the 
employer would transmit his or her name, social security number 
and alien identification number. The confirmation office would 
compare the name and social security number provided against 
information contained in the SSA database and would compare the 
name and alien number provided against information contained in 
the INS database.
    When the confirmation office ascertained that the new hire 
is eligible to work, the operator would within three days so 
inform the employer and provide a confirmation number. If the 
confirmation office could not confirm the work eligibility of 
the new hire, it would within three days so inform the employer 
of a tentative nonconfirmation and provide a tentative 
nonconfirmation number. If the new hire wished to contest this 
finding, ``secondary verification'' will be undertaken. 
Secondary verification would be an expedited procedure set up 
to confirm the validity of information contained in the 
government databases and provided by the new hire. Under this 
process, the new hire would typically contact or visit the SSA 
and/or INS to see why the government records disagree with the 
information he or she has provided. If the new hire requested 
secondary verification, he or she could not be fired on the 
basis of the tentative nonconfirmation. If the discrepancy were 
reconciled, then confirmation of work eligibility and a 
confirmation number would be given to the employer by the end 
of this period. If the discrepancy were not reconciled or the 
employee does not attempt to reconcile the information, then 
final denial of confirmation and a final nonconfirmation number 
would be given the end of this period; the employer would then 
have to dismiss the new hire as being ineligible to work in the 
United States.

Legal Immigration Reform

    Background.--Congress has the Constitutional task to set 
immigration policy in the national interest. As a result of 
legislation enacted in 1965, 1986, and 1990, the United States 
has dramatically increased overall levels of legal immigration. 
During the past 15 years, we have admitted or legalized almost 
12 million immigrants: an average of 733,000 each year legal 
immigrants were admitted or legalized from 1981-1990, and a 
whopping 1.13 million per year from 1991-1994. These numbers 
include the amnesty granted to 2.7 million illegal aliens under 
the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. There is no 
comparable sustained period of immigration growth in American 
history.
    Such large increases in immigration create problems as well 
as opportunities for the American society and economy. While 
immigrants often bring new energy and vitality to our society 
and economy, the current system for selection of immigrants 
does not meet any clearly-defined national interests. A 
preponderance of immigrants (close to 9 million since 1980) are 
admitted without reference to their level of education or 
skills. The current cohort of immigrants is far more likely to 
have less than a high-school education than native-born 
Americans. This can have the effect of flooding the labor 
market for unskilled work, as well as creating pockets of 
impoverished immigrants who will be less likely to assimilate 
into the broader American society. These negative impacts are 
most keenly felt in the handful of States in which a vast 
majority of immigrants choose to live, and, ironically, cause 
most direct harm to recent immigrants. Legal immigration policy 
must strike a proper balance so that these problems do not 
overwhelm the opportunities that immigration brings to the 
nation, and result in job loss and displacement for American 
workers.
    There also are legitimate concerns that the Government's 
and society's capacity for admitting, assimilating, and 
naturalizing immigrants have been strained by current levels of 
legal immigration. Again, these problems are heightened in 
high-immigration States. Our education system, for example, is 
burdened by the needs of immigrants who either are not 
proficient in English or illiterate in their own language or 
both. In Los Angeles county, education is provided in over 70 
languages at a larger ``per student'' cost to the taxpayer. 
While we should expect a great deal of diversity in 
immigration, the U.S.'s capacity to absorb immigrants is not 
unlimited.
    Family-based immigration, the dominant engine of 
immigration growth, is key to reform efforts. Demand in these 
categories has grown dramatically due to the beneficiaries of 
legalization under IRCA obtaining permanent resident status, 
and eventually citizenship, thus allowing them to petition for 
relatives abroad. Thus, most immigrants are admitted solely on 
the basis of their relationship to another immigrant. This 
pattern of ``chain migration'' not only distorts the selection 
criteria for legal immigrants, but may add additional incentive 
for people to attempt illegal immigration to the U.S.; since 
petitions for family-based immigrant status far exceed the 
statutory caps for admissions, more than 3.5 million 
individuals, including 1.1 million spouses and minor children 
of lawful permanent residents, are waiting for admission. The 
waiting list provides a powerful incentive for aliens to enter 
the U.S. illegally, or to overstay their visas, and wait to 
receive lawful status while residing in the U.S.
    The basic failure of the current system, therefore, is that 
while it sets preferences, it fails to set priorities. For 
example, with a finite number of immigrant admissions, numbers 
allocated to brothers and sisters and other categories mean 
fewer numbers are allocated to the spouses and minor children 
of lawful permanent residents. The preservation of the nuclear 
family, therefore, should continue to be a cornerstone of U.S. 
immigration policy. The same priority cannot be given, and 
should not be given, to the admission of brothers and sisters 
and adult sons and daughters, solely on the basis of their 
family relationship to an immigrant. When an adult leaves his 
native land to emigrate to America, he or she makes a decision 
to be separated from brothers and sisters, parents, and adult 
children. This is a difficult decision in many cases, but 
ultimately, it is a decision that the immigrant has made.
    Immigration policy cannot and should not attempt to soften 
the blow by holding out the hope that these adult families will 
be eligible to immigrate to the U.S. Clear evidence of this 
fact are the enormous backlogs that now exist in virtually all 
extended family categories. To clear out these backlogs, 
immigration law would have to provide up to an additional 2.4 
million visas: a dramatic increase in legal immigration at a 
time when stabilization of immigrant numbers is called for. To 
compound the problem, these 2.4 million immigrants could 
petition for admission of their relatives, thus raising demand 
on the legal immigration system to an unprecedented level and 
creating new, exponentially larger backlogs.
    Excessive backlogs in these admission categories undermine 
the credibility and integrity of U.S. immigration policy 
because they hold out a promise of opportunity to immigrate 
that cannot be met in the foreseeable future. Finally, the 
permanent excessive demand on the immigration system 
represented by these backlogs makes it difficult if not 
impossible to alter course and give greater priority to 
immigration categories that are more closely tied to the 
national interest. We can sympathize with people who have been 
waiting in line and may no longer be eligible for admission. 
But immigration is a privilege, not a right, and not all those 
eligible at one time for a visa can be guaranteed to receive 
one. Otherwise, immigration policy would be forever ``locked 
in'' to decisions and priorities of the past.
    Commission Recommendations.--The Commission on Immigration 
Reform recommended a significant redefinition of priorities and 
a reallocation of existing admission numbers to ensure that 
immigration continues to serve our national interests. The 
Commission defined several principles that should guide 
immigration policy; the establishment of clear goals and 
priorities; the enforcement of immigration limits; regular 
periodic review; clarity and efficiency; enforcement of the 
financial responsibility of sponsors to prevent immigrants from 
becoming dependent on public benefits; protection of American 
workers; coherence; and ``Americanization''--the assimilation 
of immigrants to become effective citizens.
    The Commission recommended that there be three major 
categories of legal immigration--family-based, skills-based, 
and refugees. The current category for diversity admissions 
would be eliminated.
    Within the family category, the spouses and minor children 
of U.S. citizens would be admitted on an unlimited basis, as 
under current law. The parents of citizens could also be 
admitted, but with stricter sponsorship requirements than 
currently exist. Third priority would be given to spouses and 
minor children of lawful permanent residents. The proposed 
400,000 cap for family admissions would accommodate current 
demand in these categories and allow for growth in the 
unlimited category of spouses and children of citizens. In 
addition, the Commission would make available 150,000 
additional visas during each of the first 5 years to clear the 
backlog of spouses and children (``nuclear family'') of lawful 
permanent residents.
    The Commission also proposed the elimination of the 
following family categories: adult unmarried sons and daughters 
of U.S. citizens; adult unmarried sons and daughters of lawful 
permanent residents; adult married sons and daughters of 
citizens; and brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens. This 
was done for several reasons: to focus priority on the 
admission of nuclear family members; to reduce the waiting time 
for nuclear family members of lawful permanent residents 
without raising overall immigration numbers; and to eliminate 
the extraordinary backlogs in these categories that undermine 
credibility of the immigration system. Most importantly, the 
Commission believes that ``[u]nless there is a compelling 
national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen 
on the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. 
economy.'' Admission of nuclear family members and refugees 
present such a compelling interest, but admission of more 
extended family members solely on the basis of their family 
relationship is not as compelling.
    The Commission recommended that up to 100,000 skills-based 
immigrants be admitted each year in two basic categories: those 
exempt from labor market testing, and those subject to labor 
testing. The exempt category would include aliens with 
extraordinary ability, multinational executives and managers, 
entrepreneurs, and ministers and religious workers. Others that 
would be subject to labor market testing include professionals 
with advanced degrees and baccalaureate degrees, and skilled 
workers with 5 years specialized experience. The category for 
unskilled workers would be eliminated. In place of the current 
labor certification process, those immigrants subject to labor 
market testing could only be admitted if their prospective 
employer paid a substantial fee and demonstrated appropriate 
attempts to find qualified workers. The fee would be used to 
support private sector initiatives for the education and 
training of U.S. workers. In addition, such immigrants would be 
admitted on a conditional basis that would convert to permanent 
status after 2 years if the immigrant was still employed by the 
same employer at the attested original wage or higher.
    The Commission recommended that 50,000 admission numbers be 
allocated each year to refugees, not including the adjustment 
to permanent resident status of aliens already present in the 
U.S. who are granted asylum. Refugee admissions could exceed 
50,000 in the case of an emergency, or through approval by 
Congress.
    H.R. 1915.--Title V of H.R. 1915 would have established the 
following categories and worldwide levels for legal 
immigration: family-sponsored (330,000) employment-based 
(135,000), diversity (27,000) and humanitarian (70,000). These 
worldwide levels would be effective only through FY 2005, by 
which time Congress must review and reauthorize new legal 
immigration levels. The review and reauthorization process 
would repeat every five years thereafter.
    Family-sponsored immigrants would include: (1) spouses and 
unmarried children under 21 of U.S. citizens; (2) spouses and 
unmarried children under 21 of lawful permanent residents; and 
(3) parents of U.S. citizens. As a special provision, the 
current backlog of spouses and children of permanent resident 
aliens was to be reduced by an average of 110,000 per year over 
a five-year period.
    These provisions would give highest priority in the 
immigration system to unification of the nuclear family, and 
shift the emphasis from chain migration of extended families to 
preservation of the nuclear family. The spouses and minor 
children of U.S. citizens would continue to be admitted without 
any numerical limits. The spouses and children of lawful 
permanent residents would be the first family-preference 
category, and the special backlog reduction provisions would 
ensure that the backlog in this category is eliminated.
    Parents of citizens being sponsored as immigrants would 
have to acquire insurance to cover their health are costs and 
potential long-term care needs. This requirement would be 
imposed because of substantial evidence that many immigrant 
parents come to the U.S. to take advantage of welfare benefits 
for which they have not contributed.
    Employment-based immigrants would include: (1) aliens with 
extraordinary ability (visas not to exceed 15,000); (2) aliens 
who are outstanding professors and researchers, or who are 
multinational executives and managers (visas not to exceed 
30,000, plus unused visas from category (1)); (3) aliens who 
are professionals with advanced degrees, and aliens of 
exceptional ability (30,000, plus unused visas from previous 
categories); (4) professionals and skilled immigrants, who are 
either professions with a baccalaureate degree and experience 
or skilled workers with training and work experience (45,000 
visas, plus unused visas from previous categories); (5) 
investor immigrants (10,000 visas), who invest at least $1 
million in a U.S. company that employees at least 10 workers 
(with a pilot program through 1998 allowing for a $500,000 
investment and the hiring of 5 workers); and (6) special 
immigrants (5,000 visas). Experience requirements are increased 
for immigrants in category (4): skilled workers are required to 
have 4 years experience, and professionals with baccalaureate 
degrees, 2 years.
    Refugees and other humanitarian immigrants would be 
admitted at an annual level of 70,000 (95,000 in 1996), 
consisting of: refugees, 50,000 (75,000 in 1996), unless 
Congress sets a higher number by law, or the President declares 
an emergency; asylees, 10,000; and other humanitarian 
immigrants, 10,000. The refugee consultation process would have 
to take place by July 1 of the preceding fiscal year. The 
refugee provisions were intended to accomplish several 
important goals. First, to ensure the availability of a minimum 
number of visas sufficient to meet the State Department's 
anticipated demand for refugee resettlement. Second, to involve 
Congress more directly in decisions to set refugee policy, by 
setting a reasonable deadline for the consultation process and 
requiring legislation to raise the refugee target except in 
emergency situations. Third, to preserve flexibility by 
permitting the President to admit additional refugees in the 
case of an emergency (not merely an ``unforeseen'' emergency, 
as under current law.)
    A category for humanitarian visas is designed to meet the 
need for a flexible, transparent category that will be 
available for any specific in which admission of an alien is of 
special humanitarian concern to the United States. This 
category is specifically intended to replace the need for 
special admission categories tailored to special interests, and 
particularly to end the practice of admitting aliens on a 
permanent basis through grants of parole under section 
212(d)(5).
    Title V also restricted the use of parole authority to 
allow aliens to enter the U.S. to specific reasons that are 
strictly in the public interest or are matters of urgent 
humanitarian concern, such as for the prosecution of an lien, 
to obtain an alien's testimony in a criminal proceeding, or to 
permit an alien to visit a dying relative. This section was 
intended to end the use of parole authority to create an ad hoc 
immigration policy or to supplement current immigration 
categories without Congressional approval.

Eligibility for Benefits and Sponsorship

    Title VI of H.R. 1915 was designed to continue the long-
standing principle in U.S. immigration policy that immigrants 
be self-reliant and not depend on the American taxpayer for 
financial support. Current eligibility rules, unenforceable 
financial support agreements, and poorly-defined public charge 
provisions have undermined the tradition of self-sufficiency 
among the immigrant community. As a result, the cost of the 
American taxpayer of providing public benefits to immigrants 
has been in the tens of billions of dollars every year.
    Title VI specified that illegal aliens are not eligible for 
most public benefits, makes enforceable the grounds for denying 
entry or removing aliens who are or are likely to become public 
charges, and makes those who agree to sponsor immigrants 
legally responsible to support them.
    In addition to making illegal aliens ineligible for means-
tested public benefits and government contracts, Title VI 
required that applicants show one of six documents to prove 
eligibility to receive benefits, and authorized State agencies 
to require documentation of eligibility.
    Title VI strengthened the grounds for inadmissibility as a 
public charge by stating that a family-sponsored immigrant or a 
nonimmigrant is inadmissible if the alien cannot demonstrate 
that the alien's age, health, family status, education, skills, 
affidavit of support, or a combination thereof make it unlikely 
that the alien will become a public charge. Title VI also 
strengthened the grounds for removal (deportation) of an alien 
already in the U.S. as a public charge by extending the time 
period within which such removal may occur to seven years from 
the date of admission, provided the alien's public charge 
status stems from cause arising before admission. The bill also 
specified that an alien is considered to be a public charge if 
the alien receives benefits under Supplemental Security Income, 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Food Stamps, 
State general assistance or Federal Housing Assistance for an 
aggregate of twelve months within the seven-year period. More 
flexible standards were established for battered spouses and 
children.
    Title VI specified that a sponsor's income and resources 
are available to the sponsor alien for the purpose of 
qualifying for public benefits. A legally binding affidavit of 
support was created for those who wish to sponsor immigrants 
into the U.S. Specific lengths of time were established for 
deeming income and for the enforceability of the sponsor 
contract, and specific requirements were established for an 
individual to be a sponsor, including that the individual be 
the same person who is sponsoring the alien for admission into 
the U.S. and have an income of at least 200 percent of the 
poverty level.

Facilitation of Legal Entry

    Immigration reform not only must address the challenges of 
illegal and legal immigration, but also must ensure that U.S. 
ports of entry are capable of receiving the hundreds of 
millions of foreign visitors who seek legitimate entry into our 
country each year. Enhancing our enforcement capability at 
land, air, and sea ports must go hand in hand with improving 
the service functions at such ports. This is important first 
because of the economic benefits brought to this country by 
international commerce and travel, and second because smooth 
functioning of our ports will enable enforcement resources to 
be strategically deployed in order to maximize the prevention 
of unauthorized entries into the U.S. In addition, curbing the 
number of people who attempt to enter on fraudulent documents 
should enable further streamlining of procedures for legitimate 
travelers.
    To this end, Title VII of H.R. 1915 required an increase in 
both INS and Customs Service inspectors at land borders; 
authorized further expansion of the commuter lane pilot 
programs operated successfully at several land border crossing 
points; mandated the operation of pre-inspection stations at 5 
of the 10 foreign airports having the greatest number of 
departures for the U.S.; and required the INS to expend funds 
from the Immigration User Fee Account to train airline 
personnel in the detection of fraudulent documents.

Skilled Nonimmigrants (H-1B) and Miscellaneous Provisions

    Title VIII of H.R. 1915 included a number of miscellaneous 
provisions, including measures to study document fraud related 
to birth certificates, to make it easier to admit certain 
children as ``orphans'' adopted by U.S. couples, and to enhance 
communication between the INS and State and local governments 
by overriding prohibitions against State and local officials 
contacting INS.
    Title VIII also addressed abuses which have recently 
plagued the H-1B nonimmigrant program, while providing 
regulatory relief for employers who do not abuse the program. 
Title VIII required an employer to attest that it would not 
fire and replace an American worker with an H-1B alien unless 
the company were willing to pay the H-1B 110 percent of what 
the fired American was making. In addition, penalties for 
violations of the H-1B provisions would have been enhanced to 
provide an additional disincentive to abuse. Among the changes, 
maximum civil fines were increased fivefold and the period in 
which a company cannot get visa petitions approved for foreign 
workers could have been extended to a permanent ban. In 
addition, Title VIII divided employers into those who are ``H-
1B dependent'' and ``non-H-1B dependent, and imposed more 
stringent regulatory requirements on the former.

                       subcommittee consideration

    On June 29, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 1915. Witnesses included T. 
Alexander Aleinikoff, executive associate commissioner for 
programs, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Vernon 
Briggs, Jr., professor, School of Industrial Relations, 
Cornell, University; Daryl R. Buffenstein, president, American 
Immigration Lawyers Association; Diane Dillard, acting 
assistant secretary for consular affairs, U.S. Department of 
State; Austin T. Fragomen, Jr., chairman, American Council on 
International Personnel, John R. Fraser, deputy administrator, 
Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor; Bill Frelick, 
senior policy analyst, U.S. Committee for Refugees; Carl Hampe, 
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Frank L. Morris, Sr., 
dean, Morgan State University; Anthony C. Moscato, director, 
Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of 
Justice; Karen K. Narasaki, executive director, National Asian 
Pacific American Legal Consortium; David North, independent 
immigration researcher; Robert Rector, senior policy analyst, 
Heritage Foundation; David Simcox, research director, Negative 
Population Growth; Dan Stein, executive director, Federation 
for American Immigration Reform; John Swenson, executive 
director, Migration and Refugee Services, on behalf of the U.S. 
Catholic Conference; Michael S. Teitelbaum, demographer and 
member, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform; Lawrence H. 
Thompson, principal deputy commissioner, Social Security 
Administration; and Raul Yzaguirre, president, National Council 
of La Raza.
    The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held a mark-up 
on H.R. 1915 on July 13, through July 19, 1995. H.R. 1915 was 
reported out of the Subcommittee on July 20, with instructions 
to re-introduce the legislation as a clean bill. H.R. 2202 was 
introduced on August 4, 1995.
    More than 40 amendments were considered by the Subcommittee 
in the course of its mark-up. None of these amendments altered 
the basic structure of the legislation. The most important 
substantive change was in the form of an amendment proposed by 
Rep. McCollum (FL) regarding asylum reform. The amendment 
reformed the asylum process by requiring that applications be 
filed within 30 days of arrival in the U.S., unless 
circumstances in alien's home country that relate to the 
alien's eligibility for asylum have fundamentally changed. The 
amendment also provided that an application not be accepted if 
the alien may be removed to a safe third country in which the 
alien would have access to a fair asylum process, and that 
asylum applications be adjudicated on a specific timetable that 
will result in completion of most cases within 6 months of 
filing. This amendment codified certain regulatory changes to 
the asylum system, as well as adding additional requirements to 
ensure the integrity of the asylum process.
    Other important substantive changes included the 
elimination of section 203 of H.R. 1915, relating to expanded 
civil asset forfeiture for aliens smuggling offenses, and the 
addition of a provision to make inadmissible any alien who had 
resided unlawfully in the U.S. for a period in excess of one 
year (time starting after the date of enactment) unless the 
alien had remained outside of the U.S. for a period of 10 
years.
    Other amendments included provisions relating to inservice 
training for the border patrol; the admission in conditional 
permanent resident status of certain grounds of exclusion from 
the U.S.; limiting liability for certain technical violations 
of paperwork requirements in the employment eligibility 
verification system; requiring verification of status prior to 
reimbursement for emergency medical services provided to 
illegal aliens; increasing authorizations for enforcement of 
immigration laws in the interior of the U.S.; and advising the 
President to negotiate and renegotiate prisoner transfer 
treaties.

                      full committee consideration

    On August 4, 1995, H.R. 2202 was introduced by 
Representative Lamar Smith and referred to the full Judiciary 
Committee (where it should be considered in lieu of H.R. 1915). 
H.R. 2202 also was referred to the Committee on National 
Security, Government Reform and Oversight, Ways and Means, and 
Banking and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker.
    On September 19, 1995, H.R. 2202 was re-referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees 
on Agriculture, Banking and Financial Services, Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, Government Reform and Oversight, 
National Security, and Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker.
    On September 19, 20, 21, and 27, 1995, and on October 11, 
12, 17, 18, and 24, 1995, the Committee on the Judiciary 
marked-up H.R. 2202. Numerous amendments were adopted and, on 
October 24, the Committee ordered, by a recorded vote of 23-10, 
H.R. 2202 favorably reported to the House, as amended.
    The Committee adopted 64 amendments to H.R. 2202 by voice 
vote, and take roll call votes on an additional 38 amendments, 
adopting 10 of these. Among the most important amendments were 
the following:
    Border Control.--Extended effective dates for new border 
crossing card requirements; required immigrants to establish 
proof of vaccination as a condition for entry.
    Removal of Criminal and Illegal Aliens.--Changed 
eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal to include 
aliens not lawfully admitted to the U.S. and to limit grants of 
cancellation of removal to 4,000 per year; modified waiver 
under section 212(i) of the INA; provided additional exceptions 
to the rule excluding aliens for 10 years if they have been 
unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 1 year; clarified 
that stowaways and aliens interdicted at sea and brought to the 
U.S. are to be subject to procedures for expedited removal, 
including screening of asylum claims; provided specific pay 
scale for immigration judges; provided for permanent exclusion 
of aliens removed from the U.S. on account of having been 
convicted on an aggravated felony; established new ground of 
inadmissibility for aliens who have renounced U.S. citizenship 
for the purpose of avoiding taxation; struck provisions 
increasing penalties for carriers who bring illegal aliens into 
the U.S.
    Asylum Reform.--Modified provisions to eliminate direct 
appeal from decisions of INS asylum officers to Federal courts 
of appeal; extended deadline for filing of asylum applications; 
extended refugee protection to aliens who have resisted 
implementation of coercive population control measures.
    Employer Sanctions and Verification.--Exempted employers of 
less than 4 employees from requirement to take part in 
electronic confirmation mechanism pilots; provided that 
implementation of the confirmation mechanism shall be limited 
to a series of pilot projects in 5 of the 7 States with the 
highest estimated population of unauthorized aliens and that 
such projects shall terminate not later than October 1, 1999, 
unless extended by Congress; required the Attorney General to 
submit annual reports on the pilot projects which may include 
analysis of whether the mechanism is reliable and easy to use, 
limits job losses due to inaccurate data, increases or 
decreases discrimination, protects individual privacy, and 
burdens employers; provided new effective date for amendments 
reducing the number of documents that may be presented by 
employees to establish identity and eligibility for employment; 
exempted from civil or criminal liability the action of any 
person taken in good faith reliance on information provided 
through the employment eligibility confirmation mechanism; 
provided that the confirmation mechanism shall confirm whether 
an individual has presented a social security account number of 
an alien identification number that is not valid for 
employment; provided that operation of the confirmation 
mechanism may be carried out by a nongovernmental entity 
designated by the Attorney General; required that the 
confirmation mechanism be designed to maximize reliability and 
ease of use, to respond to all inquiries and to register when 
such response is not possible; provided that if an employer 
attempts to make an inquiry within the required 3 days of 
employment and the confirmation mechanism has registered that 
not all inquiries were responded to during that time, the 
employer can meet requirements for making such inquiries and 
qualify for the defense from liability extended to those who 
use the confirmation mechanism, if the employer makes the 
inquiry on the first subsequent working day in which the 
confirmation mechanism registers no nonresponses; provided that 
the confirmation mechanism shall provide a confirmation or 
tentative nonconfirmation of an individual's employment 
eligibility within 3 days of the initial inquiry and that in 
the case of a tentative nonconfirmation, the Attorney General, 
in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security and 
the Commissioner of the INS, shall provided an expedited time 
period, not more than 10 days, within which final confirmation 
or nonconfirmation must be provided; required that within 180 
days of enactment, the Attorney General shall issue regulations 
providing for the electronic storage of I-9 forms; and provided 
that an employer's request for more or different documents than 
are required under section 274A(b) of the INA shall constitute 
an unfair immigration-related employment practice if done for 
the purpose of discriminating.
    Legal Immigration.--Created a new second employment-based 
immigration preference for outstanding professors and 
researchers and multinational executives and managers; restored 
a diversity admissions category more restricted than that in 
current law; provided a waiver from the requirement for labor 
certification for certain aliens who are members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional 
ability if such waiver is necessary to advance the national 
interest in one of several specific areas; struck the 
requirement that at least 50 percent of an immigrant's sons and 
daughters are lawful permanent residents or citizens residing 
in the United States in order for the immigrant to be admitted 
as the parent of a United States citizen; created a category 
for the admission as immigrants of the adult sons and daughters 
of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents if 
such immigrants are under age 26, never-married, childless, and 
considered as dependents for Federal income tax purposes, 
within set numerical limits; changed the experience 
requirements for immigrants admitted as professionals and 
skilled workers; provided that work experience obtained while 
an alien is unauthorized to work in the United States shall not 
count to meet the experience requirements for immigrants 
admitted as professionals and skilled workers; provided for the 
admission as immigrants of certain adult disabled children of 
United States nationals and lawful permanent residents; 
provided that not less than 25,000 immigrant visas will be 
available for the parents of United States citizens; struck 
provisions for the adjustment of visa numbers for professionals 
and skilled workers to offset excess family admissions; 
provided for use of parole authority to enable prosecution of 
alien criminals in U.S. courts.
    Public Benefits.--Removed from the prohibition on receipt 
of public benefits by illegal aliens family violence services, 
school lunch and child nutrition benefits, and emergency 
relief; modified rules regarding attribution of sponsor's 
income to immigrant; provided that active-duty military may 
sponsor an immigrant if their incomes is 100 percent of the 
poverty level; provided that if a sponsor is not able to meet 
income requirements, that a third party willing to provide 
sponsorship may sign the affidavit of support, with joint and 
several liability for the sponsored alien.

                       consideration by the house

    On March 4, 1996, the Committee favorably reported H.R. 
2202, as amended, to the House. (H. Rept. 104-469, part 1).
    On March 7, 1996, H.R. 2202 was reported favorably to the 
House, as amended, by the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. (H. Rept. 104-469, part 2). On March 8, 1996, H.R. 
2202 was reported favorably to the House, as amended, by the 
Committee on Agriculture (H. Rept. 104-469, part 3), and the 
Committees on Banking and Financial Services, Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, National Security, and Ways and 
Means were discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2202. 
On a later date (March 21, 1996) a supplemental report to 
accompany H.R. 2202 was filed in the House by the Committee on 
Agriculture. (H. Rept. 104-469, part 4). The Committee on 
Agriculture amended H.R. 2202 to include a program for the 
admission of temporary ``guest workers'' to be employed in the 
agricultural sector.
    On March 14, 1996, the Committee on Rules reported H. Res. 
384, the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2202. (H. 
Rept. 104-483). On March 19, 1996, the House adopted the rule 
by voice vote (after agreeing to order the previous question on 
the rule by a recorded vote of 233-152). The rule provided for 
the consideration of H.R. 2202 without the amendments made by 
the Committee on Agriculture. The rule also included an 
amendment that made participation in the pilot programs for the 
new employment verification mechanism voluntary for employers.
    On March 19, 20 and 21, 1996, H.R. 2202 was considered by 
the House. Numerous amendments were adopted. On March 21, 1996, 
the House rejected, by a recorded vote of 188-231, a motion to 
recommit H.R. 2202 to the Committee on the Judiciary with 
instructions. The House then passed H.R. 2202 as amended by a 
recorded vote of 333-87.
    The most significant amendment, adopted by the House on a 
vote of 238-183, struck the provisions in Title V relating to 
reform of the family-preference and employment-based legal 
immigration categories, and to reform of refugees, parole, and 
humanitarian admissions. Another significant amendment, adopted 
on a vote of 257-163, authorized States to deny public 
education benefits to aliens not lawfully present in the U.S.
    Other significant amendments: allowed for the deputization 
by the Attorney General of State and local authorities to 
assist in immigration enforcement functions; clarified 
provisions regarding the removal of stowaways; tightened 
waivers of deportation available to deportable aliens who have 
committed crimes; restored provisions parallel to current INA 
section 243(h) (withholding of deportation); permitted the 
early deportation of non-violent offenders prior to completion 
of their prison terms, with stiff penalties for re-entry into 
the U.S.; permitted Federal reimbursement for costs of 
incarcerating criminal aliens to be paid to counties and 
municipalities as well as to States; extended the deadline for 
filing asylum claims to 180 days; clarified the eligibility 
requirements for aliens to receive public housing benefits; 
established certification requirements for foreign health care 
workers admitted to the U.S.; clarified affidavit of support 
requirements for joint and several liability; exempted Head 
Start from list of benefits barred to illegal aliens; required 
the Comptroller General to evaluate on an annual basis the 
Administration's efforts to deter illegal entries into the 
U.S.; provided that worksite enforcement of employer sanctions 
should be a top priority of the INS; and permitted the 
adjustment to lawful permanent resident status of certain 
natives of Hungary and Poland who had been paroled into the 
U.S.

                  senate and conference consideration

    On May 2, 1996, the Senate passed H.R. 2202 (with an 
amendment substituting the language of S. 1664 as amended by 
the Senate) by a recorded vote of 97-3.
    On May 13, 1996, the Senate insisted on its amendment and 
requested a conference, appointing as conferees: Senators 
Hatch, Simpson, Grassley, Kyl, Specter, Thurmond, Kennedy, 
Leahy, Simon, Kohl, and Feinstein.
    On September 11, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment and agreed to a conference, appointing as conferees: 
Representatives Hyde, Smith of Texas, Gallegly, McCollum, 
Goodlatte, Bryant of Tennessee, Bono, Goodling, Cunningham, 
McKeon, Shaw, Conyers, Frank, Berman, Bryant of Texas, Becerra, 
Martinez, Green, and Jacobs.
    On September 11, 1996, the House rejected, by a recorded 
vote of 181-236, a motion to instruct the conferees on the part 
of the House.
    On September 24, 1996, the conferees agreed to file a 
conference report, and the report was filed. (H. Rept. 104-
828).
    On September 24, 1996, the House Committee on Rules 
reported a rule (H. Res. 528) providing for the consideration 
of the conference report on H.R. 2202, waiving all points of 
order. (H. Rept. 104-829).
    On September 25, 1996, the House, by a recorded vote of 
254-165, adopted the rule; by a recorded vote of 179-247, 
rejected a motion to recommit H.R. 2202 to the conference 
committee with instructions; and by a recorded vote of 305-123, 
agreed to the conference report on H.R. 2202.
    On September 26, 1996, the Senate considered the conference 
report on H.R. 2202, renamed the ``Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.''

                      final passage and enactment

    On September 28, 1996, a modified version of the conference 
report on H.R. 2202 was included as Division C of the 
conference report filed in the House on H.R. 3610 (making 
fiscal year 1997 omnibus consolidated appropriations) (H. Rept. 
104-863), and by a recorded vote of 370-37 (with 1 present), 
agreed to that conference report.
    On September 30, 1996, the Senate, by voice vote, agreed to 
the conference report on H.R. 3610, and the measure was 
approved by the President. (Pub. L. 104-208).
    Following is a summary of the legislation as amended by the 
Conference Report and by Pub. L. 104-208:
    Title I authorizes 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and 
directs their deployment to border sectors with the highest 
levels of illegal immigration. The title authorizes 
improvements of barriers to deter illegal border-crossing, 
including a 14-mile triple fence and roads from the Pacific 
Ocean eastward. It requires improvement of security features on 
border crossing identification cards to counter fraud. It 
creates a new civil penalty for illegal entry into the United 
States and authorizes funds for the fingerprinting of all 
illegal aliens apprehended anywhere in the U.S. Additional land 
border inspectors are authorized to facilitate legal entry into 
the U.S. The title expands preinspection at foreign airports of 
passengers bound for the U.S. It authorizes 900 new INS 
investigators to enforce laws against alien smuggling and 
against the knowing employment of illegal aliens, and an 
additional 300 investigators to track down and apprehend visa 
overstayers. Finally, the title grants new authority for the 
Attorney General to enter into agreements with State or local 
governments for the use of State or local law enforcement 
officers to apprehend, detain, and transport illegal aliens.
    Title II extends RICO (racketeering) liability to alien 
smuggling and document fraud offenses. It expands criminal 
liability for alien smuggling and document fraud and increases 
penalties for both. New civil liability and penalties for 
document fraud are established. The title establishes new 
criminal penalties for those who prepare false applications for 
immigration benefits or who make false claims to U.S. 
citizenship.
    Title III expands and increases the bars to re-entry into 
the U.S. for those who violate immigration laws by illegally 
entering or overstaying visas. The title repeals the ``entry 
doctrine,'' which now gives illegal border-crossers expanded 
rights in deportation proceedings. It overhauls all provisions 
relating to apprehension, adjudication, and removal in the case 
of illegal aliens. Exclusion and deportation procedures are 
merged into one form of removal proceeding. Aliens who are 
present in the U.S. without having been lawfully admitted will 
be treated as applicants for admission and will have the burden 
of proof in immigration court proceedings. The title narrows 
eligibility for discretionary relief from removal and places 
strict limits on voluntary departure to ensure that aliens 
actually leave the country. It limits the appealability of 
removal orders, especially in the case of criminal aliens and 
those seeking discretionary relief from removal. It mandates 
detention of aliens ordered removed and requires their removal 
from the country within 90 days. The title mandates the 
detention of most criminal aliens pending removal proceedings 
and authorizes an increase in INS detention space to 9,000 beds 
(and requires periodic reports to Congress on use of detention 
space and the need for additional space). It broadens the 
definition of ``conviction'' for immigration law purposes to 
include all aliens who have admitted to or been found to have 
committed crimes. This will make it easier to remove criminal 
aliens, regardless of specific procedures in States for 
deferred adjudication or suspension of sentences. Finally, the 
title establishes civil penalties for those who fail to depart 
under order of removal, and enhances existing penalties for 
failure to depart, illegal entry, and passport and visa 
offenses.
    Title IV establishes three pilot programs, voluntary for 
most private employers, to enhance the ability of employers to 
confirm the identity and employment eligibility of new workers. 
All pilot programs are based on expeditious verification 
through the cross-checking of new employees' names and social 
security numbers (and INS-issued numbers) against U.S. 
government records. The basic pilot program will operate in at 
least five of the seven States with the highest populations of 
illegal aliens. Of the other two programs, one waives certain 
verification requirements when new employees attest to being 
U.S. citizens, and one is based on the use of machine-readable 
documents. These last two pilots will operate in certain of 
those States which issue identification documents with 
enumerated features. The pilot programs will lapse after four 
years of operation unless reauthorized by Congress. The title 
allows employers the opportunity to correct without penalty 
``paperwork'' errors committed in complying with the employment 
eligibility verification procedures contained in section 274A 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It reduces the number 
and types of documents that new employees may present to 
employers in complying with section 274A. Finally, the title 
limits national origin ``discrimination'' penalties against 
employers who ask new employees to present more than the 
documents minimally-required. Employers would have to intend to 
discriminate to be liable.
    Title V requires sponsors of (family-preference) immigrants 
to sign legally-enforceable affidavits to provide financial 
support if needed. The affidavits will be enforceable as 
contracts until the immigrants sponsored have worked for a 
certain period of time or become citizens. The title authorizes 
government agencies and government-funded entities to sue 
sponsors for reimbursement of means-tested public benefits 
provided to immigrants. It requires that sponsors either 
demonstrate an income of at least 125% of the poverty level or 
find co-sponsors who do and who will agree to the same 
financial obligations. Finally, the title strengthens 
verification requirements for public housing benefits and 
streamlines procedures for removing ineligible aliens from 
taxpayer-subsidized housing.
    Title VI accomplishes a variety of goals, including 
streamlining asylum procedures and requiring that an asylum 
claim be presented within one year of an alien's arrival in the 
U.S. (unless the applicant demonstrates changed conditions or 
extraordinary circumstances). An amendment to the refugee 
definition accords recognition to persecution for resistance to 
coercive population control methods. The title improves the 
Visa Waiver Pilot Program and extends its operation to 
September 30, 1997. It also provides incentives to States to 
develop counterfeit and fraud-resistant birth certificates and 
driver's licenses, and provides for the development of a 
prototype counterfeit-resistant social security card.

The ``Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1995''

    The Committee was sequentially referred H.R. 927 which took 
proactive steps to encourage an early end to the Castro regime 
in Cuba, directed the President to prepare to support 
transition and democratic governments in Cuba, and provides 
additional protection for the rights of U.S. nationals whose 
property has been illegally confiscated by the Cuban 
government. A number of the bill's provisions came under the 
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. 
Title III of the bill provided that any person who, at a 
certain point after the enactment of the bill, traffics in 
property confiscated by the post-revolution Cuban government 
shall be liable to any United States national who owns the 
property, including a property owner who was not a U.S. 
national at the time of confiscation (Action in U.S. courts can 
be brought only for claims of over $50,000.). Title IV provided 
that the Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, and the 
Attorney General shall exclude from the United States, any 
alien (and certain family members) who after the date of 
enactment of H.R. 927 confiscates, directs or oversees the 
confiscation of, converts, or traffics in property owned by a 
U.S. national. Also, certain officers, principals, and 
shareholders of entities involved in confiscation or 
trafficking (and certain family members) shall be denied visas 
and be excludable. These provisions of H.R. 927 will safeguard 
the rights of American nationals and facilitate their being 
made whole. They are required because the current international 
judicial system lacks fully effective remedies for the wrongful 
confiscation of property and for unjust enrichment from the use 
of wrongfully confiscated property by governments and private 
entities at the expense of the rightful owners. Also, these 
provisions will discourage foreign investors from taking up the 
Cuban government's offer of the opportunity to purchase, 
manage, or enter joint ventures using property and assets 
confiscated from U.S. nationals.
    H.R. 927 was referred to the Committee on International 
Relations, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary 
and to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Banking and 
Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined 
by the Speaker.
    On July 24, 1995, The Committee on International Relations 
reported H.R. 927 favorably as amended to the House. (H. Rept. 
104-202, part 1).
    On August 4, 1995, the Committees on Ways and Means, the 
Judiciary, and Banking and Financial Services were discharged 
from further consideration of H.R. 927.
    On September 19, 1995, the Committee on Rules granted a 
modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 
927 (H. Rept. 104-253), and on September 20, 1995, the House, 
by a recorded vote of 304-118, adopted the rule.
    On September 20 and 21, 1995, H.R. 927 was considered by 
the House, and passed as amended by a recorded vote of 294-130 
on September 21.
    On October 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 19, 1995, H.R. 927 was 
considered by the Senate.
    On October 19, 1995, the Senate passed H.R. 927 as amended 
by a recorded vote of 74-24.
    On November 7, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment and requested a conference, appointing as conferees: 
Representatives Gilman, Burton, Ros-Lehtinen, King, Diaz-
Balart, Hamilton, Gejdenson, Torricelli, and Menendez.
    On December 14, 1995, the Senate insisted on its amendment 
to H.R. 927 and agreed to a conference, appointing as 
conferees: Senators Helms, Coverdell, Thompson, Snowe, Pell, 
Dodd, and Robb.
    On March 1, 1996, the conference report on H.R. 927 was 
filed in the House by Representative Gilman. (H. Rept. 104-
468).
    On March 5, 1996, the Senate agreed, by a recorded vote of 
74-22, to the conference report on H.R. 927.
    On March 5, 1996, a rule providing for the consideration of 
the conference report on H.R. 927, was reported. (H. Rept. 104-
470), and on March 6, 1996, the House adopted the rule by a 
recorded vote of 347-67.
    On March 6, 1996, the House, by a recorded vote of 336-86 
(with 1 present), agreed to the conference report on H.R. 927.
    On March 12, 1996, the measure was approved by the 
President. (Pub. L. 104-114).

A Bill Extending the Period of Stay in the United States for Certain 
        Nurses

    Consistent with the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989, 
the INS stopped accepting petitions for nonimmigrant status 
under the ``H-1A'' visa program (under which aliens could come 
to the United States to perform services as registered nurses) 
after September 1, 1995. Because of a continuing nursing 
shortage in certain rural and inner-city areas of the United 
States, S. 2197 allowed aliens who entered the U.S. under the 
H-1A program, and were within the U.S. on or after September 1, 
1995, and on S. 2197's date of enactment, to stay in the U.S. 
and work as registered nurses through September 30, 1997.
    On October 3, 1996, S. 2197 passed the Senate, as amended, 
by unanimous consent.
    On October 4, 1996, S. 2197 passed the House by unanimous 
consent.
    On October 11, 1996, S. 2197 was approved by the President. 
(Pub. L. 104-302).

Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act to update references 
        in the classification of children for purposes of United States 
        immigration laws

    Under section 101(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
prior to the enactment of S. 457, a ``child'' was defined, in 
part, by reference to whether the child was ``legitimate'' or 
``illegitimate.'' This usage reflected an understanding that 
the terms ``legitimate'' and ``illegitimate'' were synonymous, 
respectively, with ``born in wedlock'' and ``born out of 
wedlock.'' Since the enactment of section 101(b), many foreign 
nations have removed the distinction in their laws between 
``legitimate'' and ``illegitimate'' children; thus, children 
born out of wedlock in such nations were deemed to be 
``legitimate'' for purposes of section 101(b). To maintain the 
distinction (which is particularly important in cases involving 
the release for adoption of a foreign child) this legislation 
replaced the terms ``legitimate child'' and ``illegitimate 
child'' with ``child born in wedlock'' and ``child born out of 
wedlock'' in section 101(b).
    A provision similar to this legislation was introduced as 
part of H.R. 1915 and approved by the Subcommittee on July 20, 
1995. The provision also was included in H.R. 2202, introduced 
on August 4, 1995, and approved by the Committee on October 24, 
1995. This legislation, S. 457, originated in the Senate, where 
it was reported favorably (no written report) by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on June 22, 1995, and passed on July 17, 
1995. The legislation was referred to the House Committee on 
the Judiciary on July 18, 1995. The Committee was discharged 
from further consideration on October 30, 1995, and the 
legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on the 
same day. The legislation was signed into law on November 15, 
1995 (Public Law 104-51).

``Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 
        1996''

    H.R. 4036 requires the President to submit a semi-annual 
report to the appropriate congressional committees concerning 
the methods employed by the Government of Cuba to enforce the 
September 1994 agreement to restrict the emigration of Cubans 
to the United States and the treatment of persons returned to 
Cuba pursuant to the United States-Cuba agreement of May 1995; 
extends provisions regarding the adjudication of applicants for 
refugee status (the ``Lautenberg Amendment'') through September 
30, 1997; requires that in carrying out cultural and 
educational exchange programs, the United States Information 
Agency (USIA) shall provide opportunities for participation by 
human rights and democracy leaders in countries such as China, 
Vietnam, Cambodia, Tibet, and Burma; requires that the USIA 
shall establish programs of educational and cultural exchange 
between the United States and the people of Tibet, and that for 
fiscal year 1997, the USIA shall make available at least 30 
scholarships for Tibetan students and professionals who are 
outside Tibet, and at least 15 scholarships to Burmese students 
and professionals who are outside Burma; amends section 116(d) 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require that reports 
regarding human rights conditions in foreign nations include 
information regarding the votes of each member of the United 
Nations Commission on Human Rights on country-specific and 
thematic matters, and the extent to which each country has 
extended protection to refugees, including the provision of 
first asylum and resettlement; prohibits the President from 
providing specified economic or military assistance to the 
Government of Mauritania unless the President certifies to 
Congress that such Government has taken specific steps to 
eliminate chattel slavery; and authorizes the Secretary of 
Education to issue grants to the Claiborne Pell Institute for 
International Relations and Public Policy, the George Bush 
School of Government and Public Service, and the Edmund S. 
Muskie Foundation.
    The legislation was introduced on September 5, 1996, and 
referred to the Committee on International Relations and the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On September 25, 1996, the two 
committees were discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
4036. The legislation passed the House on September 25, 1996 
under suspension of the rules, with the title amended to read 
``Making certain provisions with respect to internationally 
recognized human rights, refugees, and foreign relations.'' The 
legislation was passed by the Senate with amendments on October 
3, 1996. The House agreed to the Senate amendments on October 
4, 1996. The legislation was signed into law on October 19, 
1996 as Public Law 104-319.

                           international law

``War Crimes Act of 1996''

    H.R. 3680 carries out the international obligations of the 
United States under the four Geneva Conventions for the 
Protection of Victims of War, dated August 12, 1949 (and 
ratified by the United States on July 14, 1955), to provide 
criminal penalties for certain war crimes. The bill provides 
that whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, 
commits a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions (where the 
perpetrator or the victim is a member of the armed forces of 
the United States or a national of the United States) shall be 
fined or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and 
if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the 
penalty of death.
    On November 7, 1995, Representative Walter B. Jones, Jr., 
introduced H.R. 2587, the ``War Crimes Act of 1995.''
    On June 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2587. Witnesses included Michael 
Matheson, principal deputy legal advisor, U.S. Department of 
State; John H. McNeil, senior deputy general counsel 
(international affairs and intelligence), U.S. Department of 
Defense; the Honorable Robinson O. Everett, senior judge, U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and professor of laws at 
the Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security at the Duke 
University School of Law; Monroe Leigh, Steptoe and Johnson; 
and Mark S. Zaid, Law Office of Mark S. Zaid.
    On June 19, 1996, Representative Jones introduced H.R. 
3680, the ``War Crimes Act of 1996,'' the successor bill to 
H.R. 2587.
    On June 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims by voice vote ordered H.R. 3680 favorably reported to 
the full Judiciary Committee. On July 16, 1996, the Committee 
on the Judiciary, by a recorded vote of 23-2, ordered H.R. 3680 
favorably reported to the House.
    On July 24, 1996, H.R. 3680 was reported favorably to the 
House. (H. Rept. 104-698), and on July 29, 1996, H.R. 3680 
passed the House by voice vote under suspension of the rules.
    On August 2, 1996, H.R. 3680 passed the Senate by voice 
vote.
    On August 21, 1996, H.R. 3680 was approved by the President 
as Public Law 104-192.

                                 claims

Reimbursement of White House Travel Office Employees Legal Expenses and 
        Related Fees

    On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims considered H.R. 2937, a bill for the reimbursement of 
legal expenses and related fees incurred by former employees of 
the White House Travel Office.
    H.R. 2937 allowed for the reimbursement of the legal 
expenses and related fees incurred by the former employees of 
the White House Travel Office whose employment in that office 
was terminated on May 19, 1993. Upon submission of 
documentation verifying the former employees legal expenses and 
related fees incurred with respect to that termination, the 
Secretary of the Treasury could reimburse such costs out of 
money not otherwise appropriated.
    On May 19, 1993, all seven White House Travel Office 
employees were fired. The White House indicated that the 
firings were predicated by an audit performed pursuant to the 
Vice President's National Performance Review. According to the 
White House, the audit revealed mismanagement and unacceptable 
accounting practices within the Travel Office. At that time, 
the White House also stated that the FBI was looking into 
possible criminal violations by the seven employees. Several 
separate investigations uncovered a concerted effort by former 
associates and friends of the President and First Lady to 
pursue travel and aviation business controlled within the White 
House. As a result of the accusations put forward by these 
associates and the subsequent FBI investigation, the seven 
Travel Office employees suffered public and private humiliation 
and incurred extensive legal expenses in their attempt to 
defend themselves.
    In October 1993, a provision was placed in the 
Transportation Appropriations bill to pay $150,000 for the 
legal bills of the five White House Travel Office employees who 
were placed on administrative leave and subsequently 
transferred to other positions within the Federal government. 
However, the $150,000 was not enough to completely cover the 
five employees' legal expenses, and no provision was made for 
the two other employees' legal expenses, because they were 
still under investigation.
    After the conclusion of the investigations of the two other 
employees, neither was found guilty of any of the charges put 
forth by the White House and the Department of Justice.
    The issue here was not whether attorneys fees should be 
paid for any individual fired for cause and later exonerated. 
If false accusations by certain individuals who misused their 
authority within the White House had not been made, there would 
have been no FBI investigation and none of the attorneys fees 
would have been incurred.
    In May 1994, the General Accounting Office (GAO) sent their 
report to Congress on White House Travel Office operations. In 
that report, GAO indicated that while senior White House 
officials said the terminations were based on ``findings of 
serious financial management weaknesses, we noted that 
individuals who had personal and business interests in the 
Travel Office created the momentum that ultimately led to the 
examination of the Travel Office operations.'' GAO also cited 
the White House Management Review's recognition that ``the 
public acknowledgment of the criminal investigation had the 
effect of tarnishing the employees' reputations, and the 
existence of the criminal investigation caused the employees to 
retain legal counsel, reportedly at considerable expense.''
    On the basis of these facts, the Committee felt in the 
interest of equity, these particular individuals' attorneys 
fees should be reimbursed by the United States.
    There was discussion as to what type of precedent was being 
set by the payment of attorneys fees in this bill. It was made 
clear that it was not the Committee's intent that this 
legislation set a precedent that the attorney fees of any 
individual fired for cause and later exonerated should be paid. 
This was a unique case and the Committee believed each monetary 
claim against the United States should be judged on a case-by-
case basis. Another point of discussion was the definition of 
attorneys fees. The Committee's intent was that the guidelines 
for appropriate attorneys fees set out by Judge George 
MacKinnon, Presiding Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit, Division for the purpose of 
Appointing Independent Counsels, in several independent counsel 
attorneys fees decisions should be applied to this situation. 
Therefore, the legislation used the term ``attorney fees and 
costs'', the term that Judge MacKinnon was called upon to 
interpret in the independent counsel cases. This also conformed 
with the standards used by the Department of Transportation 
General Counsel in determining appropriate attorneys fees when 
disbursing the previously appropriated $150,000 to five of the 
employees.
    On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims met and ordered reported the bill, H.R. 2937, by a voice 
vote. On March 12, 1996, the Committee met and ordered reported 
the bill H.R. 2937 with amendment by voice vote. Under 
suspension of the rules, the House passed the bill, as amended, 
on March 19, 1996, by a vote of 350-43.
    H.R. 2937 was placed on the Senate Calendar on April 25, 
1996. The Senate attempted to complete consideration on the 
bill without success on May 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14, 1996.
    On September 28, 1996, the language of H.R. 2937, as 
modified, was placed in the conference report (H. Rept. 104-
863) on H.R. 3610, Making Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations 
for Fiscal Year 1997. On that same day, the House agreed to the 
conference report by a vote of 370-37 with 1 present. On 
September 30, 1996, the Senate agreed to the conference report 
by voice vote, and the President signed the bill, as Public Law 
104-208.

Pueblo of Isleta Indian Land Claims

    The Committee reported H.R. 740 which permits the Pueblo of 
Isleta to file a claim in the United States Court of Federal 
Claims for certain aboriginal lands acquired from the Tribe by 
the United States. The Court's jurisdiction would apply only to 
claims accruing on or before August 13, 1946, as provided in 
the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA).
    The Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe asserted that a land 
claim was never filed by the tribe based on aboriginal use and 
occupancy under the ICCA because it received erroneous advice 
regarding the types of claims that could be filed. Tribal 
officials were told by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that 
specific documents must be produced in order to mount a claim, 
and were not informed that a claim could be based on aboriginal 
use and occupancy. As a result, the tribe filed only a limited 
and unsuccessful claim in 1951 seeking compensation for some 
17,000 acres that were covered by specific land grant 
documents. The tribe states that no claims were filed based on 
aboriginal use due to the misdirected advice of the BIA and the 
tribal officials' lack of familiarity with the provisions of 
the ICCA.
    The Pueblo of Isleta Tribe sought the opportunity to 
present the merits of its land claims, which otherwise would be 
barred as untimely, in the United States Court of Federal 
Claims. The tribe cited numerous precedents for conferring 
jurisdiction under similar circumstances, such as with the case 
of the Zuni Indian Tribe in 1978.
    On May 23, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
ordered reported the bill, H.R. 740, by a voice vote. On June 
11, 1996, the Committee ordered reported favorably the bill 
without amendment by voice vote.
    On July 29, 1996, H.R. 740 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote. The Senate passed H.R. 
740 by unanimous consent on September 4, 1996. The bill was 
signed by the President on September 18, 1996, as Public Law 
104-198.

                   Action on Other Public Legislation

                              IMMIGRATION

Membership of U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform

    The purpose of H.R. 962 was to amend section 141(a)(1) to 
expand the membership of the Commission on Immigration Reform 
from 9 members to 11 members. Also, the bill designated 
Hamilton Fish, Jr., former Member of Congress and Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
of Representatives and Romano Mazzoli, former Member of 
Congress and Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Law, 
Immigration, and Refugees of the Committee on the Judiciary of 
the House of Representatives to serve on the Commission.
    H.R. 962 was introduced by the Chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Immigration and Claims, Congressman Lamar Smith, on February 
15, 1995. On March 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims ordered the bill favorably reported to the full 
Judiciary Committee, without amendment.
    On March 22, 1995, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered 
the bill favorably reported to the full House, without 
amendment. The bill was formally reported on June 8, 1995 (H. 
Rept. 104-135).
    Also, on June 8, 1995, H.R. 962 was brought to the House 
floor under Suspension of the Rules and passed the House with a 
technical amendment.
    H.R. 962 was referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary which took no action on the legislation.

Authorize States to Deny Public Education Benefits to Illegal Alien 
        Children

    The purpose of H.R. 4134 was to authorize States to deny 
public education benefits or to charge tuition to aliens not 
lawfully present in the United States who are not enrolled in 
public schools during the period beginning September 1, 1996, 
and ending July 1, 1997. The measure was introduced on 
September 24, 1996, by Congressman Elton Gallegly, a member of 
the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
    On September 24, 1996, the Committee on Rules, granted a 
closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4134. (H. 
Res. 530)
    On September 25, 1996, the House adopted the rule (H. Res. 
530).
    On September 25, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary and 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities were 
discharged from further consideration of the bill, and the 
House passed the measure, 254-175.
    H.R. 4134 was ordered placed on the Senate Calendar but no 
further action was taken in the 104th Congress.

A Bill Providing for Certain Changes with Respect to Requirements for a 
        Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit

    Currently, American small vessel operators and their 
passengers returning to the United States from Canadian waters 
must either enter through a port of entry or possess I-68 forms 
(Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit) issued by the INS for $16 
and good for one year. In order not to inhibit recreational and 
tourist boating excursions from American shores which often 
cross into Canadian waters while at the same time not 
facilitating unauthorized entry into the United States, H.R. 
4165 provides that small boat passengers (who are neither 
owners nor operators) on short trips between the U.S. and 
Canada need not obtain permits if carrying U.S. passports for 
the duration of their trips.
    On September 25, 1996, H.R. 4165 was introduced by 
Representative Hoke. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
    On September 28, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4165.
    Also, on September 28, 1996, H.R. 4165 as amended was 
called up by the House under suspension of the rules. The bill 
passed the House by voice vote.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4165 during the 104th 
Congress.

To Confer Honorary Citizenship of the United States On Agnes Gonxha 
        Bojaxhiu, Also Known as Mother Teresa

    The Committee considered H.J. Res. 191--to confer honorary 
United States citizenship upon Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, also 
known as Mother Teresa, in recognition of her many humanitarian 
efforts around the world.
    Honorary United States citizenship has only been bestowed 
on individuals three times in our history. As stated by the 
Committee in the past, any decision to grant honorary 
citizenship is unique and cannot be treated as a precedent. 
``Honorary citizenship'' is a symbolic gesture. It does not 
grant any additional legal rights in the United States or in 
international law. It also does not impose additional duties or 
responsibilities, in the United States or internationally, on 
the honoree.
    This resolution contained statements defining the 
extraordinary act of conferring honorary citizenship and 
acknowledging the many efforts made by Mother Teresa which are 
the basis for granting her honorary United States citizenship.
    The resolution acknowledged Mother Teresa's tireless work 
with orphaned and abandoned children, the poor, the sick, and 
the dying; that she founded the Missionaries of Charity in 
1950, and has taken in those who have been rejected as 
``unacceptable'' and cared for them when no one else would, 
regardless of their race, color, creed, or condition. The 
membership of her congregation has several thousand sisters and 
brothers around the world working with the poor, orphaned, 
disabled, sick, and dying to provide them with sustenance, 
medical assistance and education.
    This resolution further noted that Mother Teresa has 
received numerous honors, including the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize 
and the 1985 Presidential Medal of Freedom.
    Mother Teresa has worked in areas all over the world, 
including the United States, to provide comfort to the world's 
neediest. She has affirmed more so than any other single person 
of our age, and as few persons have throughout the course of 
human history, the intrinsic value and dignity of every human 
life.
    Mother Teresa through her Missionaries of Charity has 
established many soup kitchens, emergency shelters for women, 
shelters for unwed mothers, shelters for men, after-school and 
summer camp programs for children, homes for the dying, prison 
ministry, nursing homes, and shut-in ministry within the United 
States.
    For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Committee 
believed it was appropriate to bestow upon Mother Teresa our 
country's highest honor.
    On September 11, 1996, the Committee ordered reported 
favorably the joint resolution H.J. Res. 191, without amendment 
by voice vote. On September 17, 1996, under suspension of the 
rules, the House passed the resolution, as amended, by a vote 
of 405-0.
    On September 18, 1996, the Senate passed H.J. Res. 191. The 
President signed the resolution into law as Public Law 104-218 
on October 1, 1996.

                                 CLAIMS

``Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1996''

    On September 19, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 1023--the ``Ricky Ray Hemophilia 
Relief Fund Act of 1995''.
    H.R. 1023, the ``Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 
1995'': 1) found that the Federal government failed to fulfill 
its responsibility to properly regulate the blood-products 
industry, and thus was accountable for individuals exposure to 
the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) virus; and 2) 
provided ``compassionate payments'' for claims by individuals 
with blood-clotting disorders, such as hemophilia, who 
contracted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) due to 
contaminated blood products.
    The bill would establish a $1 billion ``Ricky Ray 
Hemophilia Relief Fund,'' which would fund the payments. Each 
eligible individual would receive a $125,000 payment. The 
following persons would be eligible for this payment: (1) those 
with a blood-clotting disorder who were treated with blood-
clotting agents at any time during the period beginning on 
January 1, 1980 and ending on December 31, 1987; (2) those who 
are the lawful spouses of persons described in (1)--or a former 
lawful spouse who was a lawful spouse of a person described in 
(1) at any time after such person was treated with blood-
clotting agents during the 1980-1987 period; or (3) those who 
acquired the HIV infection through perinatal transmission from 
a parent who is an individual described in (1) or (2). In the 
case of a deceased individual, payment shall be made to the 
estate or to the surviving spouse, children, or parents, in 
that order.
    An estimated 8,000 to 10,000 people with hemophilia were 
infected with HIV in the late 1970s and early 1980s. H.R. 1023 
was based on the belief that the government failed in its 
regulatory responsibility to protect the blood supply, and 
therefore contributed to the HIV infection of the hemophilia 
community and their families.
    On July 27, 1982, the Department of Health and Human 
Services held an open forum to discuss whether three cases of 
Pnumocystic carinii pneumonia reported in hemophilia A patients 
were related to the opportunistic infections seen in gay men. 
Participants in that meeting included the Center for Disease 
Control, the Food and Drug Administration, blood products 
industry representatives, the National Hemophilia Foundation, 
the American Red Cross, the National Gay Task Force and various 
blood banking and public health organizations. At that meeting, 
the Center for Disease Control indicated there was a 
possibility that this unknown disease could be blood-borne. The 
opinion of the sponsor of the bill, which is reflected in the 
findings in H.R. 1023, was that the actions taken by the 
Government from that point were not sufficient to protect the 
blood supply.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1023 in the 104th 
Congress.

                            Federal Charters

Subcommittee Policy on New Federal Charters

    On February 8, 1995, 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 102d and 
103d Congresses, 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 103d 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 sent 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.

Amendment to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Charter

    S. 257 a bill to amend the federal charter of the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars (VFW) charter was discharged by unanimous 
consent from the Judiciary Committee. The amendment allowed 
veterans who served honorably on the Korean peninsula or in its 
territorial waters for not less than 30 consecutive day, or a 
total of 60 day, after June 30, 1949, to become members of the 
VFW. Because this was a non-controversial matter, hearings and 
consideration by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and 
the Committee on the Judiciary were unnecessary.
    S. 257 was discharged by unanimous consent from the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and passed by the Senate on February 10, 
1995.
    On February 28, 1995, the bill was discharged from the 
Judiciary Committee and called up in the House by unanimous 
consent. It was passed by the House that day by voice vote.
    The bill was signed by the President on March 7, 1995, as 
Public Law 104-3.

           Private Claims and Private Immigration Legislation

    During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims received referral of 47 private claims bills and 14 
private immigration bills. The Subcommittee held no hearings on 
these bills. The Subcommittee recommended 8 private claims 
bills and 3 private immigration bills to the full Committee. 
The Committee ordered 8 private claims bills and 2 private 
immigration bills reported favorably to the House.
    The House passed 8 private claims bills and 2 private 
immigration bills reported by the Committee. Of the 8 private 
claims bill and 2 private immigration bills, 2 private claims 
bills and 2 private immigration bills were passed by the Senate 
and signed into law by the President. Six bills were still 
pending in the Senate at the close of the 104th Congress.
    One private bill ordered reported by the full Committee was 
not approved by the full House prior to the close of the 104th 
Congress

                          Oversight Activities

                              IMMIGRATION

Management Practices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

    On February 8, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on management practices of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. Testimony was received 
from Laurie Ekstrand, Associate Director, Administration of 
Justice Issues, General Government Division, General Accounting 
Office, accompanied by James Blume, Assistant Director, 
Administration of Justice Issues, General Government Division; 
Chris Sale, Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service.

Foreign Visitors Who Violate the Terms of their Visas by Remaining in 
        the United States Indefinitely

    On February 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on foreign visitors who 
violate the terms of their visas by remaining in the United 
States indefinitely. Testimony was received from the Honorable 
Barbara Jordan, Chair, Commission on Immigration Reform, 
accompanied by Robert Hill, Commissioner, and Susan Martin, 
Executive Director; Diane Dillard, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Consular Affairs, Department of State; James Puleo, 
Executive Associate Commissioner--Programs, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, and Robert Warren, Director, Statistics 
Branch, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Worksite Enforcement of Employer Sanctions

    On March 3, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on worksite enforcement of 
employer sanctions. Testimony was received from James Puleo, 
Executive Associate Commissioner, Programs, U.S. Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, accompanied by Brian J. 
Vaillancourt, Director Civil Matters, Investigations Division, 
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Maria Echaveste, 
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of 
Labor; Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner, Social Security 
Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 
Robert Rasor, Special Agent, Secret Service, U.S. Department of 
the Treasury; Robert Charles Hill, Member, U.S. Commission on 
Immigration Reform, accompanied by Susan Forbes Martin, 
Executive Director, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform; Wade 
Avondoglio, Owner, Perona Farms Restaurant, Member, National 
Restaurant Association; Richard Holcomb, Commissioner, Virginia 
Department of Motor Vehicles; W. Marshall Rickert, Motor 
Vehicle Administrator, Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration; 
A. Torrey McLean, State Registrar, North Carolina Department of 
Vital Records.

Border Security

    On March 10, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on border security. Testimony 
was received from Congressman Duncan Hunter; Congressman Brian 
Bilbray; Congressman Ronald Coleman; Mary Ryan, Assistant 
Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Department of State, 
accompanied by Frank Moss, Special Assistant for Border 
Security, Bureau for Consular Affairs; Honorable Doris 
Meissner, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
accompanied by Silvestre Reyes, Sector Chief, U.S. Border 
Patrol, El Paso Sector, and Gus de la Vina, Regional Director, 
Western Region, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Laurie 
Ekstrand, Associate Director, Administration of Justice Issues, 
General Government Division, General Accounting Office; 
Brigadier General Edmund Zysk, Deputy Commander, California 
National Guard, accompanied by Lieutenant Colonel Bill Hipsley, 
Training Officer, California National Guard.

Removal of Criminal and Illegal Aliens

    On March 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the removal of criminal and 
illegal aliens. Testimony was received from T. Alexander 
Aleinikoff, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, accompanied by James Puleo, Executive Associate 
Commissioner, Programs, and Joan Higgins, Assistant 
Commissioner, Detention and Deportation; Anthony C. Moscato, 
Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, accompanied 
by Paul Schmidt, Chairman, Board of Immigration Appeals, and 
Michael J. Creppy, Chief Immigration Judge.

Verification of Eligibility for Employment and Benefits

    On March 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on verification of eligibility 
for employment and benefits. Testimony was received from the 
Honorable Barbara Jordan, Chair, Commission on Immigration 
Reform, accompanied by Susan Martin, Ph.D., Executive Director; 
Robert L. Bach, Ph.D., Executive Associate Commissioner, Policy 
and Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
accompanied by John E. Nahan, Director, Systematic Alien 
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program; William Ludwig, 
Administrator, Food and Consumer Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture; Wendell E. Primus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Human Services Policy, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, accompanied by Sandy Crank, Associate Commissioner, 
Social Security Administration, and Mack Storrs, Division 
Director for AFDC Policy; Nelson Diaz, General Counsel, U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Richard W. Velde, 
Esq., Washington, D.C.; Austin T. Fragomen, Jr., Chairman, 
American Council on International Personnel; Joseph A. Antolin, 
Deputy Director of Field Operations, Illinois Department of 
Public Aid; Esperita Johnson-Bullard, Eligibility Supervisor, 
Division of Social Services, Department of Human Services, City 
of Alexandria, Virginia.

Impact of Illegal Immigration on Public Benefit Programs and the 
        American Labor Force

    On April 5, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the impact of illegal 
immigration on public benefit programs and the American labor 
force. Testimony was received from Michael Fix, Esq., The Urban 
Institute, accompanied by Jeffrey Passel; Dr. Donald Huddle, 
Rice University; Dr. Georges Vernez, RAND; Dr. George Borjas, 
University of California at San Diego; Dr. Joseph Altonji, 
Northwestern University; Dr. B. Lindsay Lowell; Dr. Vernon 
Briggs, Jr., Cornell University; Dr. Frank Morris, Morgan State 
University; Dr. Norman Matloff, University of California at 
Davis; Dr. Peter Skerry, Woodrow Wilson International Center 
for Scholars.

Legal Immigration Reform Proposals

    On May 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held an oversight hearing on legal immigration reform 
proposals. Testimony was received from Susan Martin, Ph.D., 
Executive Director, Commission on Immigration Reform; Peter 
Brimelow, Author, Alien Nation; Peter Skerry, Wilson Center; 
Philip Martin, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University 
of California at Davis; Harris Miller, President, Information 
Technology Association of America; Markley Roberts, Assistant 
Director, Economic Research Department, AFL-CIO; Demetrios 
Papademetriou, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Mark 
Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies; 
Professor John Guendelsberger, Pettit College of Law, Ohio 
Northern University; Michael Lempres, Esq., Akin, Gump, 
Strauss, Hauer, & Feld.

The Commission On Immigration Reform's Interim Recommendations on Legal 
        Immigration Reform

    On June 28, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a joint oversight hearing with the Senate 
Subcommittee on Immigration to receive testimony from the 
Commission on Immigration Reform regarding the Commission's 
interim recommendations on legal immigration reform. Testimony 
was received from the Honorable Barbara Jordan, Chair, 
accompanied by Michael Teitelbaum, Vice Chair; Bruce Morrison, 
Commissioner; Robert Charles Hill, Commissioner; Susan Martin, 
Executive Director.

Agricultural Guest Worker Programs

    On December 7, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on agricultural guest worker 
programs. Testimony was received from John R. Fraser, Deputy 
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of 
Labor; Richard Estrada, Editorial Department, Dallas Morning 
News; Professor Monica Heppel, Inter-American Institute on 
Migration and Labor, Mount Vernon College; Professor J. Edward 
Taylor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of 
California at Davis; Professor Mark J. Miller, New Castle, 
Delaware; Bob Vice, President, California Farm Bureau; John 
Young, President, National Council of Agricultural Employers; 
Dolores Huerta, First Vice President, United Farm Workers; 
Robert Williams, Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.; W.J. 
Grimes, Farmer (Georgia); Mark Schacht, Executive Director, 
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; Bruce Goldstein, 
Co-Director, Farmworker Justice Fund; James S. Holt, Senior 
Economist, McGuiness and Williams; Bill Maltsberger, Rancher 
(Texas); Linda Diane Mull, Executive Director, Association of 
Farmworker Opportunity Programs.

Agriculture Guest Worker Programs

    On December 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims participated in a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 
Risk Management and Specialty Crops of the Committee on 
Agriculture on agriculture guest worker programs. Testimony was 
received from Keith J. Collins, Chief Economist, United States 
Department of Agriculture; C. Stan Eury, President, North 
Carolina Growers Association, Inc., for American Association of 
Nurserymen and The National Council of Agricultural Employers; 
Bruce Goldstein, Co-Director, Farmworker Justice Fund; Dr. 
James S. Holt, National Council of Agricultural Employers; 
Dolores Huerta, First Vice President, United Farm Workers; Dr. 
Mark J. Miller, Professor, University of Delaware, Department 
of Political Science and International Relations; Russell L. 
Williams, Agriculture Producers; Steve Appel, President, 
Washington State Farm Bureau; Israel Baez, A. Duda & Sons, for 
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association and the United Fresh 
Fruit and Vegetable Association; Robert Dasher, Specialty Crop 
Producer, Georgia; John R. Hancock, Former Chief of 
Agricultural Labor Certification, United States Department of 
Labor; G. Chandler Keyes, Senior Director of Congressional 
Relations, National Cattlemen's Association.

Legal Immigration Projections

    On May 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held an oversight hearing on legal immigration projections. 
Testimony was received from Dr. Susan Martin, Executive 
Director, Commission on Immigration Reform, accompanied by Dr. 
Lawrence A. Fuchs, Vice Chair, and Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum, 
Vice Chair; Rosemary Jenks, Senior Analyst, Center for 
Immigration Studies; Dr. John L. Martin, The Federation for 
American Immigration Reform; Jeanne Butterfield, Senior Policy 
Analyst, American Immigration Lawyers Association; Dr. Robert 
Bach, Executive Assistant Commissioner for Policy and Planning, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, accompanied by David 
Martin, General Counsel; Cornelius D. Scully, Visa Office, 
Department of State, and Seton P. Stapleton, Visa Office, 
Department of State; Nancy M. Gordon, Associate Director for 
Demographic Programs, Bureau of the Census.

Shifting of Refugee Resettlement to Private Organizations

    On August 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on shifting of refugee 
resettlement to private organizations. Testimony was received 
from Congressman David Obey; Congressman Gary Condit; Lavinia 
Limon, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Department of 
Health and Human Services; Chris Gersten, Director, Center for 
Jewish and Christian Values; Dr. Edwin Silverman, State 
Coordinator, Refugee Resettlement Program, Illinois Department 
of Public Aid; Ralston Deffenbaugh, Executive Director, 
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; Father Patrick 
Delahanty, Director, Catholic Charities Migration & Refugee 
Services Department, Archdiocese of Louisville, Kentucky.

Removal of Criminal and Illegal Aliens

    On September 5, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the removal of criminal and 
illegal aliens. Testimony was received from David Martin, 
General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
accompanied by J. Scott Blackman, Associate Commissioner for 
Field Operations, Joan Higgins, Assistant Commissioner, 
Detention and Deportation, Gregory Bednarz, Acting Assistant 
Commissioner, Investigations; Anthony C. Moscato, Director, 
Executive Office for Immigration Review, accompanied by Paul W. 
Schmidt, Chairman, Board of Immigration Appeals, Margaret M. 
Philbin, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration 
Review.

Alleged Deception of Congressional Delegation to Miami District of the 
        Immigration and Naturalization Service

    On September 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on alleged deception of 
Congressional delegation to Miami District of the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service. Testimony was received from Michael 
Bromwich, Inspector General, Department of Justice; Doris 
Meissner, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
accompanied by Chris Sale, Deputy Commissioner, and William 
Slattery, Executive Associate Commissioner.

Refugee Consultations

            I. FY 1996
    On September 13, 1995, Members of the Judiciary Committee 
met with Secretary of State Warren Christopher and other 
Administration officials to discuss the Administration's 
proposal for refugee admissions in FY 1996. That proposal was 
as follows:

  eas of origin:
                                                        Proposed ceiling
    Africa........................................................ 7,000
    East Asia.....................................................25,000
Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe............................45,000
Latin America and the Caribbean................................... 6,000
    Near East and South Asia...................................... 4,000
    Unallocated Reserve........................................... 3,000
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................90,000

    On September 29, 1995, President Clinton issued 
Presidential Determination No. 95-48, which put into force a FY 
1996 worldwide refugee ceiling of 90,000. This final 
determination was identical to the Administration's original 
proposal.
    By letter dated August 2, 1996, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to use 
up to 1,000 numbers from the Unallocated Reserve for admissions 
from the Near East and Africa.
            II. FY 1997
    On September 18, 1996, Members of the Judiciary Committee 
met with Secretary of State Warren Christopher and other 
Administration officials to discuss the Administration's 
proposal for refugee admissions in FY 1997. That proposal was 
as follows:

  eas of origin:
                                                        Proposed ceiling
    Africa........................................................ 7,000
    East Asia.....................................................10,000
Europe............................................................48,000
Latin America and the Caribbean................................... 4,000
    Near East and South Asia...................................... 4,000
    Unallocated Reserve........................................... 5,000
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................78,000

    On September 30, 1996, President Clinton issued 
Presidential Determination No. 96-59, which put into force a FY 
1997 worldwide refugee ceiling of 78,000. This final 
determination was identical to the Administration's original 
proposal.
            Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property

 CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California, 
             Chairman

PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          Wisconsin
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
XAVIER BECERRA, California           BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               SONNY BONO, California
JERROLD NADLER, New York             GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
                                     ELTON GALLEGLY, California
                                     CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
                                     MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio

    Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the subcommittee

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................    68
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    21
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee..............    00
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee.    00
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee....    02
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................    01
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................    02
Legislation reported to the House.................................    22
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................    00
Legislation pending in the House..................................    08
Legislation passed by the House...................................    14
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................    02
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden)..............    00
Legislation enacted into public law...............................    14
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another measure....    02
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    29
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    35
Private legislation referred to the Subcommittee..................    03
Private legislation pending in the Subcommittee...................    03

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

     The Subcommittee has legislative and oversight 
responsibility for (1) the intellectual property laws of the 
United States (including the Patent and Trademark Office of the 
Department of Commerce and the U.S. Copyright Office of the 
Library of Congress); (2) Article III Federal courts (including 
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the 
Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Federal 
Judicial Center); Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil and 
Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics; and (3) the U.S. 
Attorneys within the United States Department of Justice.

                         Legislative Activities

                                 Courts

Reporting Deadlines, S. 464

    Introduced by Senators Hatch, Biden, Grassley and Heflin 
and passed by the Senate, S. 464 makes the reporting deadlines 
for studies conducted in federal court demonstration districts 
consistent with the deadlines for pilot districts.
    The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 471) 
required certain federal district courts to conduct 
demonstration programs from 1991 through 1994 for improved case 
management and cost reduction in civil litigation. This law 
also required the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
prepare a report for the Congress on the programs' results by 
December 31, 1995. S. 464 extends the demonstration period 
through the end of 1995, and the report deadline to December 
31, 1996. This change makes the reporting deadlines for studies 
conducted in federal court demonstration districts consistent 
with the deadlines for pilot districts which were also 
established under the Civil Justice Reform Act.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on S. 464, and related 
court proposals, on December 5, 1995. The Honorable William W. 
Schwarzer, Senior Judge, Northern District of California and 
the former Director of the Federal Judicial Center; and the 
Honorable Ann C. Williams, Judge, United States District Court 
for the Northern District of Illinois, submitted letters in 
support of S. 464 as part of the hearing record. On May 16, 
1995, the Subcommittee met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill S. 464, by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present. On June 7, 1995, the full Committee met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill S. 464 by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 104-180). S. 464 
was passed by the House under suspension of the rules on 
September 18, 1995, and was signed into law by the President on 
October 3, 1995. It is public law 104-33.

Senior Judge Participation in En Banc Hearings, S. 531

    S. 531 amends section 46(c) of Title 28 to authorize a 
circuit judge who has taken part in an en banc hearing of a 
case to continue to participate in that case after taking 
senior status. There is an inadvertent problem in the law as it 
exists today. While section 46(c) allows a senior circuit judge 
who was a member of a panel whose decision is being reviewed en 
banc to sit on the en banc court, it has been interpreted to 
require a circuit judge in regular active service who has heard 
argument in an en banc case to cease participating in that case 
upon taking senior status. This problem leads to uncertainty in 
deciding who will be eligible to vote on the final disposition 
of an appeal and may create the perception that a judge is 
delaying the release of an en banc opinion until a member of 
the en banc court takes senior status.
    The Committee held no hearings on S. 531, because it was 
viewed as noncontroversial and received broad bipartisan 
support. On July 16, 1996, the full Committee met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill S. 531, by a 
vote of 24 to 0, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 104-697). S. 
531 was passed by the House under suspension of the rules on 
July 29, 1996 and was signed into law by the President on 
August 6, 1996. It is Public Law 104-175.

Clarify the Rules Governing Venue, S. 532

    S. 532, introduced by Senator Hatch, is a technical 
amendment to paragraph (3) of section 1391(a) of title 28 of 
the United States Code. The Act is based on a proposal by the 
Judicial Conference of the United States and is intended to 
update the U.S. Code to comply with amendments made to venue 
provisions that ensure that in multi-defendant cases, there is 
at least one federal district where venue is proper.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on S. 532 and related court 
proposals on May 11, 1995. At that hearing, Judge Ann Claire 
Williams of the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of Illinois testified in support of S. 532 on behalf 
of the Judicial Conference of the United States. On May 16, 
1995, the Subcommittee met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill S. 532, by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present. On June 7, 1995, the Committee met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill S. 532 by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 104-181). S. 532 
was passed by the House under suspension of the rules on 
September 18, 1995 and was signed into law by the President on 
October 3, 1995. It is Public Law 104-34.

Amend Commencement Date of Certain Temporary Federal Judgeships, H.R. 
        2361

    H.R. 2361, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, 
ensures that judicial districts specified as recipients of 
temporary judgeships under the Federal Judgeship Act of the 
Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 receive the benefit of the 
temporary judgeship for five years as intended by the Act. It 
does so by measuring the term of the temporary judgeship from 
the confirmation date of the judge appointed rather than from 
the effective date of the Act.
    The provision contained in H.R. 2361 is substantially the 
same as one of the provisions considered by the Subcommittee at 
a hearing on H.R. 1443 on May 11, 1995. Testimony was received 
regarding that provision from the Honorable J. Phil Gilbert, 
Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Illinois. Section 5 of H.R. 1443 amends the 
effective date of the Federal Judgeship Act in the same manner 
as the provision contained in H.R. 2361. Because of the time 
deadline for enacting the effective date provision, section 5 
was introduced as a separate bill, H.R. 2361, and called up by 
the full Committee. On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee met in 
open session and ordered favorably reported the bill, H.R. 
1443, section 5 of which contained a provision substantially 
the same as that contained in H.R. 2361, by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present. The full Committee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2361, by a voice 
vote, a quorum being present, on October 17, 1995 (H. Rept. 
104-334). H.R. 2361 passed the House under suspension of the 
rules on November 20, 1995. It was sent to the President as S. 
1328 (Sponsored by Senator Hatch) and signed into law by the 
President on October 3, 1995. It is Public Law 104-60.

Technical Amendments to Removal Provision, S. 533

    S. 533, introduced by Senator Hatch and passed in the 
Senate, provides for technical amendments to the removal 
provision contained in Title 28 of the United States Code. For 
some time prior to 1988, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) provided that 
``If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 
shall be remanded.'' In the Judicial Improvements and Access to 
Justice Act of 1988, Congress required that a ``motion to 
remand the case on the basis of any defect in removal must be 
made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal 
under section 1446(a).'' The intent of this amendment was to 
impose a 30-day limit on all motions to remand except in those 
cases where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The 
intent of the Congress was not entirely clear from the wording 
of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c), and it had been interpreted 
differently by different courts. S. 533 clarified the intent of 
Congress that a motion to remand a case on the basis of any 
defect other than subject matter jurisdiction must be made 
within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under 
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(a).
    The Committee held no hearings on S. 533 because it viewed 
the bill as technical and noncontroversial, and it received 
broad bipartisan support. On July 23, 1996, the Subcommittee 
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill S. 
533, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On September 11, 
1996, the full Committee met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill S. 533, by voice vote, a quorum 
being present (H. Rept. 104-799). S. 533 passed the House under 
suspension of the Rules on September 17, 1996 and was signed 
into law by the President on October 1, 1996. It is Public Law 
104-219.

Technical Amendments to Venue Provisions, S. 677

    S. 677, introduced by Senator Hatch and passed in the 
Senate, provides for technical amendments to the venue 
provision contained in Title 28 of the United States Code. S. 
677 implements a proposal made by the Judicial Conference of 
the U.S. to eliminate a redundant provision governing venue, 28 
U.S.C. Sec. 1392(a), which duplicates provisions of the 
Judicial Improvements Act of 1990. This is a housekeeping 
provision to eliminate any confusion regarding venue in Title 
28.
    The Committee held no hearings on S. 677 because it viewed 
the bill as technical and noncontroversial, and it received 
broad bipartisan support.
    On July 23, 1996, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill S. 677, by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On September 11, 1996, the full Committee 
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill S. 
677 by a voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 104-800). 
S. 677 was passed by the House under Suspension of the Rules on 
September 17, 1996, and was signed into law by the President on 
October 1, 1996. It is Public Law 104-220.

Attorney Accountability Act, H.R. 988

    H.R. 988, the ``Attorney Accountability Act of 1995,'' was 
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, Chairman Hyde and 
Mr. Goodlatte. It was originally derived from sections 101, 
102, and 104 of H.R. 10, the ``Common Sense Legal Reforms Act 
of 1995''. The purpose of H.R. 988 was to provide concrete 
steps to restore accountability, efficiency and fairness to our 
federal civil justice system. Section 2 of H.R. 988 provided 
for a settlement-oriented ``unreasonable party pays'' 
attorney's fee amendment to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 wherein a 
``non-prevailing'' party must pay a portion of the ``prevailing 
party's'' attorney's fees in federal civil diversity litigation 
where an offer of settlement has been made and refused, and 
where the refuser fares worse after resolution of the suit than 
he would have if he had accepted the settlement offer. Section 
3 would limit, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision 
in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the use of 
expert testimony and Section 4 would reinstate the pre-December 
1993 Rule 11 provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
and make mandatory the issuance of sanctions against lawyers 
who file frivolous lawsuits or engage in abusive litigation 
tactics.
    The aim of the bill was to implement a more complete, fair 
and effective policy than exists at present to favor compromise 
rather than dispositive motions or trial and to consequently 
(1) lessen the incentive to litigate and the caseload burdens 
faced by the federal judiciary; (2) assure that only 
meritorious and justifiable cases supported by scientific facts 
be adjudicated in federal courts, and (3) prevent the filing of 
frivolous lawsuits by attorneys. Fair and accountable 
litigation can thereby result, carried out by legitimate 
claims, accountable counsel and valid testimony.
    The Subcommittee held two days of oversight hearings 
related to the issues contained in H.R. 988. The hearings were 
held on February 6 and February 10, 1995. Testimony was 
received from the following witnesses on February 6, 1995: the 
Honorable Jim Ramstad, U.S. Representative, 3rd district, 
Minnesota; the Honorable Christopher Cox, U.S. Representative, 
47th district, California; Professor Thomas D. Rowe, Jr., Duke 
University Law School; Professor Herbert M. Kritzer, University 
of Wisconsin Law School; Mr. Walter K. Olson, Economist, 
Manhattan Institute; Ms. Debra T. Ballen, Senior Vice President 
of Policy & Development Research, American Insurance 
Association; Mr. John P. Frank, Attorney-at-Law, Lewis and 
Roca; and Mr. John Foster, Engineer and Chairman of Malcolm 
Pirnie, Inc.
    On February 10, 1995, the Subcommittee received testimony 
from the following witnesses: the Honorable Toby Roth, U.S. 
Representative, 3rd district, Wisconsin; Dr. Franklin Zweig, 
President, Einstein Institute for Science, Health and the 
Courts; Mr. Robert Charrow, Attorney-at-Law, Crowell & Moring; 
Mr. Anthony Z. Roisman, Attorney-at-Law, Cohen, Milstein, 
Hausfeld & Toll; Mr. David C. Weiner, Attorney-at-Law, Hahn, 
Loeser & Parks; Mr. Michael J. Horowitz, Attorney-at-Law, 
Hudson Institute; and Mr. Bill Fry, Executive Director, HALT, 
with additional material submitted by Robert D. Evans, Director 
of Government Affairs, American Bar Association; Mr. L. Ralph 
Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts; Judge William W. Schwarzer, Director, The Federal 
Judicial Center; Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr., Chairman, 
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Judicial 
Conference of the United States; Stuart Z. Grossman, Chairman, 
Civil Justice Committee, American Board of Trial Advocates, 
Arthur D. Wolf, Professor of Law, Western New England College 
School of Law, and Sheila F. Anthony, Assistant Attorney 
General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of 
Justice.
    On February 23, 1995 the full Committee met in open session 
and called up H.R. 988. During its consideration, the Committee 
adopted three amendments. The first amendment was offered by 
Mr. Goodlatte to strike section 2 and insert new language. That 
amendment passed on a recorded vote of 27 in favor and 7 
opposed. The next two amendments passed on a voice vote, one 
offered by Mr. McCollum to strike section 5 ``Notice Before 
Commencement of Lawsuit'' and the other by Mr. Barr to strike 
the ``Sense of Congress'' provision in section 4. The Committee 
then ordered favorably reported H.R. 988 on a recorded vote of 
19 in favor and 12 opposed, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 
104-62). Ms. Lofgren moved to reconsider the vote on the motion 
to favorably report H.R. 988 to the House. The motion failed on 
a recorded vote of 14 in favor and 19 opposed. H.R. 988 passed 
the House by recorded vote of 232 yeas and 193 nays, on March 
7, 1995. It was not taken up by the Senate.

Three Judge Court Review of Constitutional Challenges to Referenda, 
        H.R. 1170

    H.R. 1170, introduced by Mr. Bono, Chairman Hyde, 
Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. 
Gallegly, Mr. Coble, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. 
Goodlatte, Mr. Hoke, Mr. Cox of California, Mr. McCollum, Mr. 
Dreier, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Packard, Mr. Smith of 
Texas, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hunter, Mr. 
Dornan, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Heineman, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Pombo, 
Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
Kim, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Royce, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Barr, Mr. Horn, 
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Chabot, Mr. 
Radanovich and Mrs. Seastrand, provided that requests for 
injunctions in cases challenging the constitutionality of 
measures passed by State referendum must be heard by a 3-judge 
court. Like other federal legislation containing a provision 
providing for a hearing by a 3-judge court, H.R. 1170 was 
designed to protect voters in the exercise of their vote and to 
further protect the results of that vote. It required that 
legislation voted upon and approved directly by the populace of 
a state (defined in the bill as a referendum) be afforded the 
protection of a 3-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284 
where an application for an injunction is brought in federal 
court to arrest the enforcement of the referendum on the 
premise that the referendum is unconstitutional. Under the 
bill, an appeal would be taken directly to the Supreme Court, 
expediting the enforcement of the referendum if the final 
decision is that the referendum is constitutional. Such an 
expedited procedure is already provided for in other Voting 
Rights Act cases. The bill intended to implement a fair and 
effective policy that preserves a proper balance in federal-
state relations.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1170 on April 5, 
1995. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: Mr. 
Harold G. Maier, Professor of Law, David Daniels Allen 
Distinguished Chair in Law, Vanderbilt University School of 
Law; Mr. Burt Neuborne, Professor of Law, New York University 
School of Law; and the Honorable Harry T. Edwards, Chief Judge, 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit. Additional material was submitted by the Honorable 
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, State of California; 
William P. Barr, former Attorney General of the United States; 
and Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General of the United 
States. On June 16, 1995, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1170, as amended 
by an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a recorded 
vote of 8 in favor and 4 opposed, a quorum being present. On 
June 7, 1995, the full Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1170 with the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute by a recorded vote of 
17 in favor and 13 opposed, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 
104-179). H.R. 1170 was passed by the House by recorded vote of 
266 yeas and 159 nays on October 28, 1995. It was not taken up 
by the Senate.

Federal Courts Improvement Act, H.R. 3968

    H.R. 3968, the ``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996,'' 
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead and Ranking Member 
Schroeder, is designed to improve judicial administration and 
procedures, eliminate operational inefficiencies, and, to the 
extent prudent, reduce judicial operating expenses.
    The bill affects a wide range of judicial branch programs 
and operations. The reappointment procedure of bankruptcy 
judges is simplified and the length of the term of certain 
temporary bankruptcy judgeships is clarified. Provisions 
affecting court reporters, court interpreters, and employees of 
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts are 
included. The bill corrects inconsistencies in the operation of 
the Judicial Survivors' Annuities System. Civil action filing 
fees and other user fees are increased for the first time in 10 
years. Clarifications of statutory removal and venue provisions 
are made. The bill also addresses several personnel provisions 
affecting court employees.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1989, the ``Federal 
Courts Improvement Act of 1995'', which contained many of the 
provisions included in H.R. 3468, on March 14, 1996. Testifying 
on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States were: 
Judge Stephen Anderson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 
Circuit; Judge Emmett Cox, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Eleventh Circuit; and Judge Barefoot Sanders, U.S. District 
Court of the Northern District of Texas. Also presenting 
testimony were Judge W. Earl Britt, U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of the Federal 
Judges Association and Mitchell F. Dolin, Attorney at Law, 
Covington & Burling, on behalf of the American Bar Association.
    On July 23, 1996, the Subcommittee met in open session to 
markup a Committee print that represented a scaled-back version 
of H.R. 1989. The Committee print was ordered favorably 
reported by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On August 2, 
1996, the committee print was then introduced as a clean bill, 
H.R. 3968. On September 11, 1996, the full Committee met in 
open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3968, 
as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 
104-798). H.R. 3968 was passed by the House under suspension of 
the Rules on September 17, 1996. It was subsequently amended by 
the Senate. Those amendments were accepted by the House on 
October 4, 1996, sent to the President and the Senate bill, S. 
1887 was signed into law on October 19, 1996. It is Public Law 
104-317.

Stenographic Preference for Depositions, H.R. 1445

    H.R. 1445, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, 
Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Coble and Mr. Canady of Florida, amended 
Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to restore the 
stenographic preference for depositions. From 1970 to December 
1993, Rule 30(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure permitted 
depositions to be recorded by nonstenographic means but only 
upon court order or with the written stipulation of the 
parties. In December, 1993, the Rule was changed to eliminate 
the requirement of a court order or stipulation, and afforded 
each party the right to arrange for recording of a deposition 
by nonstenographic means.
    Because depositions recorded stenographically historically 
have provided the most accurate record of testimony which can 
conveniently be used by both trial and appellate courts, and 
because under present law, video or audio recordings that are 
to be introduced at trial must be transcribed anyhow according 
to Rule 32(c), H.R. 1445 provides for a preference for 
stenographic recordings.
    The Subcommittee held hearings on H.R. 1445, along with 
other court-related proposals, on May 11, 1995. Testimony was 
received on H.R. 1445 from the following witnesses: Gary M. 
Cramer, Registered Professional Reporter, National Court 
Reporters Association; and Neal R. Gross, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, Neal R. Gross & Company, Inc. on behalf of 
the American Association of Electronic Reporters and 
Transcribers (AAERT).
    On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1445, by a voice vote, 
a quorum being present. On July 12, 1995 the full Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
1445 by a voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 104-
228). H.R. 1445 was never scheduled for Floor action.

Court Arbitration Authorization Act, H.R. 1443

    H.R. 1443, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, 
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Coble, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Bono, Mr. 
Gallegly and Mr. Canady of Florida, would require all Federal 
District Courts to establish an arbitration program, which in 
the discretion of the court could be either voluntary or 
mandatory. H.R. 1443 is the same as H.R. 1102, which was 
favorably reported on voice vote by the Judiciary Committee on 
October 6, 1993, and was then passed by the House on October 
12, 1993 under suspension of the rules. The Senate failed to 
act on H.R. 1102 and instead elected to pass legislation that 
extended the existing 20 pilot programs (10 mandatory, 10 
voluntary) until 1997.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1443 on May 11, 
1995, along with other courts-related proposals, and received 
testimony from the following witnesses on H.R. 1443: Mr. 
William K. Slate II, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
American Arbitration Association; Paul Friedman, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice; and the 
Honorable Ann Williams, Judge, U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of Illinois. On May 16, 1995, the 
Subcommittee met in open session and ordered reported favorably 
H.R. 1443. H.R. 1443 was not considered in the full Committee.

Police Civil Liability, H.R. 1446

    H.R. 1446, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, 
was designed to encourage effective law enforcement while 
deterring egregious and unconstitutional conduct by state and 
local law enforcement officers by: (1) requiring a plaintiff in 
a civil rights case brought against an officer in federal court 
to prove by ``clear and convincing'' evidence that the officer 
intended to cause serious injury or acted with ``flagrant 
indifference'' to the plaintiff's rights knowing that serious 
injury would likely result; (2) restricting excessively high 
awards of punitive damages in civil rights cases brought 
against law enforcement officers by limiting such awards to 
$10,000, or approximately one-third of an average officer's 
salary; (3) allowing a police department or municipality, 
without liability, to reimburse an officer for a punitive 
damage award assessed against him personally; and (4) limiting 
attorney's fees in civil rights cases brought against law 
enforcement officers to one-third the monetary recovery in a 
case.
    This legislation was introduced to address the problems of 
law enforcement officers and departments which have become 
inundated with lawsuits arising out of routine police 
activities such as making arrests, conducting searches and 
apprehending suspects. Police are being sued for placing 
handcuffs on too tightly, or even for grabbing or pushing a 
suspect who refuses to cooperate. Too often, departments are 
being sued with harassing ``pattern or practice'' lawsuits 
which charge departments with maintaining a ``code of silence'' 
and a ``culture'' of police abuses. While these policies must 
be deterred effectively, the result of the current standard in 
our legal system is to paralyze and over deter officers and to 
cause them to hesitate to act, resulting in less prompt and 
certain police response.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1446 on November 8, 
1995. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: The 
Honorable Ken Calvert, U.S. Representative, 43rd District, 
California; The Honorable Maxine Waters, U.S. Representative, 
35th District, California; Ernest George, Executive Vice 
President, National Association of Police Organizations; 
Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President, Fraternal Order of 
Police; The Honorable Sherman Block, Sheriff Los Angeles 
County; Ken Fortier, Chief of Police, Riverside, California; 
Steven D. Manning, Partner, Manning, Marder & Wolfe; Paul 
Hoffman, Attorney, Santa Monica, California; and Howard 
Saffold, Founding Member and Former Chairman, National Black 
Police Association. No markups were held on H.R. 1446.

Ethical Standards for Federal Prosecutors, H.R. 3386

    H.R. 3386, the Ethical Standards for Federal Prosecutors 
Act of 1996, was introduced by Representative McDade of 
Pennsylvania. On August 4, 1994, the Department of Justice 
(``DOJ'') issued a regulation to govern DOJ attorneys' contact 
with represented persons. The DOJ claims that, to the extent 
that the rules of ethics governing state bars and federal 
district courts conflict with this regulation, they are 
preempted by the regulation. H.R. 3386 would require all 
attorneys for the government, including DOJ attorneys, to be 
subject to the same state and local federal rules to the same 
extent and in the same manner as other attorneys and 
prosecutors in that jurisdiction.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 3386 on September 
12, 1996. Testimony was received from the Honorable Joseph M. 
McDade, Member of Congress, 10th District of Pennsylvania; Mr. 
Seth P.Waxman, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Office of the 
Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice; Mr. Tim Evans, 
Member of Board of Directors, National Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers; Mr. Frederick J. Krebs, President, American 
Corporate Counsel Association; and Mr. Roger Pilon, Director, 
CATO Institute. No markups were held on H.R. 3386.

                         Intellectual Property

                               Copyrights

Piracy by China, H. Res. 50

    H. Res. 50, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead 
and Representative Mineta of California, is a sense of the 
House Resolution urging the U.S. Trade Representative to 
continue to insist that China enforce its Copyright law and 
eliminate rampant piracy in that Country. Among the largest and 
most obvious offenders in China are producers of U.S. 
copyrighted music, compact and laser discs, software and motion 
pictures. Many CD factories, largely in south and central 
China, are operating with an annual production capacity 
exceeding $75 million. Their products are now found in Hong 
Kong, Southeast Asia, and increasingly in the Americas.
    Data contained in a Report released in February, 1995 
testifies to the importance of antipiracy issues before the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, as well as to 
the importance of the work already done by the Subcommittee 
over the last decade.

Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, H.R. 1506

    The purpose of H.R. 1506, introduced by Subcommittee 
Chairman Moorhead, Chairman Hyde, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Gekas, is 
to ensure that performing artists, record companies and others 
whose livelihoods depend upon effective copyright protection 
for sound recordings, will be protected as new technologies 
affect the ways in which their creative works are used. H.R. 
1506 does this by granting a limited right to copyright owners 
of sound recordings which are publicly performed by means of a 
digital transmission.
    The Subcommittee held two days of hearings on H.R. 1506 on 
June 21 and June 28, 1995. On June 21, testimony was received 
from the following witnesses: Mr. Jason S. Berman, Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer of the Recording Industry Association 
of America; Mr. Wayland D. Holyfield, Board Member of the 
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers; Mr. 
Edward P. Murphy, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
National Music Publishers Association; Mr. Marvin Berenson, 
Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Broadcast 
Music, Inc.; Mr. Edward O. Fritts, President of the National 
Association of Broadcasters; and Mr. Jerold H. Rubinstein, 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the International 
Cablecasting Technologies, Inc. On June 28, testimony was 
received from the following witnesses: The Honorable Bruce 
Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of 
Patents and Trademarks of the Patent and Trademark Office of 
the United States Department of Commerce; Ms. Marybeth Peters, 
Register of Copyrights of the Copyright Office of the United 
States Library of Congress; Mr. Dennis Dreith, President of the 
Recording Musicians' Association of the United States and 
Canada; and Mr. Barry Bergman, President of the International 
Managers Forum.
    On July 27, 1995 the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1506, as amended, by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On September 12, 1995, the 
full Committee met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 1506, as amended, by a recorded vote of 
29 in favor and 0 opposed, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 
104-274). H.R. 1506 was passed by the House under suspension of 
the rules on October 17, 1995, sent to the President as S. 227 
(Sponsored by Senator Hatch), and signed into law on October 3, 
1995. It is Public Law 104-39.

Film Labeling, H.R. 1248

    H.R. 1248, introduced by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Conyers and Mr. Bryant of Texas, would mandate the labeling of 
films to inform consumers when films are modified to 
accommodate the needs of home video, broadcast TV, cable TV, 
airlines and other exhibitions that take place outside the 
theater.
    Since October, 1993, the major American producers and 
distributors of films and motion pictures have been voluntarily 
labeling films that have been modified. A survey of the top 
forty video rentals listed in the May 13, 1995 edition of 
Billboard Magazine found that 90% of the theatrical films that 
are now in video are already labeled. Directors, however, are 
dissatisfied with the wording of the modification message and 
desire a label which would inform the viewer that the movie 
does not represent the artistic intent of the director.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1248 on June 1, 
1995 in Pasadena, California. Testimony was received from the 
following witnesses: Mr. Jack Valenti, President and CEO, 
Motion Picture Association of America; Ms. Marilyn Bergman, 
President and Chairman, American Society of Composers, Authors 
and Publishers; Mr. Edward R. Richmond, Curator, UCLA Film and 
Television Archives; Mr. Edward P. Murphy, President and CEO, 
National Music Publishers Association; Ms. Martha Coolidge, 
Directors Guild of America; Mr. Jeffrey P. Eves, President, 
Video Software Dealers Association; Mr. Michael Weller, 
playwright and screenwriter; and Ms. Judith M. Saffer, 
Assistant General Counsel, Broadcast Music, Inc. No markups 
were held on H.R. 1248.

Copyright Clarification Act, H.R. 1861

    H.R. 1861, the ``Copyright Clarification Act,'' introduced 
by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, accomplishes many purposes. 
Some of its provisions will assist the U.S. Copyright Office in 
carrying out its duties, including giving the Office the 
ability to set reasonable fees for basic services, subject to 
congressional approval. Others correct or clarify the language 
in several recent amendments to the law so that Congress' 
original intent can be better achieved. Two provisions resolve 
problems created by recent judicial interpretations of 
provisions of the copyright law. One of these amendments makes 
clear that the distribution of musical disks or tapes before 
1978 did not publish the musical compositions embodied in the 
disks or tapes. The other amendment ensures that independent 
service organizations have the ability to activate a computer 
to maintain and repair its hardware components without being 
held liable by a court for copyright infringement due to that 
activation alone.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1861 on November 9, 
1995. Testimony was received from Ms. Marybeth Peters, Register 
of Copyrights, United States Copyright Office, The Library of 
Congress. On December 13, 1995, the Subcommittee met in open 
session and adopted, by voice vote, an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to H.R. 1861 offered by Subcommittee Chairman 
Moorhead, and ordered favorably reported, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present, the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the full Committee. On March 12, 1996, the full 
Committee adopted, by voice vote, an amendment offered by 
Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, and ordered favorably reported, by voice vote, 
a quorum being present, the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended (H. Rept. 104-554). H.R. 1861 was passed 
by the House, under suspension of the Rules, on June 4, 1996. 
No senate action was taken on H.R. 1861.

National Film Preservation Act, H.R. 1734

    H.R. 1734, the ``National Film Preservation Act of 1995,'' 
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, Mr. Coble and Mr. 
Bono, reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Board in the 
Library of Congress, and establishes, under the Library's 
auspices, the National Film Preservation Foundation, to 
continue the protection and preservation of America's motion 
picture heritage.
    H.R. 1734 reauthorizes the Board to allow it to continue to 
implement recommendations found in a national preservation plan 
conducted by the Board. The newly-established Film Foundation 
will enable this plan, through a public-private financing 
arrangement, to be properly funded to ensure its success. The 
Foundation, by eventually using very modest federal funds to 
match contributions from the motion picture industry, creative 
artists, other foundations and interested parties, will finance 
projects to conserve and make publicly accessible (in full 
compliance with the rights of copyright owners) films made in 
the United States, particularly those not already protected by 
private interests, for the benefit of present and future 
generations of Americans.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1734 (and other 
legislation) on June 1, 1995 in Pasadena, California. Testimony 
was received from Edward Richmond, Curator, UCLA Film and 
Television Archive, and President of the Association of Moving 
Image Archivists. Other witnesses, Martha Coolidge (Director's 
Guild of America) and Michael Weller (Writers Guild of America, 
East), although focused on the other legislation subject of the 
hearing (H.R. 989 and 1248), also voiced strong support for the 
legislation. On July 27, 1995, the Subcommittee met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1734, by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On March 12, 1996, the full 
Committee met in open session and adopted by voice vote an 
amendment offered by Mr. Moorhead to reduce the authorization 
for the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film 
Preservation Foundation from 10 years to 7 years, and to reduce 
the funding for the National Film Preservation from $2 million 
a year to $250,000 a year for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. 
The Committee then ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
1734, as amended, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 104-558, 
part 1). H.R. 1734 was passed by the House under suspension of 
the Rules on July 29, 1996. It was passed by the Senate and 
signed into law on October 11, 1996. It is Public Law 104-285.

Copyright Term Extension, H.R. 989

    H.R. 989, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, 
Ranking Member Schroeder, Mr. Coble, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Bono, 
Mr. Gekas, Mr. Berman, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Clement and Mr. 
Gallegly, would extend the copyright term granted to copyright 
owners by 20 years. Currently, U.S. law protects copyrighted 
works during the life of the author plus 50 years. For movies 
and other works made-for-hire (``work-for-hire''), the term of 
protection is 75 years from publication or 100 years from 
creation, whichever expires first. Generally, works created 
before 1978 are protected for 75 years.
    The Copyright Term Extension Act was introduced in response 
to a European Union (EU) Directive requiring member countries 
to grant a copyright term of life-plus-70-years. In order to 
keep pace with this international development and to protect 
U.S. ``creator'' copyright owners (authors and authors' 
families) and ``corporate'' copyright holders (producers and 
publishers who hold assigned or transferred copyrights from 
creators or own copyrights of works-for hire) for at least an 
equal amount of time, H.R. 989 would match the term now 
required in Europe for ``creator'' owners and extend the amount 
of time granted to ``corporate'' owners.
    Hearings were held on H.R. 989 in Pasadena, California, on 
June 1, 1995, and in Washington, D.C. on July 13, 1995. 
Testimony was received from the following witnesses: Mr. Jack 
Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of 
America; Ms. Marilyn Bergman, President and Chairman, American 
Society of Composers Authors and Publishers; Mr. Edward R. 
Richmond, Curator, UCLA Film and Television Archives; Mr. 
Edward P. Murphy, President and CEO, National Music Publishers 
Association; Ms. Martha Coolidge, Directors Guild of America; 
Mr. Jeffrey P. Eves, President, Video Software Dealers 
Association; Mr. Michael Weller, playwright and screenwriter; 
Ms. Judith M. Saffer, Assistant General Counsel, Broadcast 
Music, Inc.; The Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of 
Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States, The Library 
of Congress; Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, Deputy United 
States Trade Representative, Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, Executive Office of the President; The 
Honorable Bruce Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and 
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and Trademark 
Office, United States Department of Commerce; Mr. Quincy Jones, 
Chief Executive Officer, Quincy Jones Entertainment; Professor 
John Belton, Rutgers University, Society for Cinema Studies; 
Professor Dennis S. Karjala, Arizona State University College 
of Law; Professor William F. Patry, Benjamin N. Cardozo School 
of Law; and Professor Jerome H. Reichman, Vanderbilt University 
School of Law. No markups were held on H.R. 989.

National Information Infrastructure Copyright Protection Act, H.R. 2441

    H.R. 2441, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, 
Ranking Member Schroeder and Mr. Coble, clarifies and updates 
the copyright law in three important respects: (1) it makes 
clear that the right of public distribution in U.S. copyright 
law applies to digital transmissions on computers; (2) it 
prohibits the importation, manufacture or distribution of a 
device designed to circumvent a technological process created 
to protect copyrighted material, especially applicable to the 
digital environment; and (3) it prohibits providing false 
information about or altering the identification of a copyright 
owner or the conditions for lawful use of a copyrighted work.
    This bill was the product of recommendations made by the 
Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the 
Administration's Information Infrastructure Task Force, led by 
the Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.
    It is a new age in the world of copyright and the law must 
be clarified to reflect the new digital environment. 
Digitization now allows us to send and retrieve perfect copies 
of copyrighted information over the Internet, including both 
the National and Global Information Infrastructures (``NII'') 
and (``GII''). With these evolutions in technology, the 
copyright law must evolve as well to protect one of our 
nation's mast valuable resources and exports, the products of 
our authors. Whether it be movies, videos, compact discs, 
software programs or books, the NII and GII will change the 
landscape as to how these products are delivered to the 
marketplace. In order for the Internet to be a success, it must 
carry desired content.
    The provisions of H.R. 2441 providing for enhanced access 
to works by the visually impaired were included as part of H.R. 
3754, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1997. Those 
provisions are part of Public Law 104-197.
    While H.R. 2441 does not address all of the issues that 
need to be considered in protecting copyrighted material in the 
digital environment, including provisions regarding special 
uses by libraries, it contains the basic provisions which must 
be added to our copyright law to protect access to creative 
works.
    Hearings were held on H.R. 2441 on November 15, 1995, 
February 7, 1996, and February 8, 1996. Testimony was received 
from the following witnesses: The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and 
Trademarks, Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of 
Commerce and Chair, Working Group on Intellectual Property 
Rights, Information Infrastructure Task Force; The Honorable 
Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office, 
The Library of Congress; Dr. Mihaly Ficsor, Assistant Director 
General, World Intellectual Property Organization; Mr. Jack 
Valenti, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Motion Picture 
Association of America, Inc.; Ms. Frances Preston, President 
and Chief Executive Officer, Broadcast Music, Inc.; Mr. Edward 
P. Murphy, President and Chief Executive Officer, National 
Music Publishers Association; Mr. Robert Holleyman, II, 
President, Business Software Alliance; Mr. Edward J. Black, 
President, Computer & Communications Industry Association; Ms. 
Barbara A. Munder, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, 
McGraw Hill Co.; Mr. Gary L. Shapiro, Chairman, Home Recording 
Rights Coalition and President, Consumer Electronics 
Manufacturers Association; Mr. Garry L. McDaniels, President, 
Skills Bank Corporation; Mr. David M. Ostfeld, Vice Chairman, 
U.S. Activities Board, Institute for Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers; Ms. Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chairperson, U.S. National 
Commission on Libraries and Information Science; Dr. Tuck 
Tinsley III, President, American Printing House for the Blind, 
Inc.; Mr. Richard Robinson, Chairman, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, Scholastic Corporation; Mr. Cornelius Pings, 
President, Association of American Universities; Mr. Stephen M. 
Heaton, Secretary and General Counsel, CompuServe, Inc.; Mr. 
Scott Purcell, President, HLC-Internet, Inc.; Mr. William J. 
Cook, Partner, Willian, Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione; and Ms. 
Catherine Simmons- Gill, President, International Trademark 
Association. No markups were held on H.R. 2441.

                                Patents

Biotechnology Patent Process Act, H.R. 587

    H.R. 587, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, Mr. 
Boucher, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Coble, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Gekas, Mr. 
Bono, Mr. Canady of Florida, and Mr. Hoke, provides for a 
modified examination of biotechnological process patents. Under 
the provisions of H.R. 587, a biotechnological process will not 
have to undergo a separate review of nonobviousness under 
certain conditions. If the process uses or produces a 
patentable composition of matter, the process will be 
determined nonobvious for the purpose of examination of 
biotechnological process claims. The expedited review will 
resolve the delays and inconsistent determinations faced by 
biotechnological process patent applicants under present PTO 
practices without harm to the basic principles of 
patentability.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 587 on March 29, 
1995. Testimony was received from the following four witnesses: 
Mr. H. Dieter Hoinkes, Senior Counsel, Office of Legislative 
and International Affairs, Patent and Trademark Office, United 
States Department of Commerce; Mr. Henry Linsert, Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Martek Biosciences Corporation, 
Columbia, Maryland; Michele Cimbala, Ph.D. and J.D., Partner, 
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein and Fox; and Mr. Steven Odre, Senior 
Vice President, Amgen Incorporated, Thousand Oaks, California 
with additional material submitted by Biotechnology Industry 
Organization (Bio).
    On May 16, 1995 the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
Property met in open session and ordered favorably reported the 
bill H.R. 587, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On June 
7, 1995 the full Committee met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill H.R. 587 by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present. (H. Rept. 104-178). H.R. 587 passed the House 
under suspension of the rules on October 17, 1995 and was sent 
to the President as S. 1111 (Sponsored by Senator Hatch). It 
was signed into public law on October 3, 1995 as P.L. 104-41.

Compensating Owners of Patents used by U.S., H.R. 632

    H.R. 632, introduced by Representative Frost, helps small 
businesses, independent inventors and nonprofit organizations 
recover the legal costs associated with defending their patents 
when the Federal government takes and uses them.
    Because attorney's fees and costs in cases such as these 
can only be authorized by statute, this bill specifically 
provides for them in limited cases. Specifically, when the 
government takes a person's patent and the person is forced to 
sue the government for infringement, the government must pay 
reasonable attorney's fees and costs if it is found ``liable.''
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 632 (along with 
other legislation) on June 8, 1995. Testimony was received on 
H.R. 632 from the following witnesses: Representative Martin 
Frost, 24th District of Texas; The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, 
Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and 
Trademarks, Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; Mr. Gary Griswold, President, Intellectual Property 
Owners, Inc.; Mr. Michael Kirk, Executive Director, American 
Intellectual Property Law Association; and Mr. Thomas Smith, 
President, Section on Intellectual Property Law, American Bar 
Association.
    On July 27, 1995 the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 632 by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On October 17, 1995, the full Committee 
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill 
H.R. 632, by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 104-
373). H.R. 632 was passed by the House on December 12, 1995. It 
was amended by the Senate. Those amendments were accepted by 
the House and the bill was sent to the President on October 4, 
1996. It was signed into law on October 19, 1996. It is Public 
Law 104-308.

PTO Corporation Act, H.R. 1659

    H.R. 1659, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead and 
Ranking Member Schroeder, proposed that the Patent and 
Trademark Office (``PTO'') be converted into a wholly owned 
government corporation. The PTO operates completely upon fees 
generated by patent and trademark applicants, and not on tax 
dollars. As a government corporation, it would be able to 
purchase real and personal property based on an established 
bidding process without proceeding through the General Services 
Administration, be free from any administratively or 
statutorily imposed limitations on positions or personnel and 
exempted from the employment, classification, retention, 
performance appraisal, and General Schedule pay rates of Title 
5 of the U.S. Code.
    H.R. 1659, as amended and included in Title I of H.R. 3460, 
replaces this system with full collective bargaining. This 
would allow the PTO, subject to oversight by Congress and its 
own collective bargaining agreements, to hire and place 
employees without regard to the registers maintained by the 
Office of Personnel Management, to downsize without regard to 
current reduction in force requirements, to award bonuses, to 
demote for poor job performance, and to establish its own pay 
scale outside of the General Schedule.
    Under Title I, the cap on the top basic pay rate of PTO 
employees will increase while allowing for a negotiated 
grievance procedure and a right to appeal to the EEOC. The 
title guarantees that employees will retain their federal 
health, life, and retirement benefits, except that the PTO 
would be able to supplement or improve current benefits. It 
further provides for a bipartisan Management Advisory Board, 
comprised of members of the private sector who represent users 
of the PTO. Patent and trademark examiners, and members of the 
Appeal Boards may not be removed from office, except for cause. 
This protection will insulate these quasi-judicial officers 
from outside pressures and preserve integrity within the 
application examination system. Under the bill, a relationship 
is established with the Justice Department for assistance in 
the defense of lawsuits brought against the PTO Corporation and 
the PTO will be required to report to Congress annually on 
budget and patent quality issues.
    Importantly, the PTO is granted borrowing authority, 
subject to annual appropriations Acts, and is allowed to issue 
bonds for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury. Any monies 
not otherwise used to carry on the duties of the PTO must be 
kept in cash on hand, in deposit, or invested in U.S. 
obligations or other lawful investments for public funds. The 
PTO cannot borrow money without explicit advance approval in 
appropriations acts and without guaranteeing its payment from 
future user fee income. Audits shall be conducted by an 
independent accountant chosen by the Commissioner and are 
subject to review by the Comptroller General.
    These provisions were written to reflect the concerns of 
employees from the PTO, expressed in hearing testimony. It 
attempts to strike an appropriate balance between union and 
management and grant the flexibility necessary to allow the PTO 
and its users to benefit directly from the fees its users pay. 
That means better service to America's creative community by a 
better work force under the oversight of Congress and the 
President with increased input by employees and their 
organizations. Government corporation status is supported by 
the National Academy of Public Administration. The 
establishment of the PTO as a government corporation is 
necessary to achieve cost-effective, quality examining 
operations which will best serve its users, and consequently, 
the public interest.
    The Subcommittee held two days of hearings on H.R. 1659, on 
September 14, 1995, and March 8, 1996. Testimony was received 
from The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary of 
Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and 
Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Harold 
Seidman, Senior Fellow, and Alan Dean, Fellow, from the 
National Academy of Public Administration; Michael K. Kirk, 
Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law 
Association; Herbert C. Wamsley, Executive Director of the 
Intellectual Property Owners; Donald R. Dunner, Chair of the 
Section on Intellectual Property Law Section of the American 
Bar Association; The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, 
Representative, California 45th District; The Honorable Duncan 
Hunter, Representative, California, 52nd District; Mr. Timothy 
Reardon, Congressional Liaison, Patent & Trademark Office 
Society; Mr. Robert M. Tobias, National President, National 
Treasury Employees Union; Mr. Ronald J. Stern, President, 
Patent Office Professional Association; Mr. Howard Friedman, 
President, The Trademark Society, National Treasury Employees 
Union, Chapter 245; and Ms. Catherine Simmons-Gill, President, 
International Trademark Association. On May 15, 1996, the 
Subcommittee ordered favorably reported a Committee Print 
incorporating five bills pending before the Subcommittee, 
including provisions contained in H.R. 1659, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. A bill containing the Committee Print 
favorably reported by the Subcommittee was introduced as H.R. 
3460. On June 11, the Committee on the Judiciary considered 
H.R. 3460. Two amendments were offered: (1) Congressman 
Moorhead offered an en bloc amendment making various technical, 
clarifying and conforming changes, and (2) Congressmen Hyde and 
Conyers offered an amendment to the short title of H.R. 3460 to 
rename the bill the ``Moorhead-Schroeder Patent Reform Act.'' 
Both of the amendments passed by voice vote, a quorum being 
present and the bill H.R. 3460, as amended, was ordered 
favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. 
Rept. 104-784).
    Provisions included in H.R. 1659 (H.R. 3460) were passed by 
the House on October 25, 1995 as part of the Seven-Year 
Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491).

Intellectual Property Organization Act of 1996, H.R. 2533

    The Administration's proposed bill, H.R. 2533, was 
introduced, by request, by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead and 
Ranking Member Schroeder. It is a proposal by the 
Administration to convert the Patent and Trademark Office into 
a government corporation with many similarities to H.R. 1659 
(Title I of H.R. 3460).
     The Subcommittee held two days of hearings on H.R. 2533, 
along with H.R. 1659, on September 14, 1995, and March 8, 1996. 
Testimony was received from The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and 
Trademarks, Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; Dr. Harold Seidman, Senior Fellow, and Alan Dean, 
Fellow, from the National Academy of Public Administration; 
Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director of the American 
Intellectual Property Law Association; Herbert C. Wamsley, 
Executive Director of the Intellectual Property Owners; Donald 
R. Dunner, Chair of the Section on Intellectual Property Law 
Section of the American Bar Association; The Honorable Dana 
Rohrabacher, Representative, California 45th District; The 
Honorable Duncan Hunter, Representative, California, 52nd 
District; Mr. Timothy Reardon, Congressional Liaison, Patent & 
Trademark Office Society; Mr. Robert M. Tobias, National 
President, National Treasury Employees Union; Mr. Ronald J. 
Stern, President, Patent Office Professional Association; Mr. 
Howard Friedman, President, The Trademark Society, National 
Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 245; and Ms. Catherine 
Simmons-Gill, President, International Trademark Association.
    No markups were held on H.R. 2533.

Commerce Department Dismantling, H.R. 1756

     The Commerce Department Dismantling Act was introduced by 
Mr. Chrysler, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Livingston, Mr. 
Solomon, Mr. Crane, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Parker, Mr. 
Metcalf, Mr. Cooley, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Neumann, Mr. 
Scarborough, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. 
LaHood, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Graham, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. 
Hilleary, Mr. Jones, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Weller, 
Mr. Klug, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Smith 
of Michigan, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Fox of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Largent, Mr. Bono, Mr. Tiahart, Mr. Cremeans, 
Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
Wicker, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Funderburk, Mr. Frisa, 
Mr. Thornberry, Mrs. Waldholtz, Mr. Norwood, Mrs. Seastrand, 
Mr. Bass, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Camp, Mr. 
Linder, Mr. Upton, Mr. White, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Tate, and Mrs. 
Smith of Washington. It calls for the complete elimination of 
the Department of Commerce which includes the Patent and 
Trademark Office. The part of this legislation pertaining to 
the PTO included provisions to transfer the PTO to another 
agency.
     The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1756, along with 
H.R. 1659, on September 14, 1995. Testimony was received from 
The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and 
Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Harold 
Seidman, Senior Fellow, and Alan Dean, Fellow, from the 
National Academy of Public Administration; Michael K. Kirk, 
Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law 
Association; Herbert C. Wamsley, Executive Director of the 
Intellectual Property Owners; Donald R. Dunner, Chair of the 
Section on Intellectual Property Law Section of the American 
Bar Association. H.R. 1756 was considered by several committees 
and marked up by the Committee on Ways and Means with amendment 
(H. Rept. 104-260, part 1). It was included in the Seven-Year 
Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, H.R. 2491 and 
passed by recorded vote.

18-Month Publication, H.R. 1733

    H.R. 1733, the ``Patent Application Publication Act,'' 
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead and Ranking Member 
Schroeder, was included in H.R. 3460 as Title II. It addresses 
the concerns of some patent applicants who are fearful that 
under the new GATT-TRIPS 20 years from filing term for patents, 
they might lose patent term where there are unusual 
administrative delays in processing a patent application in the 
Patent Office. It does so by establishing an objective time 
clock. It provides that every diligent patent applicant is 
ensured at least seventeen years of patent term from the date 
of grant, and in most cases, a term closer to eighteen years.
     The bill also provides for the publication of all patent 
applications after 18 months. All of the major patent systems 
throughout the world, with the exception of the United States, 
publish applications 18 months from the earliest effective 
filing date. In an age where worldwide patent protection is 
becoming increasingly important, the current system places U.S. 
inventors at a clear disadvantage. For example, an invention 
that is the subject of a patent application in Japan will be 
published in the Japanese language after 18 months. Inventors 
reviewing the Japanese patent application disclosures will have 
the benefit of the early disclosure in Japan. This is 
especially beneficial to domestic inventors in Japan as they 
are able to obtain an early disclosure of the technology in the 
Japanese language. Meanwhile, in the United States, domestic 
inventors do not have the benefit of an English language 
publication of the technology disclosed in an application for a 
patent until the patent is actually issued. This situation 
provides foreign inventors a clear advantage relative to U.S. 
domestic inventors.
     The early publication provisions of Title II would provide 
American inventors with a prompt English-language publication 
of relatively current technology. There would be no need to 
await the grant of a patent to gain an understanding of the 
technology it contains. This will speed disclosure of foreign 
origin U.S. patent technology by at least 12 months. Further, 
technology contained in patent applications that never mature 
into patents would also be available. Our domestic inventors 
would be able to take advantage of this earlier access to 
English-language patent application technology and build upon 
it more rapidly than they are able to do in our current system.
     This legislation would also help to address the submarine 
patent problem that has long plagued the U.S. patent system. 
Submarine patents surface from applications that have been 
pending in the PTO for many years. The belatedly granted 
patents often cause disruptions in the market place because 
competitors unknowingly regarded and adopted the later-patented 
technology as commonplace publicly available information.
     In return for the disclosure that would be made by virtue 
of early publication, patentees would be given provisional 
rights to obtain compensation for any use of an invention 
disclosed in the application for patent for the time period 
from publication to grant.
     The Subcommittee held two days of hearings on H.R. 1733 on 
June 8, 1995 and November 1, 1995. Testimony was received from 
The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and 
Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Gary L. 
Griswold, Intellectual Property Owners; Mr. Michael Kirk, 
American Intellectual Property Law Association; Mr. Thomas E. 
Smith, American Bar Association, Section on Intellectual 
Property Law; Mr. Andrew Kimbrell, Director, International 
Center for Technology Assessment; Mr. Kenneth Addison, Oklahoma 
Inventors Congress; Dr. Raymond Damadian, President and 
Chairman, Fonar Corporation; The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, 
Representative, California, 45th District; Mr. James L. 
Fergason, Inventor, Founder and President of Optical Shields, 
Incorporated, Menlo Park, California; Mr. Mark A. Lemley, 
Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of Texas at 
Austin; Mr. Thomas W. Buckman, Inventor, Vice President, 
Patents and Technology, Illinois Tool Works, Incorporated, 
Glenview, Illinois, representing the National Association of 
Manufacturers; Mr. William D. Budinger, Inventor, Chairman & 
Chief Executive Officer, Rodel, Incorporated, and Chair of the 
Technology and Innovation Section of the White House Conference 
on Small Business; Mr. Edward Stead, Vice President, General 
Counsel & Secretary, Apple Computer, Incorporated, testifying 
on behalf of the Information Technology Industry Council; Mr. 
Roger May, Assistant General Counsel, Ford Motor Company, 
Member of the Michigan Patent Law Association; Mr. Stephen 
Barram, Inventor, Chief Executive Officer, Integrated Services, 
Incorporated, Lake Oswego, Oregon; Dr. Raymond Damadian, 
Inventor, President and Chairman, Fonar, Incorporated, Inventor 
and Manufacturer of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI); Mr. James 
Chandler, President of the National Intellectual Property Law 
Institute, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Robert Rines, Inventor, 
Founder, and former President of the Franklin Pierce Law 
Center; Ms. Diane L. Gardner, Patent Agent, Molecular 
Biosystems, Incorporated, and President of the Intellectual 
Property Law Society at Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Dr. 
Paul Crilly, Inventor, and Associate Professor of Electronic 
Engineering University of Tennessee, Knoxville; and Dr. David 
L. Hill, President, Patent Enforcement Fund, Incorporated, 
Southport, Connecticut.
     On May 15, 1996, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported a Committee Print incorporating five bills pending 
before the Subcommittee, including provisions contained in H.R. 
1733, by voice vote, a quorum being present. A bill containing 
the Committee Print favorably reported by the Subcommittee was 
introduced as H.R. 3460. On June 11, 1996, the Committee on the 
Judiciary considered H.R. 3460. Two amendments were offered: 
(1) Congressman Moorhead offered an en bloc amendment making 
various technical, clarifying and conforming changes, and (2) 
Congressmen Hyde and Conyers offered an amendment to the short 
title of H.R. 3460 to rename the bill the ``Moorhead-Schroeder 
Patent Reform Act.'' Both of the amendments passed by voice 
vote, a quorum being present and the bill H.R. 3460, as 
amended, was ordered favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum 
being present (H. Rept. 104-784).

Prior User Rights, H.R. 2235

     H.R. 2235, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead 
and Ranking Member Schroeder, was included in H.R. 3460 as 
Title III. It would provide a defense of prior user rights 
against infringement of a patent. The defense typically arises 
when an original inventor, who decided not to patent a 
manufacturing process, uses the process as a trade secret in a 
commercial endeavor. The original inventor is later sued by a 
party, often a party outside the United States, who 
subsequently patented the process. While U.S. law permits the 
assertion of prior public use as a method of defeating a patent 
under our first-to-invent system, it may not recognize secret 
prior use as a defense to patent infringement.
     An inventor may develop a process without ever considering 
obtaining a patent, may not be able to afford obtaining a 
patent, or may choose for strategic or personal reasons to 
protect his process as a trade secret.
     Under current law, choosing to practice an invention as a 
trade secret has its risks because while prior public 
disclosure of an invention defeats a patent, an undisclosed 
invention which relies on trade secret protection may not. 
Title III would eliminate this risk by granting a prior user, 
in effect, a defense against infringement suits for practicing 
the later patented invention. This personal defense does not 
extend to later developed products and processes that infringe 
the patent.
     Under the current system, foreign patentees, who are 
treated the same as U.S. inventors under our patent laws, may 
obtain patents on processes or products protected by trade 
secret laws in the U.S. and sue the original U.S. inventors for 
infringement. However, U.S. inventors are not able to do the 
same abroad because most of our foreign trading partners have 
enacted prior user rights as a means of protecting their 
manufacturers.
     The Subcommittee held one day of hearings on H.R. 2235 on 
October 26, 1995. Testimony was received from Mr. Dieter 
Hoinkes, Senior Counsel, Office of Legislative and 
International Affairs, Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. 
Department of Commerce; Mr. Karl Jorda, Professor, Franklin 
Pierce Law Center; Mr. Richard Schwaab, Adjunct Professor, 
George Mason Law School and Partner, Foley & Lardner; Mr. Gary 
L. Griswold, President of the Intellectual Property Owners; Mr. 
Robert A. Armitage, President, American Intellectual Property 
Law Association (AIPLA); and Mr. William D. Budinger, Chairman 
and Chief Executive Officer, Rodel, Incorporated.
     On May 15, 1996, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported a Committee Print incorporating five bills pending 
before the Subcommittee, including provisions contained in H.R. 
2235, by voice vote, a quorum being present. A bill containing 
the Committee Print favorably reported by the Subcommittee was 
introduced as H.R. 3460. On June 11, 1996, the Committee on the 
Judiciary considered H.R. 3460. Two amendments were offered: 
(1) Congressman Moorhead offered an en bloc amendment making 
various technical, clarifying and conforming changes, and (2) 
Congressmen Hyde and Conyers offered an amendment to the short 
title of H.R. 3460 to rename the bill the ``Moorhead-Schroeder 
Patent Reform Act.'' Both of the amendments passed by voice 
vote, a quorum being present and the bill H.R. 3460, as 
amended, was ordered favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum 
being present (H. Rept. 104-784).

Inventor Protection, H.R. 2419

     H.R. 2419, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead 
and Ranking Member Schroeder, was included as Title IV of H.R. 
3460. It would create a new chapter 5 of Part I of title 35 of 
the United States Code, and is designed to curb the deceptive 
practices of invention marketing companies. These companies 
operate by advertising that inventors can call a toll free 
number for an invention evaluation form, which they claim is 
used to provide expert analysis of the development 
possibilities of their inventions. The inventors return the 
form with descriptions of the inventions, which become the 
basis for contacts by salespeople at the marketing companies. 
The next step is a costly product research report which usually 
contains nothing more than boilerplate information stating 
merely that the invention may qualify for a design patent. Then 
the marketing companies attempt to convince the inventor to buy 
marketing services--typically consisting of a mere mention in a 
few press releases and trade shows--at a cost of up to $10,000.
     The title aims to confront these problems by requiring 
that: (1) contracts between marketing companies and inventors 
contain standardized disclosures, including the number of 
applicants rejected by the companies, statistics on the profits 
actually earned by inventors, and contractual terms prescribing 
payment conditions and termination rights and (2) marketing 
companies submit quarterly reports to their subscribing 
inventors.
     Remedies against companies for failing to comply include 
private civil actions for actual or $5,000 statutory damages, 
the possibility of treble damages, and costs and attorneys' 
fees. Criminal penalties of up to $10,000 are also provided.
     The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2419 on October 
19, 1996. Testimony was received from G. Lee Skillington, 
Counsel, Office of Legislative and International Affairs, 
Patent and Trademark Office, United States Department of 
Commerce; Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the sponsor of S. 909, 
the Senate companion bill to H.R. 2419; Dr. William D. Noonan, 
Klarquist, Sparkman, Campbell, Leigh & Whinston; Mr. Donald R. 
Dunner, Chair, Section of Intellectual Property Law Section, 
American Bar Association; Mr. Michael Kirk, Executive Director, 
American Intellectual Property Law Association; and Mr. Robert 
Lougher, Inventors Awareness Group.
     On May 15, 1996, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported a Committee Print incorporating five bills pending 
before the Subcommittee, including provisions contained in H.R. 
2419, by voice vote, a quorum being present. A bill containing 
the Committee Print favorably reported by the Subcommittee was 
introduced as H.R. 3460. On June 11, 1996, the Committee on the 
Judiciary considered H.R. 3460. Two amendments were offered: 
(1) Congressman Moorhead offered an en bloc amendment making 
various technical, clarifying and conforming changes, and (2) 
Congressmen Hyde and Conyers offered an amendment to the short 
title of H.R. 3460 to rename the bill the ``Moorhead-Schroeder 
Patent Reform Act.'' Both of the amendments passed by voice 
vote, a quorum being present and the bill H.R. 3460, as 
amended, was ordered favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum 
being present (H. Rept. 104-784).

Reexamination, H.R. 1732

     H.R. 1732, the ``Patent Reexamination Reform Act,'' 
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead and Ranking Member 
Schroeder, was included as Title V of H.R. 3460. There are 
three main elements of the legislation. First, the legislation 
provides third parties with a greater opportunity to 
participate in reexamination proceedings while maintaining most 
of the features which make reexamination a desirable 
alternative to litigation in the federal courts (e.g., low 
cost, expedited procedure). Second, the legislation expands the 
basis and scope of reexamination to include review of 
compliance with all aspects of 35 U.S.C., Sec. 112, except the 
``best mode'' requirement. Third, the proposed legislation 
requires that the real party in interest be identified and 
provides third-party requesters with certain appeal rights. 
Exercising some of these rights (e.g., filing of an appeal to 
the Federal Circuit), would be conditioned on the third-party 
requester accepting a statutory estoppel against subsequent 
review, either by the Office or by a federal court, of the 
issues that were or could have been raised in the reexamination 
proceeding. These limits, along with certain others introduced 
in the legislation, would ensure that reexamination proceedings 
could not be used to harass patent owners and would not be 
available where court action makes reexamination unnecessary.
     The proposed modifications to the reexamination procedure 
would not unreasonably increase the cost, complexity or 
duration of reexamination proceedings, nor would they impose 
unreasonable burdens on the Office or patentees. Reexamination 
proceedings would continue to be based largely on the ex parte 
structure of regular examination. The issues considered during 
reexamination would continue to be those routinely considered 
by examiners in the course of regular examination procedures. 
Most importantly, however, these modifications would increase 
third party use of the reexamination system as a meaningful, 
inexpensive and expeditious alternative to patent validity 
litigation.
     The Subcommittee held two days of hearings on H.R. 1732, 
on June 8, 1995 and November 1, 1995. Testimony was received 
from The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary of 
Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and 
Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Gary L. 
Griswold, Intellectual Property Owners; Mr. Michael Kirk, 
American Intellectual Property Law Association; Mr. Thomas E. 
Smith, American Bar Association, Section on Intellectual 
Property Law; Mr. Andrew Kimbrell, Director, International 
Center for Technology Assessment; Mr. Kenneth Addison, Oklahoma 
Inventors Congress; Dr. Raymond Damadian, President and 
Chairman, Fonar Corporation; The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, 
Representative, California, 45th District; Mr. James L. 
Fergason, Inventor, Founder and President of Optical Shields, 
Incorporated, Menlo Park, California; Mr. Mark A. Lemley, 
Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of Texas at 
Austin; Mr. Thomas W. Buckman, Inventor, Vice President, 
Patents and Technology, Illinois Tool Works, Incorporated, 
Glenview, Illinois, representing the National Association of 
Manufacturers; Mr. William D. Budinger, Inventor, Chairman & 
Chief Executive Officer, Rodel, Incorporated, and Chair of the 
Technology and Innovation Section of the White House Conference 
on Small Business; Mr. Edward Stead, Vice President, General 
Counsel & Secretary, Apple Computer, Incorporated, testifying 
on behalf of the Information Technology Industry Council; Mr. 
Roger May, Assistant General Counsel, Ford Motor Company, 
Member of the Michigan Patent Law Association; Mr. Stephen 
Barram, Inventor, Chief Executive Officer, Integrated Services, 
Incorporated, Lake Oswego, Oregon; Dr. Raymond Damadian, 
Inventor, President and Chairman, Fonar, Incorporated, Inventor 
and Manufacturer of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI); Mr. James 
Chandler, President of the National Intellectual Property Law 
Institute, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Robert Rines, Inventor, 
Founder, and former President of the Franklin Pierce Law 
Center; Ms. Diane L. Gardner, Patent Agent, Molecular 
Biosystems, Incorporated, and President of the Intellectual 
Property Law Society at Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Dr. 
Paul Crilly, Inventor, and Associate Professor of Electronic 
Engineering University of Tennessee, Knoxville; and Dr. David 
L. Hill, President, Patent Enforcement Fund, Incorporated, 
Southport, Connecticut.
     On May 15, 1996, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported a Committee Print incorporating five bills pending 
before the Subcommittee, including provisions contained in H.R. 
1732, by voice vote, a quorum being present. A bill containing 
the Committee Print favorably reported by the Subcommittee was 
introduced as H.R. 3460. On June 11, 1996, the Committee on the 
Judiciary considered H.R. 3460. Two amendments were offered: 
(1) Congressman Moorhead offered an en bloc amendment making 
various technical, clarifying and conforming changes, and (2) 
Congressmen Hyde and Conyers offered an amendment to the short 
title of H.R. 3460 to rename the bill the ``Moorhead-Schroeder 
Patent Reform Act.'' Both of the amendments passed by voice 
vote, a quorum being present and the bill H.R. 3460, as 
amended, was ordered favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum 
being present (H. Rept. 104-784).

Patent Term, H.R. 359

     H.R. 359 was introduced by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. 
This legislation proposed to set the term of a patent at the 
greater of 17 years from the date a patent is granted or twenty 
years from the date of earliest filing of a patent application. 
In the 103rd Congress, the House approved implementing 
legislation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by a 
vote of 288-146. H.R. 359 would have effectively reversed a 
provision of that implementing legislation that fixed patent 
term at twenty years from the date of earliest filing of the 
patent application. A hearing was held on H.R. 359 on November 
1, 1995. Testimony was received from Mr. Andrew Kimbrell, 
Director, International Center for Technology Assessment; Mr. 
Kenneth Addison, Oklahoma Inventors Congress; Dr. Raymond 
Damadian, President and Chairman, Fonar Corporation; The 
Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, Representative, California, 45th 
District; Mr. James L. Fergason, Inventor, Founder and 
President of Optical Shields, Incorporated, Menlo Park, 
California; Mr. Mark A. Lemley, Assistant Professor, School of 
Law, University of Texas at Austin; Mr. Thomas W. Buckman, 
Inventor, Vice President, Patents and Technology, Illinois Tool 
Works, Incorporated, Glenview, Illinois, representing the 
National Association of Manufacturers; Mr. William D. Budinger, 
Inventor, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Rodel, 
Incorporated, and Chair of the Technology and Innovation 
Section of the White House Conference on Small Business; Mr. 
Edward Stead, Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, 
Apple Computer, Incorporated, testifying on behalf of the 
Information Technology Industry Council; Mr. Roger May, 
Assistant General Counsel, Ford Motor Company, Member of the 
Michigan Patent Law Association; Mr. Stephen Barram, Inventor, 
Chief Executive Officer, Integrated Services, Incorporated, 
Lake Oswego, Oregon; Dr. Raymond Damadian, Inventor, President 
and Chairman, Fonar, Incorporated, Inventor and Manufacturer of 
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MCI); Mr. James Chandler, President 
of the National Intellectual Property Law Institute, 
Washington, D.C.; Dr. Robert Rhines, Inventor, Founder, and 
former President of the Franklin Pierce Law Center; Ms. Diane 
L. Gardener, Patent Agent, Molecular Biosystems, Incorporated, 
and President of the Intellectual Property Law Society at 
Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Dr. Paul Crilly, Inventor, and 
Associate Professor of Electronic Engineering University of 
Tennessee, Knoxville; and Dr. David L. Hill, President, Patent 
Enforcement Fund, Incorporated, Southport, Connecticut.
     Testimony on H.R. 359 was also heard at the June 8, 1995 
hearing on H.R. 1732, H.R. 1733 and H.R. 632. Although H.R. 359 
offered a seemingly simple solution to a complex issue, the 
Subcommittee hearings revealed that it created more problems 
than it solved. On May 15, 1996, the Subcommittee met in open 
session. Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead moved to favorably 
report H.R. 359 to the full Judiciary Committee. The 
Subcommittee rejected the motion to order that H.R. 359 be 
favorably reported by a vote of 12 to 2.

Medical Procedures, H.R. 1127

     H.R. 1127, introduced by Representatives Ganske and Wyden, 
proposed to preclude the issuance of a patent for any invention 
of a method or process for performing a surgical or medical 
procedure, administering a surgical or medical therapy, or 
making a medical diagnosis. H.R. 1127 proposed to exempt those 
methods or processes which are performed by a machine, 
manufacture, or composition of matter which is itself 
separately patentable. The version that passed as part of 
Public Law 104-208 did not preclude the issuance of a patent. 
Instead, it provided doctors a defense to patent infringement 
of any invention of a method or process for performing a 
surgical or medical procedure, administering a surgical or 
medical therapy, or making a medical diagnosis.
     The Subcommittee held hearings on H.R. 1127 on October 19, 
1995. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: The 
Honorable Greg Ganske, U.S. House of Representatives, 4th 
District, Iowa; The Honorable Ron Wyden, U.S. House of 
Representatives, 3rd District, Oregon; G. Lee Skillington, 
Counsel, Office of Legislative and International Affairs, 
Patent and Trademark Office United States Department of 
Commerce; Dr. Samuel L. Pallia, The Lear Eye Clinic, Sun City, 
Arizona; Dr. Jack Singer, Hitchcock Clinic, Randolph, Vermont; 
Dr. Charles D. Kelman, President, American Society of Cataract 
& Refractive Surgery; Dr. William D. Noonan, Klarquist Sparkman 
Campbell Leigh & Whinston, Patent, Trademark and Copyright 
Law--Litigation and Licensing; Dr. H. Dunbar Hoskins, Jr., 
Executive Vice President, American Academy of Ophthalmology; 
Mr. Donald R. Dunner, Chair, Section of Intellectual Property 
Law, American Bar Association.
     No Judiciary Committee markups were held on H.R. 1127. A 
provision containing a modified version of H.R. 1127 was 
included in H.R. 3814, the Omnibus Appropriations Act. It is 
Public Law 104-208.

                               Trademarks

Federal Trademark Dilution, H.R. 1295

     H.R. 1295 was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman 
Moorhead, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Coble, Mr. Canady of Florida, 
Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Bono and Mr. Boucher. The purpose of H.R., 
1295 is to protect famous trademarks from subsequent uses that 
blur the distinctiveness of the mark or tarnish or disparage 
it, even in the absence of a likelihood of confusion. H.R. 1295 
does this by amending Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 
to add a new subsection to provide protection against another's 
commercial use of a famous mark which results in dilution of 
such mark. Prior to the enactment of H.R. 1295, the nature and 
extent of the remedies against trademark dilution varied from 
state to state and, therefore, provided unpredictable and 
inadequate results for the trademark owner. The federal remedy 
provided in H.R. 1295 against trademark dilution will bring 
uniformity and consistency to the protection of famous marks 
and is also consistent with our international obligations in 
the trademark area.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1295 on July 19, 
1995. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: Mr. 
Philip G. Hampton II, Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks of 
the Patent and Trademark Office, United States Department of 
Commerce; Ms. Mary Ann Alford, Vice President and Assistant 
General Counsel of the Intellectual Property, Reebok 
International, Ltd. and Executive Vice President, International 
Trademark Association; Mr. James K. Baughman, Assistant General 
Counsel of the Campbell Soup Company Nils Victor Montan, Vice 
President and Senior Intellectual Property Counsel Warner 
Brothers; Mr. Thomas E. Smith, Chair, Section of Intellectual 
Property Law of the American Bar Association; Mr. Jonathan E. 
Moskin, Attorney at Law of Pennie & Edmonds Law Firm; and Mr. 
Gregory W. O'Connor, General Patent Counsel & Assistant 
Secretary of Samsonite Corporation, with additional material 
submitted by Mr. Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director of the 
American Intellectual Property Law Association.
     On July 27, 1995, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1295, as amended, by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On October 17, 1995, the 
full Committee met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 1295 by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present (H. Rept. 104-374). H.R. 1295 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on December 12, 1995 and was 
subsequently passed by the Senate, sent to the President and 
signed into law on January 16, 1996. It is Public Law 104-98.

Anticounterfeiting, H.R. 2511

     H.R. 2511 was introduced by Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman Hyde, 
Mr. Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, Mr. McCollum, Mr. 
Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
Coble, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Bono, Mr. Heineman, Mr. 
Flanagan and Mr. Davis. Because of the high profit potential 
and low risk of meaningful prosecution, criminal counterfeiting 
has grown tremendously over the past several years and has been 
increasingly tied to organized crime. The purpose of H.R. 2511 
is to prevent counterfeiting of copyrighted and trademarked 
goods and services and to ensure that counterfeit goods 
produced elsewhere cannot enter the United States. The act 
addresses this problem by amending both criminal and civil 
laws. H.R. 2511 includes trafficking in counterfeit goods or 
services as predicate offenses subject to the Racketeer 
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) provisions of the 
criminal code. It also amends civil laws to ensure that 
imported counterfeits are seized and destroyed and allows 
trademark owners to opt for judicially determined statutory 
damages, rather than actual damages.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2511 on December 7, 
1995. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: Mr. 
Philip G. Hampton II, Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks at 
the Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce; 
Mr. Leonard S. Walton, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the 
Office of Investigations, United States Customs Service (Mr. 
Walton did not submit a written statement for the record but 
did offer responses to questions of the Members); Ms. Catherine 
Simmons-Gill, President of the International Trademark 
Association; Ms. Angela Small, Vice President of Legal Affairs 
for Saban Entertainment, Inc.; and Mr. John Bliss, President of 
the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition.
    On December 13, 1995, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and adopted the following two amendments to the bill: (1) one 
providing for technical and clarifying changes and (2) one 
providing for the addition of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2319A to the list 
of intellectual property violations that are subject to RICO 
provisions in Section 2 of the original bill. The Subcommittee 
ordered the bill H.R. 2511 be favorably reported, as amended, 
by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On March 12, 1996, the 
full Committee met in open session and ordered that the bill, 
H.R. 2511, be favorably reported as introduced, by a voice 
vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 104-556). H.R. 2511 was 
passed by the House under suspension of the rules on November 
20, 1995 and sent to the President as S. 1136 (Sponsored by 
Senator Hatch) and was signed into law. It is Public Law 104-
153.

Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, H.R. 1270

    H.R. 1270, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, 
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Coble, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. 
Goodlatte, Mr. Bono and Mr. Boucher, would implement the Madrid 
Protocol the moment the United States ratifies the treaty.
    As with many intellectual property rights, there are 
international agreements relating to the registration and 
protection of trademarks. On June 27, 1989, at a Diplomatic 
Conference in Madrid, Spain, the parties to the Madrid 
Agreement signed the Madrid Protocol (Protocol) relating to the 
international registration of marks. The Protocol provides for 
an international trademark registration system administered by 
the World Intellectual Property Organization (``WIPO'').
    H.R. 1270 includes no substantive changes to U.S. trademark 
law. The provisions detail the procedural changes necessary to 
accommodate the international registration system. The U.S. 
Patent and Trademark Office will be authorized to accept 
applications for international registration which then will be 
forwarded to WIPO for processing and further forwarded by WIPO 
to the participating countries designated by the applicant.
    The availability of a centralized and simplified 
registration procedure which would permit registration in a 
number of countries is viewed as beneficial to U.S. trademark 
owners. U.S. trademark owners will not be required to file 
under the international registration system. The applicant can 
still file in each individual country if it so chooses.
    One issue outstanding relating to the Protocol must be 
resolved before the Protocol is forwarded by the Administration 
to the Senate for ratification. The issue involves the 
provision relating to the voting rights of the participating 
parties to the Protocol. This is a provision of the Protocol 
and not a provision of H.R. 1270. The issue is whether the 
European Union (EU), the intergovernmental organization 
responsible for the Community Trade Mark system should have a 
separate vote in addition to individual member country votes.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1270 on July 19, 
1995. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: Mr. 
Philip G. Hampton II, Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks of 
the Patent and Trademark Office, United States Department of 
Commerce; Ms. Mary Ann Alford, Vice President and Assistant 
General Counsel of the Intellectual Property, Reebok 
International, Ltd. and Executive Vice President, International 
Trademark Association; Mr. James K. Baughman, Assistant General 
Counsel of the Campbell Soup Company Nils Victor Montan, Vice 
President and Senior Intellectual Property Counsel Warner 
Brothers; Mr. Thomas E. Smith, Chair, Section of Intellectual 
Property Law of the American Bar Association; Mr. Jonathan E. 
Moskin, Attorney at Law of Pennie & Edmonds Law Firm; and Mr. 
Gregory W. O'Connor, General Patent Counsel & Assistant 
Secretary of Samsonite Corporation, with additional material 
submitted by Mr. Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director of the 
American Intellectual Property Law Association.
    On July 27, 1995, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1270, by a voice vote, 
a quorum being present. H.R. 1270 was not called up by the full 
Committee.

Department of Agriculture Trademark of `Woodsy Owl'', H.R. 1269

    H.R. 1269 was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, 
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Coble, Mr. Bono and Mr. Boucher at the 
request of the Department of Agriculture to authorize the 
Secretary to prescribe by regulation the trademarked 
representation of the U.S. environmental symbol, ``Woodsy 
Owl''. ``Woodsy Owl'' and his slogan ``Give a Hoot, Don't 
Pollute'' is recognized by over 70 percent of all American 
households and over 90 percent of households which have 
children under age 10. ``Woodsy's'' costume is 26 years old and 
permission from Congress is required to assist the redesigning 
of ``Woodsy'' for the children of the 90's.
    A hearing on H.R. 1269 was held by the Subcommittee on 
April 5, 1995. Testimony was received by Mr. H. Dieter Hoinkes, 
Senior Counsel, Office of Legislative and International 
Affairs, Patent and Trademark Office, United States Department 
of Commerce. Testimony anticipated by the Department of 
Agriculture was not received. No markups were held on H.R. 
1269.

                   Other Intellectual Property Rights

Database Protection, H.R. 3531

    H.R. 3531, the ``Database Investment and Intellectual 
Property Antipiracy Act of 1996,'' was introduced by 
Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead. The proposal is aimed at 
stimulating the creation of databases and encouraging fair 
competition among database compilers. It is intended to prevent 
actual or threatened competitive injury from misappropriation 
of substantial portions of databases. The bill includes a broad 
exemption for any insubstantial uses of databases, and it does 
not prevent the independent creation of a database. The bill 
avoids conferring any monopoly or ownership of information.
    No hearings or markups were held on H.R. 3531.

                          Oversight Activities

Digital Performance Rights in Sound Recordings

    Negotiations took place at Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead's 
urging between the Recording Industry Association of America, 
and the performing rights licensing societies (ASCAP, SESAC and 
BMI) regarding royalty structures under the newly established 
performance right. A compromise was reached, agreed to by the 
Subcommittee, adopted and incorporated into both H.R. 1506 
(S.227) which was signed into law November 1, 1995 as P.L. 104-
39.

Fairness in Music Licensing

    The Subcommittee sponsored three negotiating sessions (May 
24, June 23 and July 28, 1995) between representatives of 
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC and the Music Licensing Fairness Coalition 
(restaurateurs, retailers, religious broadcasters, etc.) in an 
effort to resolve issues raised by current music licensing 
practices. In addition, Senator Hank Brown of Colorado held 
three meetings in his office in November and December, 1995 in 
an effort to resolve the outstanding issues.
    To date, no agreement among the parties has been reached. 
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are willing to exempt establishments that 
are 3,500 square feet or less from having to pay for music that 
is broadcast over T.V. or radio. The Coalition is seeking an 
exemption for establishments that are 5,000 square feet or 
less.
    Another fairness issue has been raised by the religious 
broadcasters regarding their ability to obtain a per program 
license that reflects their limited use of music. The religious 
broadcasters contend that they are forced to take a blanket 
license from ASCAP and BMI which covers the entire musical 
repertories of those organizations, because ASCAP and BMI make 
the current per program license more expensive than a blanket 
license, and therefore not a viable alternative. ASCAP and BMI 
resist doing anything on this issue because it is currently in 
litigation and therefore should be left to the courts.
    The negotiations produced some progress, but were 
ultimately not successful in resolving the issues.

Satellite Home Viewer Act Interpretation

    A problem exists in interpreting the 1988 Satellite Home 
Viewer Act and its 1994 Amendments as it relates to satellite 
programming carriers and local network affiliates on measuring 
reception quality. Those living in areas of the U.S. where a 
broadcast signal from a local network affiliate is not strong 
enough are entitled to subscribe to satellite carrier services 
for network programming from a distant rather than a local 
affiliate. A disagreement exists over measuring signal 
strengths. Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead requested that the 
broadcasters and the satellite carriers convene negotiations in 
October, 1995. Negotiations between the broadcast and satellite 
industries were initiated with an industry meeting in New York 
City on March 31, 1995. Two subsequent meetings between 
industry representatives were held, one in New York City, the 
other in Chicago, and counsel and engineering consultants for 
the parties have corresponded and conferred on numerous 
occasions through telephone conference calls. Regrettably, a 
final agreement is yet to be achieved.

Madrid Protocol

    The Subcommittee has supported U.S. accession to the Madrid 
Protocol for the Registration of Trademarks for many years. A 
problem in allowing ratification to occur involves a provision 
of the protocol relating to the voting rights of the 
participating parties. The issue is whether the European Union 
(EU), the intergovernmental organization responsible for the 
Community Trade Mark system should have a separate vote in 
addition to individual member country votes.
    The U.S. views the additional vote as an expansion of the 
role of intergovernmental organizations and their members. The 
U.S. had expected that the EU would agree to restrict this 
issue to this Protocol and that it would not be used as a basis 
for other agreements. This has not proven to be the situation. 
The extra vote has been requested by the EU in other 
negotiations citing the Protocol as precedent. The U.S. does 
not want to have the Protocol used as precedent for any other 
negotiations.
    Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead called for negotiations with 
the State Department to develop an innovative method for 
allowing accession without creating a detrimental precedent. A 
staff negotiation meeting was held in September, 1995. 
Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, Chairman Hyde, Mrs. Schroeder 
and Mr. Conyers went to Brussels to meet with European 
Commission Members on the problem. A follow-up meeting was held 
in Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead's Office, attended by 
Chairman Hyde and Mrs. Schroeder, in February, 1996. PTO and 
State Department legal and policy staff met several times to 
draft a formal de marche to present to the EU. Unfortunately, 
the State Department reported that it could not find a 
compromise position and recommended that accession not occur in 
any form.

Copyrighted Works on the Internet

    Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead called for negotiations 
regarding the issue of on-line service provider liability and 
designated Subcommittee Member Bob Goodlatte of Virginia to 
lead these negotiations. Seven negotiation sessions occurred 
from February-May, 1996 in Room B-352 Rayburn Building. The 
issue of on-line service provider liability revolves around the 
responsibility service providers must bear for infringing 
material which either resides on or passes through their 
servers. Much of the infrastructure used in the Internet system 
is owned by service provider companies. Almost everyone uses 
telephone lines to access the Internet through modems connected 
to their computers. The owners of these servers and lines who 
provide much of the infrastructure do not want to be held 
liable for direct copyright violations of others occurring on 
their servers or passing through their lines. Further, the 
phone companies envision a future where Internet and telephone 
services are merged and it is important to establish a workable 
system now to allow that exploitation to occur.
    The service providers and copyright owners were close to 
compromise language which would grant an incentive to copyright 
owners to notify service providers of infringing material over 
which the service provider has control. Under the compromise 
language, if the service provider is able to remove the 
material and does so, it can relieve itself of contributory 
infringement or vicarious liability under the copyright laws. 
There are also incentives to encourage service providers to 
encourage users to respect copyrights. A solution has not yet 
been found, although much progress was made this Congress.

Exemption in the Copyright Act for the Repair of Computers

    Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead requested that the Copyright 
Office hold negotiations between the computer service 
maintenance industry and the software providers to draft 
language which will provide a tailored exemption in the 
Copyright Act for the routine maintenance of computers. The 
negotiations ended and the Copyright Office presented a draft 
bill amendment to Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead in early 
March, 1996. The amendment was incorporated at full Committee 
into H.R. 1861, the ``Copyright Clarifications Act of 1996.''

Copyright Term Extension

    At the request of Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead, the 
Copyright Office is hosting negotiations between the library 
community and the copyright owners on extension provisions 
affecting libraries' ability to obtain copies of works. Several 
sessions were held, and a compromise recommendation was 
forwarded to the Chairman by the Copyright Office.

Protection of Photofinishers

    At the request of Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead and 
Representative Coble of North Carolina, the Copyright Office 
began negotiations between photographer copyright owners and 
photofinishers over the problem of the making of unauthorized 
copies of photographs. Photofinishers are concerned that a 
strict interpretation of the Copyright Act will infringe upon 
their ability to make duplicates of almost any photograph and 
cause harm to the U.S. photofinishing industry. Representative 
Coble met with the Register of the Copyright Office to discuss 
these concerns. To supplement information received and to allow 
all interested parties an additional opportunity to address the 
issues fully, the Copyright Office held a public hearing on 
June 26, 1996. The Office is in the process of considering the 
hearing testimony and all comments and deciding what action, if 
any, should be taken. Further oversight of these issues is 
expected during the 105th Congress.

Fair Use Exemption

    On September 27, 1996, the Subcommittee adopted a 
nonlegislative report relating to Fair Use Guidelines for 
Educational Multimedia.
    Under the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright owners have the 
exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, 
distribute, perform, display, transfer ownership, rent or lend 
their creations. Under the same Act, the ``fair use'' exemption 
places a limit on these exclusive rights to promote free 
speech, learning, scholarly research and open discussion. 
Accordingly, under the Act, educators may use portions of 
copyrighted material if the purpose and character of the use is 
educational in nature, previously published, not a substantial 
part of the entire work and if the marketability of the work is 
not impaired by the use. These vague standards do not provide 
much specific guidance for educators, scholars and students, 
and are fairly subjective in their interpretation.
    Because of the vague nature of the exemption, shortly after 
Congress passed the Copyright Act in 1976, a group of 
publishers, authors and educators gathered to agree on an 
interpretation of the fair use exemption which would in turn 
provide more specific guidelines that educators could follow 
and be reasonably sure that they would not be in violation of 
the copyright law.
    These guidelines were made part of the Congressional Record 
and became an unrelated part of a Judiciary Committee Report.
    Many technological developments have occurred since 1976. 
The fair use exemption contained in the Copyright Act must 
again be interpreted by copyright owners and the educational 
community to allow educators to apply the Act in light of these 
new technologies. To that end, the Consortium of College and 
University Media Centers (``CCUM'') convened a diverse group of 
interested parties to draft guidelines which would provide 
guidance on the application of the fair use exemption by 
educators, scholars and students in creating multimedia 
projects that include portions of copyrighted works, for their 
use in noncommercial educational activities, without having to 
seek the permission of copyright owners. These guidelines form 
the body of this nonlegislative report.
    These guidelines do not represent a legal document, nor are 
they legally binding. They do represent an agreed upon 
interpretation of the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act 
by the overwhelming majority of institutions and organizations 
affected by educational multimedia. A list of those 
organizations who have supplied written endorsements for the 
guidelines appears at the end of the guidelines.
    While only the courts can decide whether a particular use 
of a copyrighted work fits within the fair use exemption, these 
guidelines represent the participants' consensus view of what 
constitutes the fair use of a portion of a work which is 
included in a multimedia educational project. The specific 
portion and time limitations will help educators, scholars and 
students more easily identify whether using a portion of a 
certain copyrighted work in their multimedia program 
constitutes a fair use of that work. They grant a relative 
degree of certainty that a use within the guidelines will not 
be perceived as an infringement of the Copyright Act by the 
endorsing copyright owners, and that permission for such use 
will not be required. The more one exceeds these guidelines, 
the greater the risk that the use of a work is not a fair use, 
and that permission must be sought.
    These guidelines have the support of the U.S. Copyright 
Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, whose letters 
of endorsement for these guidelines are included in the report.

Ethical Standards for Federal Prosecutors and Prosecutorial Discretion

    The Subcommittee has oversight over the Executive Office of 
the United States Attorneys located in the Department of 
Justice within each of the ninety-four federal districts in the 
fifty states, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico 
and the Virgin Islands. The U.S. Attorney is the chief law 
enforcement representative of the Attorney General, enforcing 
federal criminal law and handling most of the civil litigation 
in which the United States is involved.
    On September 12, 1996, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the ethical standards required of federal 
prosecutors and prosecutorial discretion. The following 
witnesses testified at the Subcommittee hearing: the Honorable 
Joseph M. McDade, Member of Congress, 10th District of 
Pennsylvania; Mr. Seth P. Waxman, Associate Deputy Attorney 
General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Department of 
Justice; Mr. Tim Evans, Member of Board of Directors, National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Mr. Frederick J. 
Krebs, President, American Corporate Counsel Association; and 
Mr. Roger Pilon, Director, CATO Institute. In addition, the 
American Bar Association submitted a written statement for the 
record.
    Historically, states have had the exclusive authority to 
determine the membership of its bars and to regulate the 
conduct of its members. States mandate the qualifications of 
their attorneys in a variety of ways, including bar admission 
exams, continuing legal education requirements, annual bar fees 
and rules of ethics. Every state and the District of Columbia 
have adopted rules of ethics, and many federal district courts 
have adopted some or all of the rules of ethics of the state 
where the courts sits, including some form of DR 7-104(A)(1) or 
Rule 4.2 of the ABA Model Rules, known as the ``anti-contact 
rule.''
    On August 4, 1994, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a 
final rule governing its attorneys contacts with represented 
persons. This regulation sets out a new and different standard 
governing a DOJ lawyers' contacts with represented persons. The 
DOJ contends that this regulation will not result in a change 
of law in the majority of the states, but to the extent that 
any state or federal court would disagree, the Department 
claims that ``[it] is intended to preempt and supersede the 
application of state laws and rules and local federal court 
rules to the extent that they relate to contacts by attorneys 
for the government, and those acting at their direction or 
under their supervision, with represented parties or 
represented persons in criminal or civil law enforcement 
investigations or proceedings; it is designed to preempt the 
entire field of rules concerning such contacts.''
    The power of the federal government to investigate and 
prosecute suspected criminals is great and must never be 
abused. Unlike private sector attorneys, the duty of federal 
prosecutors goes well beyond zealous representation of their 
clients within the boundaries of minimal ethical guidelines--
they have a duty to uphold the Constitution and to ensure that 
justice prevails in every case. Consequently, the Department of 
Justice's issuance of a rule that purports to exempt its own 
attorneys from certain state bar and federal court ethical 
rules drew sharp criticism from some federal courts, the 
Conference of Chief Justices of the United States, the American 
Bar Association, the National Association for Criminal Defense 
Lawyers, the American Corporate Counsel Association and others.
    The issuance of this rule, as well as its purported 
justification and scope, raise a number of questions important 
to the Subcommittee about how federal government prosecutors 
conduct their litigation and to what extent Congress has 
granted the Department of Justice the authority to regulate its 
own conduct. Specifically, witnesses testified about: (1) 
whether the Department of Justice has the authority to issue 
any rules exempting its attorneys from state bar and federal 
court ethical rules (and the anti-contact rule in particular), 
(2) whether the Department of Justice should have the authority 
to issue rules that exempt its attorneys from state bar and 
federal court ethical rules, (3) whether the Department of 
Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility has effectively 
policed the conduct of federal prosecutors, (4) whether it is 
an actual or apparent conflict of interest for the Department 
of Justice to police the conduct of its own attorneys, and (5) 
whether the Department's anti-contact rule or other policies 
encourage the abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Continued 
oversight is necessary to determine if legislation is needed in 
this area.

Article III Courts

    The Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property 
exercises the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary to 
oversee the operation of the Article III courts. On March 14, 
1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing regarding the federal 
judiciary that served the dual purpose of being both a 
legislative hearing as well as an oversight hearing. 
Legislatively, the Subcommittee considered H.R. 1989, the 
``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1995'' which was introduced 
by Subcommittee Chairman Moorhead and the ranking member, Mrs. 
Schroeder, at the request of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States.
    The Judicial Conference is the policy making body of the 
federal judiciary, and through a committee system evaluates 
court operations. The Judicial Conference is supported by the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Also, the 
circuit judicial councils of the regional circiuts have 
statutory responsibility for certain administrative and 
operational matters. The fifty-one provisions in H.R. 1989 were 
developed within the judiciary and approved by the Judicial 
Conference. In their consideration of these legislative 
provisions that were intended to improve the organization, 
management, and operation of the federal judiciary, 
Subcommittee Members were also afforded the opportunity to 
conduct oversight of the day-to-day operations of the federal 
judiciary. While H.R. 1989 ultimately became public law as 
S.1887, the Subcommittee anticipates that many of the issues 
raised in the context of this legislation will form the basis 
for further oversight of the federal judiciary.

              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, 1995, 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, existing arbitration programs in U.S. District 
Courts, 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 of 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, 
the licensing of musical works by performance rights licensing 
associations to bars, restaurants, and other venues, annual 
losses of U.S. property to piracy in China, South Korea, Japan 
and South America, and a possible protocol to the Berne 
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

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, and the effects of the 
new patent term.
                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

 BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California              HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ED BRYANT, Tennessee
                                     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
                                     BOB BARR, Georgia

           Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................   246
Private legislation referred to the Subcommittee..................     1
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    20
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 pending before the full Committee.....................     5
Legislation reported to the House.................................    18
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................     5
Legislation pending in the House..................................     0
Legislation passed by the House...................................    23
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     9
Legislation vetoed by the President...............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................    14
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    28
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    48

                    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, the 
Independent Counsel Act, 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 
104th Congress include the following:

         THE EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT--HABEAS CORPUS REFORM

    On January 20, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
issues related to H.R. 3, the ``Taking Back Our Streets Act,'' 
which was introduced on January 4, 1995, as part of House 
Republicans ``Contract with America'' proposal. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony regarding the need for habeas 
corpus reform from hearing witnesses Gerald Goldstein, 
President of the National Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers; Larry Yackle, Professor of Law at the Boston 
University School of Law; and Susan Boleyn, Senior Assistant 
Attorney General for the State of Georgia.
    On January 30, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman McCollum 
introduced H.R. 729, the ``Effective Death Penalty Act of 
1995'' which reforms death row appeals procedures in three 
important ways: (1) It establishes strict time limits for 
filing habeas petitions and, in some instances, for judicial 
consideration of them; (2) It requires federal judges to deny 
petitions filed by persons convicted in state court proceedings 
if the state court reasonably interpreted applicable federal 
law and made a reasonable determination of the facts in 
question in the case; and (3) It allows defendants only one 
bite at the apple by barring successive habeas corpus petitions 
except in the rarest of circumstances. H.R. 729 was held at the 
full Committee and was ordered favorably reported to the House, 
as amended, on February 1, 1995, by a vote of 24 yeas to 10 
nays. On February 8, 1995, H.R. 729 was reported favorably to 
the House by Mr. McCollum (H. Rept. 104-23) and passed the 
House as amended, with additional floor amendments, by a vote 
of 297 yeas to 132 nays.
    Amended provisions of H.R. 729 were included in S. 735, the 
``Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.'' The 
conference report on S. 735 passed the House by a vote of 293 
yeas to 133 nays and was approved by the President on April 24, 
1996 (P.L. 104-132).

            TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING AND PRISON LITIGATION REFORM

    On January 19, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
issues related to H.R. 3, the ``Taking Back Our Streets Act,'' 
which was introduced on January 4, 1995. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, James S. Gilmore, III; and the Attorney General of 
the State of California, Daniel E. Lungren, regarding the need 
for violent repeat offenders to serve longer portions of their 
sentences and the need for adequate prison resources. The 
Subcommittee also heard testimony from state and local law 
enforcement officials regarding the extent to which federal 
courts have seized control over state prisons and local jails. 
Witnesses included Lynn Abraham, District Attorney for the city 
of Philadelphia, and Patrick Boyle, Detective on the 
Philadelphia Police Department, whose son, Patrolman Danny 
Boyle, also of the Philadelphia Police Department, was murdered 
by a man who had been released early from prison as a result of 
a federally imposed prison cap. The last witness on the panel 
was Alvin J. Bronstein, Director of the American Civil 
Liberties Union Prison Project.
    On January 25, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman McCollum 
introduced H.R. 667, the ``Violent Criminal Incarceration Act 
of 1995.'' Title I of H.R. 667 replaces Title II, grants for 
state prisons, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994. H.R. 667 provides $10.5 billion in funding for the 
states for the purpose of incarcerating serious violent felons. 
Half the funds are available to states that are making progress 
in holding violent criminals accountable. Such states can 
qualify for funds it they are: (1) incarcerating a higher 
percentage of convicted violent offenders; (2) increasing the 
average length of violent offenders' sentences; and (3) 
requiring that such offenders actually serve a higher 
percentage of their sentences. The other half of the funds are 
available for states that enact truth-in-sentencing laws which 
require violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their 
sentences.
    Titles II and III of H.R. 667 address prison litigation 
reform. Title II requires that the federal court-ordered relief 
in suits challenging prison conditions be limited to correcting 
specific violations of inmates' constitutional rights. The 
court must give substantial weight to any adverse impact on 
public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system 
caused by the relief. The bill also places restrictions on 
court-ordered prison population caps, including: prohibiting 
caps unless the court had previously entered an order for less 
intrusive relief that failed to remedy the deprivation of the 
federal right; and, only permitting such caps if the court 
finds that crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a 
federal right, and that no other relief will remedy the 
violation of the federal right. H.R. 667 also allows any state 
or local official whose jurisdiction or function includes the 
prosecution or custody of persons who may be effected by a 
population cap to have standing to sue to terminate the cap. 
Title III of H.R. 667 requires prisoners to exhaust the 
administrative remedies established by the corrections system 
before they may file a lawsuit in federal court. Title III also 
provides for an expedited process for judges to screen out 
frivolous cases before they go to trial.
    H.R. 667 was held at the full Committee and was ordered 
favorably reported to the House, amended, on February 1, 1995, 
by a vote of 23 yeas to 11 nays. On February 6, 1995, H.R. 667 
was reported favorably to the House by Mr. McCollum (H. Rept. 
104-21). On February 10, 1995, the House passed H.R. 667, with 
additional floor amendments, by a vote of 265 ayes to 156 nays. 
Provisions of H.R. 667 were included in H.R. 2076, the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 1996 which passed 
the House on July 29, 1995. The conference report of H.R. 2076 
was vetoed by the President on December 6, 1995. Provisions of 
H.R. 667 were included in H.R. 3019, a bill making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996, which was introduced on 
March 5, 1996. The conference report of H.R. 3019 was agreed to 
on April 25, 1996, and was signed into law by the President on 
April 26, 1996 (P.L. 104-134). Provisions of H.R. 667 were also 
included, modified and funded in the H.R. 3610, making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1997. H.R. 3610 was signed into 
law on September 30, 1996 (P.L. 104-208).

             LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS

    On January 19 and 20, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on issues related to H.R. 3, the ``Taking Back Our Streets 
Act,'' which was introduced on January 4, 1995. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the Department of Justice, 
state and local law enforcement, and academic and policy 
experts about effective approaches to crime policy and 
prevention. Witnesses for the panels included John Schmidt, 
Associate Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice; 
Victor Ashe, President of the U.S. Council of Mayors; Robert 
Macy, District Attorney for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Carl Peed, 
Sheriff of Fairfax County, Virginia; John Whetsel, President of 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police; John 
DiIulio, Professor at Princeton University and fellow with the 
Brookings Institution; Lynn A. Curtis, President of the Milton 
S. Eisenhower Foundation; Bennie Click, Chief of the Dallas, 
Texas, Police Department; and Richard Gebelein, former Attorney 
General for the State of Delaware and Superior Court Judge with 
the Wilmington, Delaware, Drug Court Program.
    On January 30, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman McCollum 
introduced H.R. 728, the ``Local Government Law Enforcement 
Block Grants Act of 1995.'' H.R. 728 repeals title I of the 
1994 crime act--the ``COPS on the Beat''--and replaces it with 
a block grant program to provide funds directly to units of 
local government to assist them in their efforts to improve 
public safety. The bill also repeals several federal prevention 
programs prescribed in the 1994 act. H.R. 728 authorizes a 
total of $10 billion for the block grants over five years, with 
$2 billion to be distributed in each of fiscal years 1996 
through 2000. The use of grant funds includes, but is not 
limited to: hiring, training, and equipping law enforcement 
officers and support personnel; enhancing school safety; and 
establishing crime prevention programs. Units of local 
government may use funds for purposes other than those 
specifically identified, so long as they are used to reduce 
crime and improve public safety. H.R. 728 requires that 
localities contribute a 10 percent match and units of local 
government can apply for funds each fiscal year. The formula 
for determining grant amounts is based on the severity of crime 
and the population of a locality.
    H.R. 728 was held at the full Committee and was ordered 
favorably reported to the House, amended, by a vote of 21 yeas 
to 13 nays. On February 8, 1995, H.R. 728 was reported 
favorably to the House by Mr. McCollum (H. Rept. 104-24). On 
February 14, 1995, the House passed H.R. 728, with additional 
floor amendments, by a vote of 238 ayes to 192 nays. Provisions 
of H.R. 728 were included in H.R. 2076, the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill for FY 1996 which passed the House on July 
29, 1995. The conference report of H.R. 2076 was vetoed by the 
President on December 6, 1995. Amended provisions of H.R. 728 
were included in H.R. 3019, a bill making appropriations for 
fiscal year 1996, which was introduced on March 5, 1996. The 
bill provided $503 billion for the Local Government Law 
Enforcement Block Grants Act and $1.4 billion for the 1994 
crime act's ``COPS on the Beat'' program for FY 1996. The 
conference report of H.R. 3019 was agreed to on April 25, 1996, 
and was signed into law by the President on April 26, 1996 
(P.L. 104-134). Provisions of H.R. 728 were also included, 
modified and funded in H.R. 3610, making appropriations for 
fiscal year 1997. H.R. 3610 was signed into law on September 
30, 1996 (P.L. 104-208).

                      MANDATORY VICTIM RESTITUTION

    On January 25, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman McCollum 
introduced H.R. 665, the ``Victim Restitution Act of 1995.'' 
H.R. 665 replaces title III of H.R. 3, ``The Taking Back Our 
Streets Act of 1995.'' Under current law a federal judge has 
the discretion to order an offender to make restitution to the 
victim, but is not required to do so. H.R. 665 mandates that 
judges order criminals to pay full restitution to their victims 
for all damages resulting from their crimes. It also gives 
judges the discretion to order criminals to make restitution to 
other persons who are affected by their crimes (e.g., family 
members of victims).
    H.R. 665 was held at the full Committee and ordered 
favorably reported to the House, amended, on January 27, 1995. 
On February 2, 1995, H.R. 665 was reported favorably to the 
House, amended, by Mr. McCollum (H. Rept. 104-16). H.R. 665 
passed the House on February 7, 1995 by a vote of 431 yeas to 0 
nays. Victim restitution provisions similar to H.R. 665 were 
included in S. 735, the ``Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act of 1996,'' which was introduced on April 27, 1995. 
The conference report on S. 735 passed the House by a vote of 
293 yeas to 133 nays and was approved by the President on April 
24, 1996 (P.L. 104-132).

                           EXCLUSIONARY RULE

    On January 20, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
issues related to H.R. 3, the ``Taking Back Our Streets Act,'' 
which was introduced on January 4, 1996. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from Paul Larkin, Esq., a partner with the law firm 
King and Spalding and E. Michael McCann, District Attorney of 
Milwaukee County in Wisconsin and Chair of the Criminal Section 
of the American Bar Association.
    On January 25, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman McCollum 
introduced H.R. 665, the ``Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 
1995.'' H.R. 666 provides for an exception to the Exclusionary 
rule in federal court when law enforcement officers improperly 
obtain evidence yet do so in the objectively reasonable belief 
that their actions comply with the protections of the Fourth 
Amendment to the Constitution.
    H.R. 666 codifies the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. 
Leon which held that evidence gathered by law enforcement 
officials pursuant to a defective warrant, and therefore in 
contravention of the Fourth Amendment, would nevertheless be 
admissible in a criminal proceeding if the officers gathered 
the evidence in the objectively reasonable belief that their 
actions were proper at the time. The bill also legislatively 
expands this ``good faith'' exception to situations where law 
enforcement officials gather evidence without a warrant, yet 
still can demonstrate that they acted with an objectively 
reasonable belief that their actions were proper. It would also 
make it clear that this exception would also apply to evidence 
gathered in violation of a statute, regulation, or rule.
    H.R. 666 was held at the full Committee and was ordered 
favorably reported to the House, by a vote of 19 yeas to 14 
nays on January 27, 1995. On February 6, 1995, H.R. 666 was 
reported favorably to the House by Mr. McCollum (H. Rept. 104-
17). On February 8, 1995, the House passed H.R. 666, amended, 
by a vote of 289 ayes to 142 nays. H.R. 666 was referred to the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 9, 1995. No 
further action was taken on H.R. 666 or exclusionary rule 
reform in the 104th Congress.

                       CRIMINAL ALIEN DEPORTATION

    On January 25, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman McCollum 
introduced H.R. 668, the ``Criminal Alien Deportation Act of 
1995.'' The bill added a number of provisions to the 
immigration laws, such as adding alien smuggling and other 
crimes involving obstruction of justice to the list of crimes 
for which a alien legally present in the county may be 
deported, limiting judicial challenges to deportation orders, 
and providing a process by which non-violent criminal could be 
deported. The bill also adds certain alien-smuggling crimes as 
``predicate offences'' under the Racketeer Influenced and 
Corrupt Organizations Act; and adds alien smuggling to the list 
of crimes that the government may investigate with wiretaps, 
when authorized by a Federal magistrate.
    H.R. 668 was held at the full Committee and was ordered 
favorably reported to the House, amended, by a vote of 22 yeas 
to 8 nays on January 31, 1995. On February 6, 1995, H.R. 668 
was reported favorably to the House by Mr. McCollum (H. Rept. 
104-22). On February 10, 1995, the House passed H.R. 668, 
amended, by a vote of 380 ayes to 20 nays. Provisions of H.R. 
668 were included in S. 735, the ``Antiterrorism and Effective 
Death Penalty Act of 1996.'' The conference report on S. 735 
passed the House by a vote of 293 yeas to 133 nays and was 
approved by the President on April 24, 1996 (P.L. 104-132).

                            THE WAR ON DRUGS

    The Subcommittee held a number of oversight hearings on 
illegal drug use in America and the enforcement of drug laws 
and considered several pieces of legislation related to those 
issues.

International Drug Trafficking

    On March 30, 1995, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the enforcement of federal drug laws: strategies and 
policies of the FBI and DEA. Specifically, the Subcommittee 
sought to begin working with the two agencies to reinvigorate 
the war on drugs. Between 1994 and 1996 there had been a 
substantial erosion in nearly every category of anti-drug 
activity. There had been a marked decline in the number of drug 
traffickers prosecuted. Fewer assets were being seized and 
forfeited. Drug interdiction had dropped, and resources for 
fighting drug traffickers oversees has been dramatically 
reduced. Witnesses for the hearing included Louis J. Freeh, 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Thomas 
Constantine, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration.

Cocaine Sentencing Policy

    The 1994 crime act directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
to study federal sentencing policy as it relates to possession 
and distribution of all forms of cocaine. Specifically, 
Congress required the Commission to report on the current 
federal policy regarding differing penalties for powder cocaine 
and crack cocaine offenses and to issue recommendations for the 
retention or modification of the current sentencing scheme. On 
May 1, 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission submitted to 
Congress proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines. The 
27 proposed amendments included reduced penalties for crack 
cocaine offenses. The Commission's amendments to the sentencing 
guidelines were to take effect November 1, 1995, unless 
Congress intervened. Under current law, it takes 500 grams of 
powder cocaine to trigger the five-year mandatory minimum 
penalty, and 5 grams of crack cocaine to trigger the same 
penalty, or, 100 times as much powder as crack (a 100-to-1 
quantity ratio).
    On June 29, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
examine the Sentencing Commission's recommended changes to the 
sentencing guidelines that would equalize penalties for similar 
quantities of crack and powder cocaine. Witnesses for the 
hearing included three of the seven members of the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission: Richard Conaboy, Chairman and U.S. 
District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; 
Wayne Budd, Commissioner; and Deanell Tacha, Commissioner, and 
10th Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals. The Subcommittee 
also heard testimony from Jo Ann Harris, Assistant Attorney 
General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Judge 
Lyle Strom, U.S. District Court Judge of the District of 
Nebraska; Wade Henderson, Director of the NAACP; Richard 
Cullen, Former United States Attorney in the Eastern District 
of Virginia, and Member, Virginia Sentencing Commission; Dr. 
Herbert Kleber, Executive Vice President and Medical Director 
of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), Columbia 
University; Tim Nelson, Special Agent of the North Carolina 
State Bureau of Investigation; and Dr. Jeffery Fagan, Professor 
of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University.
    On September 6, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman McCollum 
introduced H.R. 2259, to disapprove the Sentencing Commission's 
proposed amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. In addition, 
H.R. 2259 requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to submit to 
the Congress recommendations regarding changes to the statutes 
and Sentencing Guidelines governing sentences for unlawful 
manufacturing, importing, exporting, and trafficking of cocaine 
and like offenses. The bill also specifies that such 
recommendations shall propose revision of the drug quantity 
ratio of crack cocaine to powder cocaine under the relevant 
statutes and guidelines in a manner consistent with the ratios 
set for other drugs.
    The Subcommittee convened a session to mark-up H.R. 2259 on 
September 7, 1995, and by a recorded vote of 7 yeas to 3 nays, 
ordered the bill favorably reported to the full Committee. On 
September 12, 1995, the Committee met to consider H.R. 2259, 
and ordered it favorably reported to the House. On September 
29, 1995, the Committee report was filed (H. Rept. 104-272) 
and, on October 18, 1995, H.R. 2259 passed the House with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order by the 
rule by a vote of 332 yeas to 83 nays. The House then passed S. 
1254, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 2259. On October 30, 
1995, S. 1254 was signed into law (P.L. 104-38).

Marijuana Policy

    On March 6, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
marijuana use in America. After years of decline, marijuana use 
among young people has dramatically increased over the past 
four years. The hearing explored reasons for marijuana's 
increased popularity, the impact on the health and welfare of 
our society, and examined potential solutions to the problem. 
Witnesses for the hearing included: Dr. Eric Voth, Chairman of 
the International Drug Strategy Institute; Donald Hayes, 
D.A.R.E Officer in Alexandria, Virginia; Tom Hedrick, Vice-
Chairman of the Partnership for Drug Free America; Keith 
Stroup, Executive Director of the National Organization for the 
Reform of Marijuana Laws; Richard Brookhiser, Senior Editor of 
the National Review; and Jeralyn Merritt, Attorney and Board 
Member for the National Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers.

Methamphetamine Policy

    On October 26, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
rising scourge of methamphetamine in America. Witnesses for the 
hearing included: Thomas Constantine, Administrator for the 
Drug Enforcement Administration; LT. Ed Mayer, task force 
commander for the Jackson Country Narcotics Enforcement Team, 
Jackson County, Oregon; Sgt. John Sanchez, with the Arizona 
Department of Public Safety, Phoenix, Arizona; and David 
Waller, Special Agent with the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement, Lakeland, Florida.
    In addition, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 3852, 
the ``Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996,'' on 
September 5, 1996, H.R. 3852 contains increased penalties for 
illegally importing precursor chemicals used to make 
methamphetamine and establishes controls for over-the-counter 
products also used to make methamphetamine. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from several witnesses including: Senator Orrin 
Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and sponsor 
of S. 1965, the Senate counterpart to H.R. 3852; Harold Wankel, 
Chief of Operations at the Drug Enforcement Administration; 
James Cope, President of the Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers 
Association; and John Scheels, Director of Government Affairs 
for the Eckerd Corporation.
    On September 5, 1996, the Subcommittee was discharged from 
further consideration of the bill and H.R. 3852 was marked up 
in the full Committee on September 18, 1996. On September 25, 
1996, the full Committee was discharged from consideration and 
the bill was considered by the House. On September 26, 1996, 
H.R. 3852 passed the House, amended, under suspension of the 
rules, two-thirds affirmative vote required (386 yeas to 34 
nays). On September 28, the Senate companion bill, S.1965, was 
passed by the House in lieu of H.R. 3852. The bill was approved 
by the President on October 3, 1996 (P.L. 104-237).

                         VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

    The Subcommittee considered several pieces of legislation 
which addressed issues related to violence against women as a 
continuation of Congress' efforts to protect those who are 
particularly vulnerable to crime in America.

Anti-Stalking Legislation

    On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
several miscellaneous bills, including H.R. 2980, the 
``Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996.'' 
The sponsor of the bill, Congressman Ed Royce, testified on 
behalf of the bill. On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee held a 
mark-up at which H.R. 2980 was favorably reported to the full 
Committee, amended, by voice vote. On April 24, 1996, H.R. 2980 
was marked up in the full Committee and ordered favorably 
reported to the House, as amended. On May 6, 1996, the report 
was filed (H. Rept. 104-577). On May 7, 1996, the bill was 
passed by the House under suspension of the rules. On July 25, 
1996, H.R. 2980 passed the Senate, amended. Shortly thereafter, 
H.R. 2980 was included in H.R. 3230, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. H.R. 3230 was signed 
into law by the President on September 23, 1996 (P.L. 104-201).

Rape Defined in Carjacking Offenses

    On July 10, 1996, the Subcommittee considered and held a 
mark-up of H.R. 3676, the ``Carjacking Correction Act of 
1996,'' a bill to clarify the intent of Congress with respect 
to federal carjacking laws, specifically, increasing penalties 
for criminals who commit rape in the course of carjacking. H.R. 
3676 was favorably reported by the Subcommittee to the full 
Committee, amended. On September 10, 1996, the full Committee 
marked up H.R. 3676, and ordered it favorably reported to the 
House, amended. The report was filed on September 16, 1996 (H. 
Rept. 104-787). On September 17, the bill passed the House, as 
amended, under suspension of the rules by voice vote. H.R. 3676 
passed the Senate on September 18, 1996, and was signed into 
law on October 1, 1996 (P.L. 104-217).

Drug-Induced Rape Prevention and Punishment

    H.R. 4137 prohibits distribution of a controlled substance 
to a person, without that person's knowledge, with the intent 
to commit a crime of violence. The bill also increases 
penalties for possessing or distributing flunitrazepan, also 
known as Rohypnol. On September 26, 1996, the bill passed the 
House by a vote of 421 to 1. H.R. 4137 passed the Senate with 
an amendment on October 3, 1996, was agreed to in the House on 
October 4, 1996, and was signed into law on October 13, 1996 
(P.L. 104-305).

                      SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

    Throughout the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee paid 
particular attention to public safety issues involving 
children. The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing looking at 
the work of the Center for Missing and Exploited Children and 
the FBI's Child Abduction Serial Killer Unit. In addition, the 
Subcommittee conducted hearings on related child crimes 
legislation, including H.R. 2974, the ``Crimes Against Children 
and Elderly Persons Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996;'' 
H.R. 2137, ``Megan's Law;'' H.R. 3508, the ``Child Privacy 
Protection and Parental Empowerment Act of 1996;'' and federal 
record keeping of convicted sex offenders.

Sexual Crimes Against Children Prevention Act

    On March 15, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman McCollum 
introduced H.R. 1240, the ``Sexual Crimes Against Children 
Prevention Act of 1996,'' which increases the penalties for 
creating or trafficking in child pornography if a computer was 
used to create or traffic in the material, or was used to lure 
children into posing for such material. On March 16, 1995, the 
Subcommittee held a mark-up of the bill and ordered it 
favorably reported to the full Committee, amended. On March 22, 
1995, the full Committee held a mark-up of H.R. 1240 and 
ordered the bill reported to the House, as amended, with an 
additional full Committee amendment. The report was filed on 
March 28, 1995 (H. Rept. 104-90). On April 4, 1995, H.R. 1240 
was considered by the House under suspension of the rules and 
passed by a vote of 417 yeas to 0 nays. The bill passed the 
Senate on April 6, 1996, and was approved by the President on 
December 23, 1995 (P.L. 104-71).

Serial Killers and Child Abductions

    On September 14, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the problems of child abduction and serial killing and federal 
efforts in response to these crimes. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from Ernie E. Allen, President of the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children; William Hagmaier, III, 
Supervisory Special Agent and Unit Chief with the Child 
Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation; Kenneth V. Lanning, Supervisory Agent of the 
Behavioral Science Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Robin L. Montgomery, Special Agent in Charge of the Critical 
Incident Response Group of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Captain Patrick Parks of the Petaluma, California Police 
Department; John Walsh, host of ``America's Most Wanted;'' and 
Patty Wetterling, co-founder of the Jacob Wetterling 
Foundation.

Megan's Law

    On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
2137, ``Megan's Law.'' H.R. 2137 requires that residents of 
neighborhoods be notified when convicted sex offenders move 
into their communities. The Subcommittee heard testimony from 
Rep. Dick Zimmer of New Jersey. The Subcommittee also received 
written testimony from Maureen Kanka, co-founder of the Megan 
Nicole Kanka Foundation, and Ernest E. Allen, President and CEO 
of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
    On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up on H.R. 
2137 and ordered the bill favorably reported to the full 
Committee, amended. On April 24, 1996, the full Committee held 
a mark-up of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the 
House, as amended. On May 6, 1996, the report on H.R. 2137 was 
filed (H. Rept. 104-555). On May 7, H.R. 2137 passed the House, 
as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 418 
yeas to 0 nays. The bill passed the Senate on May 9, 1996, and 
was signed into law by the President on May 17, 1996 (P.L. 104-
145).

The Crimes Against Children and Elderly Increased Punishment Act

    On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on minor 
and miscellaneous bills, including H.R. 2974, the ``Crimes 
Against Children and Elderly Increased Punishment Act.'' The 
Subcommittee heard testimony in support of this legislation 
from the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Dick Chrysler of Michigan.
    On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
2974, and ordered the bill favorably reported to the full 
Committee, amended. On April 24, 1996, the full Committee held 
a mark-up of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the 
House, as amended. On May 1, 1996, the report on H.R. 2974 was 
filed (H. Rept. 104-548). On May 7, H.R. 2974 passed the House, 
as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 414 
yeas to 4 nays. No further action was taken on H.R. 2974 in the 
104th Congress.

Federal Record Keeping and Sex Offenders

    On June 19, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
federal record keeping and sex offenders. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from Richard Hagerman and Donna Whitsom, 
parents of Amber Hagerman; Rep. Martin Frost of the 24th 
District of Texas; the Rep. Gil Gutknecht of the 1st District 
of Minnesota; the Rep. Dick Zimmer of the 12th District of New 
Jersey; Harlin R. McEwen, Deputy Assistant Director of the 
Criminal Justice Information Services of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation; and Ernie Allen, President of the National 
Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
    On May 14, 1996, H.R. 3456, the ``Sexual Offender Tracking 
and Identification Act of 1996'' was introduced by Rep. Dick 
Zimmer, and, on May 17, 1996, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. H.R. 3456 provides for the establishment 
of a nationwide tracking system of convicted sexual predators. 
On September 25, 1996, the bill was discharged from further 
consideration by the Committee on the Judiciary. On September 
25, 1996, the bill was considered by the House, under 
suspension of the rules. On September 26, 1996, the bill passed 
the House by a vote of 423 yeas to 1 nay. The House also passed 
S. 1675, the identical Senate companion bill on September 26, 
1996. On October 3, 1996, S. 1675 was signed into law by the 
President (P.L. 104-236).

Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act

    On September 12, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 3508, the ``Children's Privacy and Parental Empowerment 
Act.'' The Subcommittee heard testimony from Rep. Bob Franks of 
New Jersey; Mariam Bell, Executive Vice President of Enough is 
Enough; Marc Klaas of the Klaas Foundation for Children and 
Kids Off Lists; Marc Rotenberg, Director of the Electronic 
Privacy Information Center; Sergeant R.P. ``Toby'' Tyler, 
Supervisor of the Crimes Against Children Detail with the San 
Bernardino Sheriff's Department; Fred Seigel, Executive 
Director of Enrollment Services at the George Washington 
University; Richard Barton, Senior Vice President of 
Congressional Affairs for Direct Marketing Association, Inc.; 
Martin Lerner, President of American Student Lists Company, 
Inc.; and Dante Cirilli, President of Grolier Enterprises, Inc. 
No further action was taken on H.R. 3508 in the 104th Congress.

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1995

    S. 919, the ``Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 
Amendments of 1995,'' is intended to modify and reauthorize the 
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and for other 
purposes. The legislation passed the Senate, as amended, with 
an additional floor amendment on July 18, 1996. It was held at 
the desk in the House. On September 25, 1996, S. 919 passed the 
House, amended, under suspension of the rules, two-thirds 
affirmative vote required. On September 27, 1996, the Senate 
agreed to the House amendment and the bill was signed into law 
by the President on October 3, 1996 (P.L. 104-235).

                          VIOLENT YOUTH CRIME

Regional Crime Forums

    During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee held a series 
of regional forums across the country to examine the current 
and future magnitude of violent youth crime, and much needed 
juvenile justice reforms. In particular, the forums were 
designed to determine how Congress might help states and 
localities as they respond to the crisis of youth crime. Law 
Enforcement leaders from all fifty states were invited to 
participate in the regional crime forum in their area. The 
forums were held in six cities: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Boston, Massachusetts; 
Dallas, Texas; and San Francisco, California.
    Participants in the Mid-Atlantic Regional forum in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 26, 1996, included: Tom 
Corbett, Attorney General, Pennsylvania; Mary Woolley, 
Director, Criminal Justice Policy, Pennsylvania; Lynne Abraham, 
District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Joseph Curran, 
Jr., Attorney General, Maryland; Stuart Simms, Secretary, 
Department of Juvenile Justice, Maryland; Terrence Farley, 
Director of the Division of Criminal Justice, New Jersey; Paul 
Donnely, Executive Director of Juvenile Justice Commission, New 
Jersey; Jane Brady, Attorney General, Delaware; Paul Shechtman, 
Director of Criminal Justice, New York; Richard Costello, 
President, Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police; Kenneth 
Rocks, Vice President, Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police; 
John DiIulio, Professor, Princeton University; Adam Walinsky, 
President, Center for Research on Institutions and Social 
Policy.
    Participants in the Southern Regional Forum in Atlanta, 
Georgia, on April 10, 1996, included: Michael Bowers, Attorney 
General, Georgia; Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, Alabama; 
Charles Condon, Attorney General, South Carolina; Flora Boyd, 
Director of Juvenile Justice, South Carolina; Jerry Kilgore, 
Secretary of Public Safety, Virginia; Patricia West, Director 
of Juvenile Justice, Virginia; Tim Moore, Commissioner, 
Department of Law Enforcement, Florida; Calvin Ross, Secretary, 
Department of Juvenile Justice, Florida; Bill Berger, Chief of 
Police, North Miami Beach, Florida, and Vice-President, 
International Association of Chiefs of Police; Albert Murray, 
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Youth Development, 
Tennessee; Pat Flynn, Assistant Attorney General, Mississippi.
    Participants in the South Western Regional Forum in Dallas, 
Texas on May 28, 1996, included: Dan Morales, Attorney General, 
Texas; Drew Durham, Deputy Attorney General for Criminal 
Justice, Texas; Tony Fabelo, Executive Director, Criminal 
Justice Policy Council, Texas; Ben Click, Chief, Dallas Police 
Department, Texas; Jim Farris, District Court Judge, and Former 
President, National Juvenile Judges Committee, Texas; Eric 
Andell, First Court of Appeals Judge, and Commissioner, Texas 
Juvenile Probation Commission, Texas; Jimmy Dotson, Assistant 
Chief, Houston Police Department, Texas; Drew Edmondson, 
Attorney General, Oklahoma; Ken Lackey, Secretary, Department 
of Health and Human Services, and Executive Director, Office of 
Juvenile Affairs, Oklahoma; Carla Stoval, Attorney General, 
Kansas; Charles Simmons, Secretary, Department of Corrections, 
Kansas; Richard Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public Safety 
and Corrections, Louisiana; John Bailey, Director, Arkansas 
State Police, Arkansas; Darren White, Secretary, Department of 
Public Safety, New Mexico; Jerry Adamek, Director, Office of 
Youth Services, Colorado.
    Participants in the New England Forum in Boston, 
Massachusetts on June 7, 1996, included: Norah Wylie, Deputy 
Chief Attorney General, Family and Community Crimes Bureau, 
Massachusetts; William O'Leary, Commissioner, Department of 
Youth Services, Massachusetts; Ralph Martin, District Attorney, 
Suffolk County, Massachusetts; John Corbett, Judge, Plymouth 
Juvenile Court, former Assistant District Attorney, Norfolk 
County, Massachusetts; Julian Houston, Judge, Superior Court, 
Massachusetts; Jonathan Petuchowski, Director, Committee on 
Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety, Massachusetts; 
Jay Blitzman, Director, Roxbury Defenders Unit, Massachusetts; 
James Fox, Dean, Northeastern College of Criminal Justice, 
Massachusetts; Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, Maine; 
William Young, Commissioner, Department of Social and 
Rehabilitative Services, Vermont; Angela Bucci, Assistant 
Attorney General, Juvenile Prosecution Unit Chief, Rhode 
Island; Joseph Mastrangelo, Assistant Director, Child 
Protective Services, Rhode Island; Richard Covello, Commander, 
State Bureau of Criminal Investigations, Connecticut; Linda 
D'Amario Rossi, Commissioner, Department Children and Families, 
Connecticut; John Kissinger, Assistant Attorney General, 
Criminal Justice Bureau, New Hampshire.
    Participants in the Mid-Western Regional Forum in Chicago, 
Illinois, on June 24, 1996 included: Jim Ryan, Attorney 
General, Illinois; Andrea Zopp, First Assistant States 
Attorney, Illinois; Patrick Murphy, Cook County Public 
Guardian, Illinois; John Platt, Administrator, Juvenile 
Division, Department of Corrections, Illinois; James Knecht, 
Judge, Illinois Appellate Court, Illinois; William Hibbler, 
Presiding Judge, Juvenile Justice Division, Illinois; Heidi 
Heitkamp, Attorney General, North Dakota; Traci Sanders, 
Assistant Attorney General, Missouri; Lisa Smith, Director, 
Office of Juvenile Justice, Department of Public Safety, 
Missouri; Don Davis, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, 
Minnesota; Mike Sullivan, Secretary, Department of Corrections, 
Wisconsin; Catherine O'Connor, Executive Director, Criminal 
Justice Institute, Indiana; Richard Moore, Director, Criminal & 
Juvenile Justice Planning Agency, Iowa; Carol Rapp Zimmermann, 
Assistant Director, Department of Youth Services, Ohio; Tom 
Ginster, Family Independence Agency, Michigan; Jon Hill, 
Director, Office of Juvenile Services, Nebraska.
    Participants in the Western Regional Forum in San 
Francisco, California, on July 1, 1996, included: Daniel 
Lungren, Attorney General, California; Frankie Sue Del Papa, 
Attorney General, Nevada; Joe Albo, Director of Public Safety, 
Arizona; Joe Sandoval, Secretary of the California Youth and 
Adult Corrections Agency; Frank Alarcon, Director, California 
Youth Authority; Greg Peden, Director, Criminal Justice 
Services, Oregon Department of Law Enforcement; Rick Hill, 
Director, Oregon Youth Authority; Gerard Sidorowicz, Assistant 
Secretary, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, Department 
of Social and Health Services, Washington; John Mac Donald, 
Office of Attorney General Grant Woods, Arizona; and Steve 
Shaw, Department of Human Resources, Office of Governor Miller, 
Nevada.

Juvenile Crime Reform Bill

    In response to the testimony presented at the 
Subcommittee's six violent youth crime meetings, Subcommittee 
Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 3565, the ``Violent Youth 
Predator Act,'' on June 4, 1996. H.R. 3565 reforms juvenile 
justice in four significant ways: (1) It greatly strengthens 
the federal juvenile justice system by giving federal 
prosecutors the discretion to prosecute as adults those 
juveniles who commit federal violent crimes and major federal 
drug crimes; (2) It establishes enhanced mandatory minimum 
prison sentences for juveniles who use firearms in the course 
of a federal violent crime or major federal drug crime; (3) It 
directs the Attorney General to target enforcement resources at 
armed violent youth predators; and (4) It repeals the Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention which for more than 
twenty years has required states to implement soft-on-crime 
``juvenile justice'' policies and replaces it with the Office 
of Juvenile Crime Control, which would provide to the States 
$500 million for juvenile crime reduction and prevention block 
grants and incentive grants for holding violent juveniles 
accountable and adopting other accountability-based reforms.
    On June 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing 
on H.R. 3565 and H.R. 3445, the ``Balanced Juvenile Justice and 
Crime Prevention Act of 1996,'' which was introduced by Mr. 
Schumer. The Subcommittee heard testimony from four witnesses, 
all of whom were victimized by repeat, violent juvenile 
offenders. They included: Patricia Thomas, Fairfax, Virginia; 
Kathy Trammel, Manassas, Virginia; Thomas Wallace, Hampton, 
Virginia; and Linda Clark from Flint, Michigan. Other witnesses 
for the hearing included: Karen Schrier, U.S. Attorney, 
District of South Dakota, and Chair of the Juvenile Justice 
Subcommittee of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee; 
Charles Wilson, U.S. Attorney with the Middle District of 
Florida; Jeff Sessions, Attorney General for the State of 
Alabama; Justice Elizabeth Weaver, Michigan Supreme Court, 
Richard Cullen, former U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of 
Virginia; Kevin Beary, Sheriff, Orange County, Florida; Jim 
Wootton, President, Safe Streets Alliance; Scott Newman, 
Prosecuting Attorney, Marion County, Indiana; Judge Sandra 
Strom, Family Court, Birmingham, Alabama; Peter Greenwood, 
Director, Criminal Justice Analysis, RAND Corporation, Santa 
Monica, California; Jo Ann Wallace, Director, Public Defender 
Service, District of Columbia, and Ellen Halbert, Vice Chair, 
Texas Board of Criminal Justice, Austin, Texas.
    On July 16, 1996, H.R. 3565 was discharged from further 
consideration by the Subcommittee. On July 16 and 17, 1996, and 
on August 1 and 2, 1996, the full Committee held a mark-up of 
H.R. 3565. No further action was taken on H.R. 3565 or any 
juvenile justice reform bill in the 104th Congress.

                   FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OVERSIGHT

    In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime initiated 
a long term project relating to the organization and activities 
of federal law enforcement. The goals of the project include 
the identification of overlapping areas of responsibility and 
the reduction of redundant or inefficient practices.

Nature, Extent, and Proliferation of Federal Law Enforcement--Part 1: 
        An Introduction and Overview

    On November 15, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the organization and authority of federal law enforcement. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Griffin B. Bell, former 
Attorney General of the United States; Salvatore R. Martoche, 
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Law Enforcement; 
Norman J. Rabin, Director of Administration of Justice Issues 
in the General Government Division of the General Accounting 
Office; and Dick Thornburgh, former Attorney General of the 
United States.

Nature, Extent, and Proliferation of Federal Law Enforcement--Part 2: 
        State and Local Law Enforcement Perspectives

    On May 23, 1996, the Subcommittee held a second hearing on 
the organization and authority of federal law enforcement, 
focusing on the views of state and local law enforcement 
officials. The Subcommittee heard testimony from M. Jane Brady, 
Attorney General of Delaware; John R. Justice, Vice President 
of the National District Attorneys' Association; Jack O'Malley, 
State's Attorney in Cook County, Illinois; Terrance W. Gainer, 
Director of the Illinois State Police; Johnny L. Hughes, 
Congressional Affairs Chairman for the National Troopers 
Coalition; Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President of the 
Fraternal Order of Police; and Charles B. Meeks, Executive 
Director of the National Sheriffs' Association.

Federal Law Enforcement Actions in Relation to the Branch Davidian 
        Compound in Waco, Texas

    From July 19, 1995 to August 1, 1995, the Subcommittee on 
Crime held a joint oversight hearing with the Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice on the federal 
actions in relation to the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, 
Texas.
    On July 19, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Dick Reavis, author of Ashes of Waco, published by Simon and 
Schuster; Stuart Wright, editor and contributor to Armageddon 
in Waco, published by University of Chicago Press; Ray Jahn, 
Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Branch Davidians; Gerald 
Goldstein, President of National Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers; Robert L. Descamps, President of National 
District Attorneys Association; Henry McMahon, firearms dealer; 
David Tibodeau, resident of Mt. Carmel; Kiri Jewell, resident 
of Mt. Carmel; David Jewell, father of Kiri Jewell; Louis Gene 
Barber, former Lieutenant, McLennan County Sheriff's Office; 
Davy Aguilera, ATF Special Agent; Chuck Sarabyn, former ATF 
ASAC, Houston, Texas; Earl Dunagan, former ATF Acting SAC, 
Austin, Texas; Bill Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney; 
Dan Hartnett, former ATF Deputy Director for Enforcement; Ed 
Owens, ATF firearms expert; H. Geoffrey Moulton, Jr., Project 
Director of Treasury Department Review Team; Dr. Bruce Perry, 
Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 
Baylor Medical College.
    On July 20, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Robert Sanders, former ATF Deputy Director of Enforcement; Wade 
Ishimoto, Sandia National Laboratories; George Morrision, Los 
Angeles Police Department; John Coonce, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; Donald A. Bassett, former FBI Crisis Management 
Specialist; Ambassador H. Allen Holmes, Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Special Operations Law Intensity Conflict (SOLIC); 
MG John M. Pickler, USA, Commander, Joint Task Force-6; BG 
Walter Huffman, USA, Assistant Judge Advocate General for Civil 
Law; Chris Crain, Special Forces Group; LTC Philip Lindley, 
USA, former Deputy Staff Judge Advocate for U.S. Army Special 
Forces Command; MAJ. Mark Petree, USA, formerly of 3/3d Special 
Forces Group; SSG Steve Fitts, USA, formerly of 3/3d Special 
Forces Group; SSG Robert W. Moreland, USA, formerly of 3/3d 
Special Forces Group; SFC Chris Dunn, USA, formerly of 3/3d 
Special Forces Group; Philip Chojnacki, former ATF SAC, 
Houston, Texas; Chuck Sarabyn, former ATF ASAC, Houston, Texas; 
William Buford, ATF RAC, Little Rock, Arkansas; Lewis C. 
Merletti, Deputy Director of Treasury Department Review Team.
    On July 21, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Steve Higgins, former Director of the ATF; John Simpson, former 
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Christopher Cuyer, 
ATF Liaison for Assistant Secretary; Roger Altman, former 
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; Michael Langan, former Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Lloyd M. Bentsen, 
former Secretary of the Treasury; Joyce Sparks, Texas 
Department of Child Protective Services; George Morrision, Los 
Angeles Police Department; Tim Evans, Attorney; John Kolman, 
formerly with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Victor 
Oboyski, Law Enforcement Officers Association.
    On July 24, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Robert Rodriguez, ATF Special Agent; Chuck Sarabyn, former ATF 
SAC, Houston, Texas; Phillip Chojnacki, former ATF SAC, 
Houston, Texas; Sharon Wheeler, ATF Special Agent; Dan 
Hartnett, former ATF Deputy Director for Enforcement; Daniel 
Black, ATF Personnel Office; Lewis C. Merletti, Deputy Director 
of Treasury Department Review Team; James Cadigan, FBI firearms 
expert; William Buford, ATF RAC, Little Rock, Arkansas; Roger 
Altman, former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; Roger 
Ballesteros, ATF Agent; John Williams, ATF Special Agent; 
Ronald K. Noble, Undersecretary for Law Enforcement; John 
Magaw, Director of ATF.
    On July 25, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Dick DeGuerin, Attorney; Jack Zimmermann, Attorney; Dr. Philip 
Arnold, Reunion Institute, Houston, Texas; Dr. James Tabor, 
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of North 
Carolina at Charlotte, and author of Why Waco, published by the 
University of California Press; Captain Maurice Cook, Senior 
Texas Ranger; Captain David Burns, Texas Ranger; Captain Frank 
McClure, Douglas County Sheriff's Office, Georgia.
    On July 26, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Pete Smerick, former Criminal Investigative Analyst with the 
Investigative Support Unit of the National Center for the 
Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI Academy, Quantico, 
Virginia; Jim Cavanaugh, ATF Special Agent; Byron Sage, FBI 
SSRA, Austin, Texas; Gary Noesner, FBI SSA, Quantico, Virginia; 
Jeffrey Jamar, former FBI SAC, San Antonio, Texas; Ronald 
McCarthy, former Officer, Los Angeles Police Department; Dr. 
Alan Stone, Professor of Psychiatry and Law, Harvard 
University; William Marcus, Environmental Protection Agency 
toxicologist; Dr. Paul Rice, British CS Gas Expert; Dr. David 
Upshall, British CS Gas expert; Dr. George Uhlig, Professor of 
Chemistry, College of Eastern Utah; Hays Parks, Department of 
Defense treaty expert.
    On July 27, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Larry Potts, former FBI Assistant Director, Criminal 
Investigations Division; Anthony Betz, FBI CS Gas expert; Dick 
Rogers, former head of Hostage Rescue Team; Jeffrey Jamar; 
former FBI SAC, San Antonio, Texas; Byron Sage, FBI SSRA, 
Austin, Texas; Dr. Harry Salem, Defense Department 
toxicologist.
    On July 28, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Webster Hubbell, former Associate Attorney General; Mark 
Richard, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; William Sessions, 
former Director of the FBI; Floyd Clarke, former Deputy 
Director of the FBI; Larry Potts, former FBI Assistant 
Director, Criminal Investigations Division; Dr. Harry Salem, 
Defense Department toxicologist; Rick Sherrow, fire expert; 
Paul Gray, Houston Fire Department, leader of Fire Review Team; 
James Quintere, arson expert, University of Maryland; Clive 
Doyle, Branch Davidian, resident at Mt. Carmel.
    On July 31, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Jeffery Jamar, former FBI SAC, San Antonio, Texas; Dick Rogers, 
former head of Hostage Rescue Team; Edward S.G. Dennis, Jr., 
former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; R.J. 
Craig, FBI Special Agent; James McGee, FBI Special Agent; John 
Morrision, FBI Special Agent; Byron Sage, FBI SSRA, Austin, 
Texas; Ambassador H. Allen Holmes, Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for SOLIC.
    On August 1, 1995, the Subcommittees heard testimony from 
Janet Reno, Attorney General of the Unites States.
    On August 2, 1996, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight released a report prepared in conjunction with the 
Committee on the Judiciary on the Investigation into the 
Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies toward the 
Branch Davidians (H. Rept. 104-749).

FBI Murder Investigation in Haiti

    On January 31, 1996, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the FBI investigation into the murders of Mireille 
Durocher Bertin and Eugene Baillergeau, Jr. in Haiti. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Seth Waxman, Associate Deputy 
Attorney General of the Department of Justice; Ambassador 
Robert Gelbard, Assistant Secretary of State for International 
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs at the Department of 
State; William Perry, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI; 
Ambassador James Dobbins, Special Coordinator for Haiti at the 
Department of State; Paul Mallet, Jr., Associate Special Agent 
in Charge at the Miami Division of the FBI; and Burton V. 
Wides, Counsel to the Government of Haiti.

                 GENERAL DOJ OVERSIGHT AND LEGISLATION

Criminal Division Reorganization

    On March 23, 1995, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the proposed reorganization of the Criminal Division 
of the Department of Justice. The Subcommittee heard testimony 
in support of such reorganization from Jo Ann Harris, Assistant 
Attorney General for the Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Technology

    On May 17, 1995, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
concerning law enforcement technologies. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from Col. Carl R. Baker, Deputy Secretary of Public 
Safety, Commonwealth of Virginia; David G. Boyd, Director of 
the Science and Technology Division of the National Institute 
of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice; Robert E. 
Cansler, Chief of Police in Concord, North Carolina; Harlan R. 
McEwen, Chief of the Ithaca Police Department in New York; 
Dennis Miyoshi, Director of the Nuclear Security Systems Center 
at the Sandia National Laboratory; Eric P. Wenaas, President 
and CEO of JAYCOR; and Grady C. Wright, Vice President and 
General Manager of TRW.

Matters Relating to the Federal Bureau of Prisons

    On June 8, 1995, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
of matters related to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Walter A. Brys, Principal of 
North Village Corporation; Kathleen M. Hawk, Director of the 
Bureau of Prisons; Douglas S. Lipton, Ph.D., Senior Research 
Fellow at the National Development and Research Institutes, 
Inc.; Norman J. Rabkin, Director of Administration of Justice 
Issues in the General Government Division of the General 
Accounting Office; Stuart H. Shapiro, Ph.D., President and CEO 
of Prison Health Service, Inc.; and Charles W. Thomas, Director 
of the Private Corrections Project of the Center for 
Criminology and Law at the University of Florida.

COPS Program

    On December 7, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
examining the community policing initiative, better known as 
the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony in support of the COPS program 
from Joseph E. Brann, Director of the Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Administration's Efforts Against the Influence of Organized Crime in 
        the Laborers' International Union of North America

    On July 24 and 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on Crime held an 
oversight hearing on the Administration's efforts against the 
influence of organized crime in the Laborers' International 
Union of North America (LIUNA). On July 24, 1996, the 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Jim Moody, former Deputy 
Assistant Director, Criminal Investigations Division, FBI; 
Clark B. Hall, former Acting Unit Chief and Supervisory Special 
Agent, FBI; Ronald M. Fino, former FBI informant and Business 
Manager, Local 210, LIUNA.
    On July 25, 1996, the Subcommittee heard testimony from Jo 
Ann Harris, former Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal 
Division, Department of Justice; James Burns, United States 
Attorney, Northern District of Illinois; John C. Keeney, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, Department 
of Justice; Paul E. Coffey, Chief of the Organized Crime and 
Racketeering Section, Department of Justice; Michael Ross, 
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI; Judge Abner Joseph Mikva, 
former White House Counsel; W. Douglas Gow, Inspector General, 
LIUNA; Robert D. Luskin, General Executive Board Attorney, 
LIUNA.

The Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1995

    On June 6, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on S.1507, 
the ``Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1995.'' The 
Subcommittee heard testimony in support of a five-year 
extension of the life of the United States Parole Commission 
from the Honorable Richard J. Arcara, Judge of the U.S. 
District Court of the Western District of New York; Edward F. 
Reilly, Jr., Chairman of the United States Parole Commission; 
and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert S. Litt of the 
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.
    On July 10, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of S.1507 
and ordered the bill favorably reported to the full Committee, 
amended. On September 11, 1996, the full Committee held a mark- 
up of the bill and ordered it favorably reported, as amended, 
to the House. The report was filed on September 16, 1996 (H. 
Rept. 104-789). S.1507 passed the House, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules. On September 20, 1996, the Senate 
agreed to the House amendment and the bill was signed into law 
by the President on October 2, 1996 (P.L. 104-232).

                      OTHER SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

Combating Domestic Terrorism

    On May 3, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
combating domestic terrorism in the United States. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from William M. Baker, former 
Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigation Division of 
the FBI; William P. Barr, former Attorney General of the United 
States; Louis J. Freeh, Director of the FBI; Ira Glasser, 
Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union; Jamie 
S. Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General of the United States; 
Thomas Halpern, Associate Director of the Fact Finding 
Department of the Anti-Defamation League; Brent L. Smith, 
Professor and Chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice at 
the University of Alabama; George J. Terwilliger, III, former 
Deputy Attorney General of the United States; and William H. 
Webster, former Director of the FBI and former Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency.

Combating Crime in the District of Columbia

    On June 22, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing focusing 
on ways of combating crime in the District of Columbia through 
a joint effort by Congress and the District. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from Harold Brazil, Member of the District 
Council; Sally Byington, Coordinator of the Community Policing 
Council; Kevin P. Chavous, Member of the District Council; 
James F. Foreman, Coordinator of the Metro Orange Coalition; 
Isaac Fulwood, Jr., former Chief of Police for the Metropolitan 
Police Department; the Honorable Eugene N. Hamilton, Chief 
Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; Eric 
Holder, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Robert E. 
Langston, Chief of the U.S. Park Police; Catherine Nero, former 
President of Survivors of Homicide, Inc.; Fred Thomas, Chief of 
Police for the Metropolitan Police Department; and the 
Honorable Reggie B. Walton, Associate Judge of the Superior 
Court of the District of Columbia.

Nature and Threat of Violent Anti-Government Groups in America

    On November 2, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
nature and threat of violent anti-government groups in America. 
The Subcommittee heard testimony regarding the threat of such 
anti-government groups from Ted Almay, Superintendent of the 
Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation; Rick 
Eaton, Senior Researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center; John 
George, Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the 
University of Central Oklahoma; David B. Kopel, Associate 
Policy Analyst for the Cato Institute; Brian Levin, Associate 
Director of the Klanwatch Project at the Southern Poverty Law 
Center; Michael Lieberman, Washington Counsel for the Anti-
Defamation League; Karen Mathews, Clerk-recorder for Stanislaus 
County, California; Nickolas C. Murnion, an attorney from 
Garfield County, Montana; Gregory T. Nojeim, Legislative 
Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union; Brent L. Smith, 
Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at 
the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Kenneth S. Stern, a 
program specialist on anti-Semitism and extremism for the 
American Jewish Community; and Sheriff Patrick J. Sullivan of 
the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department in Littleton, 
Colorado.

United States Sentencing Commission

    On December 14, 1995, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the United States Sentencing Commission. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the Honorable Richard P. 
Conaboy, Chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission; 
John Steer, General Counsel of the United States Sentencing 
Commission; Phyllis Newton, Staff Director of the United States 
Sentencing Commission; the Honorable Jon O. Newman, Chief Judge 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 
Hartford, Connecticut; the Honorable Emilio M. Garza, Judge of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in San 
Antonio, Texas; the Honorable Jay Harvey Wilkinson, III, Judge 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 
Charlottesville, Virginia; Robert Edmunds, an attorney with the 
firm of Stern, Graham, and Klepfer in Greensborough, North 
Carolina; and Tommy Whiteside, United States Probation Officer 
for the Southern District of South Carolina.

The Growing Threat of International Organized Crime

    On January 25, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
growing threat of international organized crime. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony regarding the nature and 
geographic extent of this threat from Jim E. Moody, Deputy 
Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigative Division of 
the FBI; Dr. Roy Godson, President of the National Strategy 
Information Center; John Sweeney, Policy Analyst at the 
Heritage Foundation; Dr. Bill Myers, Director of the Center for 
the Study of Asian Enterprise Crime; Dr. Ariel Cohen, Senior 
Analyst at the Heritage Foundation; Peter Andreas, Research 
Fellow with The Brookings Institute; and Dr. Rensselaer Lee, 
President of Global Advisory Services.

Economic Espionage

    On May 9, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
threat of economic espionage to the economic security of the 
United States. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Director 
Louis Freeh of the FBI; Dr. Raymond Damadian, President of 
Fonar Corporation; John Melton, Vice President of SDL, Inc.; 
David Shannon, Senior Counsel for Intel Corporation; Dan 
Whiteman, Corporate Information Security Officer at General 
Motors Corporation; Tom Brunner from the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce; Dr. James P. Chandler from George Washington 
University; Richard J. Heffernan from the American Society for 
Industrial Security; and Pete McCloskey, President of the 
Electronic Industries Association.
    Following the testimony presented at this hearing, 
Subcommittee Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 3723 on June 26, 
1996. This bill protects proprietary economic information by 
creating two new federal crimes. These crimes prohibit the 
theft or misappropriation of ``trade secrets'' for the benefit 
of a foreign government or company or for the benefit of a 
domestic person or entity, respectively. Trade secret is 
defined in the act to include most forms of business, 
scientific, technical, or economic information if the owner of 
the information has taken reasonable measure to keep the 
information secret and if the information derives economic 
value from not being generally known or available to the 
public. The bill requires courts to enter appropriate orders to 
protect the confidentiality of trade secrets during any trial 
involving these crimes. It also requires persons convicted of 
these crimes to forfeit the gains made through their illegal 
activity and, in some cases, the property they used to commit 
the crime.
    On July 10, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
3723 and ordered the bill favorably reported to the full 
Committee by voice vote. On September 11, 1996, the full 
Committee held a mark-up of H.R. 3723 and ordered the bill 
favorably reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote. On 
September 16, 1996, the report was filed (H. Rept. 104-788), 
and on September 17, 1996, H.R. 3723 passed the House, as 
amended, under suspension of the rules by a vote of 399 yeas to 
3 nays. The bill passed the Senate on October 2, 1996, and was 
signed into law on October 11, 1996 (P.L. 104-294).

Police Officers' Rights and Benefits

     On July 18, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
rights and benefits of police officers. Specifically, the 
Subcommittee examined several bills relating to these issues: 
H.R. 878, the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights; H.R. 
218, the ``1995 Community Protection Initiative''; H.R. 1805, 
to exempt qualified law enforcement officers from State laws 
prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; H.R. 2912, 
``Alu-O'Hara Public Safety Officers Health Benefits Act''; and 
H.R. 3263, ``Law Enforcement and Correctional Officers 
Employment Registration Act of 1996.'' The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from Officer Joseph Alu and Detective James O'Hara of 
the Plantation Police Department in Florida; Terrance K. 
Morrison, President of the Disabled Police Officers Counseling 
Center, Inc.; Gilbert Gallegos, President of the National 
Fraternal Order of Police; James A. Rhinebarger, Chairman of 
the National Troopers Coalition; Richard Gallo, National Vice 
President of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; 
Ed Nowicki, a member and representative of the Law Enforcement 
Alliance of America; William J. Johnson, General Counsel for 
the National Association of Police Organizations, Inc.; the 
Honorable George Miller, Mayor of Tucson, Arizona; Sheriff 
Patrick Sullivan from the National Sheriffs' Association; and 
Darrell L. Sanders, Chief of Police for the Frankfurt Police 
Department in Illinois and First Vice President of the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police.

                          MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995

     On April 24, 1995, H.R. 125, the ``Gun Ban Repeal Act of 
1995,'' was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime. H.R. 125 
provides for the repeal of the ban on semiautomatic assault 
weapons and the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding 
devices. On March 22, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
discharged from further consideration of the bill. Also, on 
March 22, 1996, the House rejected a motion to recommit H.R. 
125 to the Committee on the Judiciary and the bill passed the 
House, amended, by a vote of 239 ayes to 173 nays. On March 25, 
1996, H.R. 125 was referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary. No further action was taken on H.R. 125 in the 104th 
Congress.

Consumer Fraud Prevention Act of 1995

     On April 24, 1995, H.R. 1499, the ``Consumer Fraud 
Prevention Act of 1995,'' was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Crime. This bill provides for the improvement of criminal law 
relating to fraud against consumers. On April 18, 1996, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1499. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from Mary Ann Downs, a telemarketing victim; 
Ann Marie Ritchey, the mother of a telemarketing victim; 
Mitchell D. Dembin, Assistant United States Attorney for the 
Southern District of California; Chuck Owens, Chief of the 
Financial Crimes Section of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation; John Barker, Director of the National Fraud 
Information Center; Evalyn Brendel, a representative of AARP; 
Jim Martin, President of 60 Plus; Bruce Thompson, Special 
Assistant to the Attorney General of North Carolina; and 
Officer Tony Cincotta of the Montgomery County Police Training 
Academy.
     On July 10, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
1499. The bill was ordered favorably reported to the full 
Committee, amended. On September 25, 1996, the Committee on the 
Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of the 
bill. Also, on September 25, 1996, H.R. 1499 passed the House, 
amended, under suspension of the rules. On September 26, 1996, 
the bill was received in the Senate. No further action was 
taken on H.R. 1499 in the 104th Congress.

Increasing Penalties for Escaping from a Federal Prison

     On July 18, 1995, H.R. 1533 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. This bill would amend title 18, United 
States Code, to increase the penalty for escaping from a 
Federal prison. On September 28, 1995, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on H.R. 1533. The Subcommittee heard testimony in favor 
of this bill from the Honorable Ed Bryant of Tennessee. The 
Subcommittee also received written testimony in support of H.R. 
1533 from Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. 
Department of Justice.
     On October 19, 1995, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of 
H.R. 1533. The bill was ordered favorably reported to the full 
Committee. On October 31, 1995, the full Committee held a mark-
up of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the House. 
On December 11, 1995, the report on H.R. 1533 was filed (H. 
Rept. 104-392). On December 12, 1995, H.R. 1355 passed the 
House under suspension of the rules. On December 13, 1995, the 
bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. 
Hatch then reported it favorably to the Senate, amended, on 
June 13, 1996. No further action was taken on H.R. 1533 in the 
104th Congress.

Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act of 1995

     On July 28, 1995, H.R. 2092, the ``Private Security 
Officer Quality Assurance Act of 1995,'' was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. The bill would expedite State reviews of 
criminal records of applicants for private security officer 
employment, and for other purposes. On March 7, 1996, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2092. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony in support of the legislation from the 
Honorable Bob Barr of Georgia and the Honorable Matthew G. 
Martinez of California. The Subcommittee also received written 
testimony in favor of H.R. 2092 from Andrew Fois, Assistant 
Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice.
     On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
2092 and ordered it favorably reported to the full Committee. 
On September 11 and September 18, 1996, the full Committee held 
mark-ups of the bill. H.R. 2092 was reported favorably to the 
House, amended, by Mr. Hyde on September 24, 1996 (H. Rept. 
104-827, part I). The bill was then considered by the House on 
September 25, 1996; it passed the House on September 26, as 
amended and under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 415 
yeas to 6 nays. On September 26, 1996, H.R. 2092 was received 
in the Senate. No further action was taken on H.R. 2092 in the 
104th Congress.

Execution of Federal Prisoners

     On September 27, 1995, H.R. 2359 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. This bill proposes to clarify the method 
of execution of Federal prisoners. On September 28, 1995, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2359. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony in support of the legislation from Kevin 
DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal 
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony in opposition to the legislation from Marvin D. 
Miller, Director of the National Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers. The Subcommittee received written testimony in 
support of H.R. 2359 from Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney 
General of the U.S. Department of Justice.
     On September 28, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of 
H.R. 2359 and ordered it reported favorably to the full 
Committee, amended. No further action was taken on H.R. 2359 in 
the 104th Congress.

DNA Identification Grants Improvement Act of 1995

     On October 18, 1995, H.R. 2418, the ``DNA Identification 
Grants Improvement Act of 1995,'' was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. The Subcommittee held a mark-up of the 
bill on October 19, 1995 and ordered it favorably reported to 
the full Committee, amended. On October 31, 1995, the full 
Committee held a mark-up and ordered the bill favorably 
reported to the House, as amended. On December 11, 1995, the 
report on H.R. 2418 was filed (H. Rept. 104-393). On December 
12, 1995, H.R. 2418 passed the House, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 407 yeas to 5 nays. The 
bill was then referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
on December 13, 1995. No further action was taken on H.R. 2418 
in the 104th Congress.

Fugitive Detention Act of 1995

     On November 6, 1995, H.R. 2453, the ``Fugitive Detention 
Act of 1995,'' was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime. The 
bill's intent is to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
increase speedy trial time limits. On March 7, 1996, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2453. The Subcommittee 
received written testimony from Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney 
General of the U.S. Department of Justice.
     On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
2453 and ordered the bill favorably reported to the full 
Committee. On April 24, 1996, the full Committee held a mark-up 
of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the House, as 
amended. No further action was taken on H.R. 2453 in the 104th 
Congress.

United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1995

     On December 11, 1995, H.R. 2641, the ``United States 
Marshals Service Improvement Act,'' was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. H.R. 2641 changes the selection process 
of the nation's 94 U.S. Marshals from that of appointment by 
the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, to 
appointment by the Attorney General. U.S. Marshals would be 
selected on a competitive basis, among career managers within 
the Marshals Service, rather than being nominated by the 
Administration and approved or rejected by the Senate. On March 
7, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on this bill. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony in support of H.R. 2641 from the 
Honorable Charles E. Schumer of New York. The Subcommittee also 
received written testimony in support of the legislation from 
Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department 
of Justice, and Victor G. Oboyski, Jr., President of the 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
     On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
2641 and ordered it favorably reported to the full Committee, 
amended. On April 24, 1996, the full Committee held a mark-up 
of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the House, as 
amended. On April 29, 1996, Mr. McCollum reported H.R. 2641 
favorably to the House, amended. The bill passed the House, as 
amended, on May 1, 1996 by a vote of 351 yeas to 72 nays. On 
May 2, 1996, it was referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary. No further action was taken on H.R. 2641 in the 
104th Congress.

Mandatory Federal Prison Drug Treatment Act of 1995

     On December 11, 1995, H.R. 2650, the ``Mandatory Federal 
Prison Drug Treatment Act of 1995,'' was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. This legislation would amend title 18, 
United States Code, to eliminate certain sentencing inequities 
for drug offenders who undergo drug treatment. On March 7, 
1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2650. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony in support of the bill from the 
Honorable Fred Heineman of North Carolina.
     On April 17, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
2650 and ordered it favorably reported to the full Committee, 
amended. On April 24, 1996, the full Committee held a mark-up 
of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the House, as 
amended, with an additional full Committee amendment. Mr. 
McCollum reported H.R. 2650 favorably to the House, amended, on 
May 31, 1996 (H. Rept. 104-602). On June 4, 1996, H.R. 2650 
passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules, 
two-thirds affirmative vote required. On June 5, 1996, the bill 
was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. No 
further action was taken on H.R. 2650 in the 104th Congress.

Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1995

     On February 9, 1995, H.R. 2803, the ``Anti-Car Theft 
Improvements Act of 1995,'' was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Crime. This legislation would amend the anti-car theft 
provisions of title 49, United States Code, to increase the 
utility of motor vehicle title information to State and Federal 
law enforcement officials, and for other purposes. On March 7, 
1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2803. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony in support of this bill from the 
Honorable Charles E. Schumer of New York. The Subcommittee also 
received written testimony from Fred O. Dickinson, III, 
Executive Director of the Florida Department of Highway Safety 
and Motor Vehicles, and Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney General 
of the U.S. Department of Justice.
     On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
2803 and ordered the bill favorably reported to the full 
Committee. On April 24, 1996, the full Committee held a mark-up 
of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the House. On 
June 12, 1996, the report on H.R. 2803 was filed (H. Rept. 104-
618). On June 18, 1996, the bill passed the House, amended, 
under suspension of the rules. H.R. 2803 passed the Senate on 
June 20, 1996 and was signed into law by the President on July 
2, 1996 (P.L. 104-152).

Law Enforcement and Industrial Security Cooperation Act of 1996

     On May 4, 1996, H.R. 2996, the ``Law Enforcement and 
Industrial Security Cooperation Act of 1996,'' was referred to 
the Subcommittee on Crime. The bill proposes the creation of a 
commission that would encourage cooperation between public 
sector law enforcement agencies and private sector security 
professionals to control crime. On March 7, 1996, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on this legislation. The 
Subcommittee received written testimony in support of H.R. 2996 
from Regis Becker, President of the American Society for 
Industrial Security, and Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney 
General of the U.S. Department of Justice.
     On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee convened a mark-up 
session of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the 
full Committee, amended. No further action was taken on H.R. 
2996 in the 104th Congress.

Punishing Witness Retaliation and Jury Tampering

    On March 20, 1996, H.R. 3120 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. This legislation would amend title 18, 
United States Code, by increasing the punishment for jury 
tampering or witness intimidation and retaliation in federal 
cases. The Subcommittee convened a mark-up session of the bill 
on March 21, 1996 and ordered it favorably reported to the full 
Committee. On April 24, 1996, H.R. 3120 was marked-up in full 
Committee and then ordered favorably reported to the House, 
amended. The report was filed on May 1, 1996 (H. Rept. 104-
459). On May 7, 1996, H.R. 3120 passed the House, as amended. 
The bill passed the Senate on September 19, 1996 and was 
approved by the President on October 1, 1996 (P.L. 104-214).

Government Accountability Act of 1996

    On March 28, 1996, H.R. 3166, the ``Government 
Accountability Act of 1996,'' was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Crime. This bill proposes to amend title 18, United States 
Code, with respect to the crime of false statement in a 
Government matter. On March 29, 1996, the Subcommittee convened 
a mark-up session of the bill and ordered it favorably reported 
to the full Committee. The full Committee marked-up the bill on 
June 11, 1996 and ordered favorably reported to the House, 
amended. The report was filed on July 16, 1996 (H. Rept. 104-
680). On July 17, 1996, H.R. 3166 passed the House, as amended, 
under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 417 yeas to 6 nays. 
On July 25, 1996, the bill passed the Senate, amended. On 
September 26, 1996, pursuant to H.Res. 535, the House agreed to 
the Senate amendments with a House amendment, which the Senate 
then agreed to on September 27, 1996. H.R. 3166 was signed into 
law on October 11, 1996 (P.L. 104-292).

Contracting or Trading with Indians

    On April 18, 1996, H.R. 3215 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. This legislation proposes to amend title 
18, United States Code, to repeal the provision relating to 
Federal employees contracting or trading with Indians. On July 
16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill. On that same day, the full Committee 
convened a mark-up session of the bill and ordered it favorably 
reported to the House by a vote of 25 yeas to 0 nays. The 
report was filed on July 17, 1996 (H. Rept. 104-681). On July 
29, 1996, H.R. 3215 passed the House under suspension of the 
rules, two-thirds affirmative vote required. On July 31, 1996, 
the bill passed the Senate and was signed into law by the 
President on August 6, 1996 (P.L. 104-178).

Independent Counsel Accountability and Reform Act of 1996

    On May 17, 1996, H.R. 3239, the ``Independent Counsel 
Accountability and Reform Act of 1996,'' was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. This legislation is intended to reform 
the independent counsel statue, and for other purposes. On 
September 19, 1996, the Subcommittee convened a mark-up session 
of the bill and ordered it favorably reported to the full 
Committee. No further action was taken on H.R. 3239 in the 
104th Congress.

Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996

    S. 2101, the ``Federal Law Enforcement Dependents 
Assistance Act of 1996,'' proposes to provide educational 
assistance to the dependents of Federal law enforcement 
officials who are killed or disabled in the performance of 
their duties. The legislation passed the Senate on September 
20, 1996. On September 24, 1996, it was referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary. On September 25, 1996, it was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Crime. On September 26, 1996, 
the House Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from 
further consideration of S. 2102 and the legislation passed the 
House. The President approved S. 2101 on October 3, 1996 (P.L. 
104-238).

                                
