[House Report 105-845]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                 Union Calendar No. 486

105th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 105-845




                       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               DURING THE

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                              PURSUANT TO

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

                        House of Representatives






January 2, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                               --------

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE                    
52-984                     WASHINGTON : 1999




                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        House of Representatives

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 ------                                

                 HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman \1\

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
    Wisconsin                        BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida               CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania        HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                JERROLD NADLER, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico \5\        ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida           ZOE LOFGREN, California
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina           SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              MAXINE WATERS, California
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana            MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
SONNY BONO, California \2\           WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ED BRYANT, Tennessee                 ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB BARR, Georgia                    THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin \7\
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California \3\
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 
    \4\
MARY BONO, California \6\

         Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., Chief of Staff-General Counsel
          Jon W. Dudas, Deputy General Counsel-Staff Director
       Julian Epstein, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                Perry Apelbaum, Minority General Counsel

----------
    \1\ Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman 
pursuant to House Resolution 12, approved by the House January 7, 1997.
    Republican Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 12, approved by the House January 7, 1997.
    Democratic Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 13, approved by the House January 7, 1997.
    \2\ Sonny Bono, California, deceased January 5, 1998.
    \3\ James E. Rogan, California, elected to the Committee pursuant 
to House Resolution 354, approved by the House February 11, 1998.
    \4\ Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina, elected to the Committee 
pursuant to House Resolution 371, approved by the House February 26, 
1998.
    \5\ Steven Schiff, New Mexico, deceased March 25, 1998.
    \6\ Mary Bono, California, elected to the Committee pursuant to 
House Resolution 429, approved by the House May 13, 1998.
    \7\ Thomas M. Barrett, Wisconsin, elected to the Committee pursuant 
to House Resolution 530, approved by the House September 11, 1998.


          Subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary \1\

                                 ------                                

                                 Crime

                    BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico            CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana            SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB BARR, Georgia                    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

                   Commercial and Administrative Law

                GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                JERROLD NADLER, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico            SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina           MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
ED BRYANT, Tennessee                 WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

                    Courts and Intellectual Property

                 HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
    Wisconsin                        JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           HOWARD BERMAN, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
SONNY BONO, California               ZOE LOFGREN, California
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana             WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
MARY BONO, California

----------
    \1\ Subcommittee chairmanships and assignments approved January 21, 
1997. Republican assignments revised March 3, 1998: James E. Rogan, 
California, filled vacancies resulting from the death of Sonny Bono, 
California (deceased January 5, 1998); Lindsey O. Graham, South 
Carolina, filled vacancies resulting from the illness of Steven Schiff, 
New Mexico (deceased March 25, 1998). Republican assignments revised 
June 17, 1998, to add Mary Bono, California.


                         Immigration and Claims

                    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chairman

ELTON GALLEGLY, California           MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
SONNY BONO, California               CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana             ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah          ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
MARY BONO, California
                                 ------                                

                            The Constitution

                  CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, Chairman

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina           MAXINE WATERS, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee                 JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
BOB BARR, Georgia
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas



                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 1999.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Trandahl: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am transmitting 
the report on the activities of the Committee on the Judiciary 
of the U.S. House of Representatives for the 105th 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.................................................     9
House Documents..................................................    10
Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary..........    12
    Legislation Enacted Into Law.................................    12
        Public Laws..............................................    12
        Private Laws.............................................    18
    Conference Appointments......................................    19
    Tabulation of activity on legislation held at the full 
      Committee..................................................    21
    Full Committee Activities....................................    21
    Impeachment..................................................    22
        Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of 
          the United States......................................    22
            Background...........................................    22
            H. Res. 525..........................................    22
            Procedures Applicable to the Review of the 
              Communication from the Independent Counsel.........    23
            Proceedings Pursuant to H. Res. 525..................    25
            Consideration and Passage of H. Res. 581.............    26
            Proceedings Pursuant to H. Res. 581..................    28
            H. Res. 611..........................................    30
            H. Res. 614..........................................    30
    Legislative Activities.......................................    31
        Antitrust................................................    31
            Need-Based Educational Aid Antitrust Protection Act 
              of 1997--H.R. 1866 (Public Law 105-43).............    31
            The Curt Flood Act of 1998--S. 53 (Public Law 105-
              297)...............................................    32
            Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity--H.R. 1902 
              (Public Law 105-26)................................    35
            Health Care and Antitrust--H.R. 415 and H.R. 4277....    36
        Liability Issues.........................................    37
            Volunteer Protection--H.R. 911/S. 543................    37
            Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act--
              S. 2392 (Public Law 105-271).......................    40
    Matters Held at Full Committee...............................    42
        Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment--H.J. Res. 1 and 
          S.J. Res. 1............................................    42
        Terms of Office for Members of the Senate and the House 
          of Representatives--H.J. Res. 2........................    43
        Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act--H.R. 929 and H.R. 1122...    43
        Vacancies Act--H.R. 3420 (Section 151 of Public Law 105-
          277)...................................................    43
        Clarification That the Protections of the Federal Tort 
          Claims Act Apply to the National Gambling Impact Study 
          Commission--H.R. 1901 (Public Law 105-30)..............    44
        Making a Technical Correction to Title 28, United States 
          Code, Relating to Jurisdiction for Lawsuits Against 
          Terrorist States--H.R. 1225 (Public Law 105-11)........    45
        Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment and Implementing 
          Statute--H.J. Res. 71 and H.R. 1322....................    46
        Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Legislation--H.R. 1835 and 
          H.R. 1965..............................................    48
        Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, 
          Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 2001--H.R. 3303...........    51
        Protection From Intrusion on Privacy--H.R. 2448 and H.R. 
          3224...................................................    52
        Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997--H.R. 3081............    54
        Title 36 Codification--H.R. 1085 (Public Law 105-225)....    57
        Title 36 Codification--S. 2524 (Public Law 105-354)......    58
        Title 49 Codification Update--H.R. 1086 (Public Law 105-
          102)...................................................    58
        Assassination Records Review Board Authorization 
          Extension--H.R. 1553 (Public Law 105-25)...............    58
        Airline Service Improvement Act of 1998--H.R. 2748.......    59
        Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act of 1998--H.R. 
          3485...................................................    59
        The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act 
          of 1998--H.R. 3829.....................................    59
        Money Laundering Deterrence Act of 1998--H.R. 4005.......    59
        Financial Information Privacy Act of 1998--H.R. 4321.....    60
        Sense of the Congress Relating to an Award of Attorneys' 
          Fees, Costs, and Sanctions--H.J. Res. 107..............    60
        Criminal Charges for Failure to Comply with a Valid 
          Subpoena--H. Res. 244..................................    60
        President's Assertions of Executive Privilege--H. Res. 
          432....................................................    61
        Urging Full Cooperation with Congressional 
          Investigations--H. Res. 433............................    61
        Condemning the Brutal Killing of Mr. James Byrd, Jr.--H. 
          Res. 466...............................................    61
        Impeachment Resolution Directed at Independent Counsel 
          Kenneth W. Starr--H. Res. 545..........................    62
        Condemning the Brutal Killing of Mr. Matthew Shepard--H. 
          Res. 597...............................................    62
        Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act--S. 1379 (Public Law 105-
          246)...................................................    62
        Authorization for Acceptance of Voluntary Services by the 
          Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice--S. 2143 
          (Public Law 105-233)...................................    62
    Oversight Activities.........................................    63
        Full Committee Oversight Hearings........................    63
Summary of activities of the Subcommittees of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary:
    Subcommittee on Crime:
        Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity......    65
        Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.........................    65
        Juvenile Crime...........................................    65
            The Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Act of 1997.    65
            Community Police Officers in Schools.................    67
            Establishment of 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs of 
              America by the year 2000...........................    68
            National Youth Crime Prevention Demonstration Act....    68
            Juvenile Rape in Prison Protection Act of 1997.......    69
        Protecting Our Children..................................    69
            The Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act................    69
            The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment 
              Act of 1998........................................    70
            Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997..............    73
            No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists, or Child 
              Molesters Act of 1998..............................    73
            Violent Crimes Committed by Repeat Offenders and 
              Criminals Serving Abbreviated Sentences............    74
            The Protection of Our Children Should Be the Nation's 
              Highest Priority...................................    74
        Reinvigorating the War on Drugs..........................    75
            Western Hemisphere Act of 1998.......................    75
            Drug Demand Reduction Act............................    76
            The Medical Marijuana Referenda Movement in America..    76
            Money Laundering.....................................    78
            Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 
              1997...............................................    79
            Violent Crimes Committed by Repeat Offenders and 
              Criminals Serving Abbreviated Sentences............    79
            Speed Trafficking Life in Prison Act of 1997.........    80
            Controlled Substances Trafficking Prohibition Act....    80
            Drug Diversion Investigations by the United States 
              Drug Enforcement Administration....................    81
            Date-Rape Drugs......................................    83
        Vital Tools for Law Enforcement..........................    83
            Multipoint Wiretapping...............................    83
            Crime Identification Technology Act..................    84
            National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection 
              Act of 1997........................................    85
            Law Enforcement Advertisement Clarification Act of 
              1997...............................................    86
        Violent Crime............................................    86
            Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Criminals Using 
              Firearms...........................................    86
            Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act of 1997............    87
            Domestic Violence Misdemeanor and Firearms Ownership.    88
            Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 
              1997...............................................    90
            RICO Reform and Nonviolent Advocacy Groups...........    91
            Prohibition on Financial Transactions with Countries 
              Supporting Terrorism Act of 1997...................    92
        Protecting and Supporting Police.........................    93
            Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998................    93
            Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grants Act.............    94
            Police, Fire, and Emergency Officers Educational 
              Assistance Act.....................................    94
            Correction Officers Health and Safety Act of 1998....    95
            Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act.................    96
            Interstate Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Law 
              Enforcement Officials and the Community Protection 
              Act of 1997........................................    96
            Medal of Valor.......................................    98
            Law Enforcement Officers Who Have Died in the Line of 
              Duty Should Be Honored, Recognized, and Remembered 
              for Their Great Sacrifice..........................    98
        Protecting the Public From Fraud.........................    99
            Cellular Telephone Protection Act....................    99
            Clone Pager Authorization Act of 1996................   101
            Telemarketing Fraud Prevention.......................   101
            Identify Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.........   102
        Caring for Victims.......................................   103
            Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act........   103
            Victims Rights Clarification Act.....................   103
            Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1997.................   105
            Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
              Act of 1968........................................   105
        Internet Gambling........................................   106
        Department of Justice....................................   107
            Federal Prisons of Industries........................   107
            Prisoner Service Opportunity Act of 1997.............   109
            United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 
              1997...............................................   109
            Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act of 
              1997...............................................   109
            To Limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts with 
              Respect to Prison Release Orders...................   110
        General Oversight and Other Subcommittee Hearings........   110
            FBI Oversight........................................   110
            Implementation of the Communications Assistance for 
              Law Enforcement Act of 1994........................   111
            Ecoterrorism.........................................   112
    Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law:
        Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity......   113
        Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.........................   113
        Legislative Activities...................................   114
            Administrative Law/Practice and Procedure (Regulatory 
              Reform)............................................   114
                H.R. 1544, the Federal Agency Compliance Act.....   114
                H.R. 2440, Technical Amendment in Section 10, 
                  Title 9, United States Code....................   115
                H.R. 4049, Regulatory Fair Warning Act of 1998...   115
                H.R. 4096, Taxpayer's Defense Act................   115
            Bankruptcy...........................................   116
                H.R. 764, the Bankruptcy Amendments of 1997, and 
                  H.R. 120, the Bankruptcy Law Technical 
                  Corrections Act of 1997........................   116
                H.R. 1596, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1997..   118
                H.R. 2592, the Private Trustee Reform Act of 
                  1997, and Review of Post-Confirmation Fees in 
                  Chapter 11 Cases...............................   119
                H.R. 2604, the Religious Liberty and Charitable 
                  Donation Protection Act of 1997, and H.R. 2611, 
                  the Religious Fairness in Bankruptcy Act of 
                  1997...........................................   121
                H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, 
                  H.R. 2500, the Responsible Borrower Protection 
                  Bankruptcy Act, and H.R. 3146, the Consumer 
                  Lenders and Borrowers Bankruptcy Accountability 
                  Act of 1998....................................   123
                H.R. 4239 and H.R. 4393, the Financial Contract 
                  Netting Improvement Act of 1998................   129
                H.R. 4831, Temporary Reenactment of Chapter 12, 
                  Bankruptcy Relief for Family Farmers...........   130
            State Taxation.......................................   131
                H.R. 865 and H.R. 874, State Taxation of 
                  Employees at Certain Federal Facilities........   131
                H.R. 1054, Internet Tax Freedom Act..............   131
                H.R. 4572, a Bill Clarifying that the Limitation 
                  on State Income Taxation of Governmental 
                  Pension Income Applies to Possessions of the 
                  United States..................................   133
            Interstate Compacts..................................   133
                H.J. Res. 91--The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
                  Flint River Basin Compact (ACF)................   133
                H.J. Res. 92--The Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River 
                  Basin Compact (ACT)............................   134
                H.J. Res. 95--The Chickasaw Trail Economic 
                  Development Compact............................   134
                H.J. Res. 96--Amendments to the Washington 
                  Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact...   135
                S. 1134--Interstate Forest Fire Protection 
                  Compact........................................   135
                S.J. Res. 35--The Pacific Northwest Emergency 
                  Management Arrangement.........................   136
                S.J. Res. 51--The Potomac Highlands Airport 
                  Authority Compact..............................   136
            Miscellaneous........................................   137
                H.R. 872, Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 
                  1998...........................................   137
                H.R. 1494, Apprehension of Tainted Money Act.....   138
                H.R. 3032, Construction Subcontractors Payment 
                  Protection Enhancement Act of 1998.............   139
                H.R. 4243 and H.R. 4857, Government Waste, Fraud, 
                  and Error Reduction Act of 1998................   140
        Oversight Activities.....................................   140
            Administrative Law, Practice and Procedures..........   140
                Administrative Crimes and Quasi-Crimes...........   140
                Administrative Taxation: The FCC's Universal 
                  Service Tax....................................   141
                Congressional Review Act.........................   141
                EPA's Rulemakings on National Ambient Air Quality 
                  Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone.....   142
                Oversight of the Executive Office for United 
                  States Attorneys, the Environment and Natural 
                  Resources Division of the Department of 
                  Justice, and the Executive Office for United 
                  States Trustees................................   143
                Role of Congress in Monitoring Administrative 
                  Rulemaking.....................................   144
            Bankruptcy...........................................   144
                Status Report from the National Bankruptcy Review 
                  Commission and Operation of the Bankruptcy 
                  System.........................................   144
                National Bankruptcy Review Commission Report.....   145
    Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          Subcommittee...........................................   147
        Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.........................   147
        Legislative Activities...................................   148
            Courts...............................................   148
                The Judicial Reform Act of 1997, H.R. 1252.......   148
                To amend the Webb-Kenyon Act to allow any State, 
                  territory, or possession of the United States 
                  to bring an action in Federal Court to enjoin 
                  violations of that Act or to enforce the laws 
                  of such State, territory, or possession with 
                  respect to such violations, H.R. 1063..........   149
                Private Property Rights Implementation Act, H.R. 
                  1534...........................................   149
                Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, H.R. 3528....   151
                Federal Courts Improvement Act, H.R. 2294........   152
                To amend title 28 of the United States Code 
                  regarding enforcement of child custody orders, 
                  H.R. 4164......................................   152
                Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1998, H.R. 3789.   153
                To provide that a person closely related to a 
                  judge of a court exercising judicial power 
                  under Article III of the United States 
                  Constitution (other than the Supreme Court) may 
                  not be appointed as a judge of the same court, 
                  H.R. 3926 (S. 1892)............................   154
                Protecting American Small Business Trade Act of 
                  1998, H.R. 3578................................   154
                Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997, 
                  H.R. 240.......................................   155
                Peremptory Challenge Act of 1997, H.R. 520 (H.R. 
                  1252)..........................................   155
                To establish a Commission on Structural 
                  Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, 
                  H.R. 908 (H.R. 2267)...........................   155
                To amend title 28 of the United States Code to 
                  allow an interlocutory appeal from a court 
                  order determining whether an action may be 
                  maintained as a class action, H.R. 660 (H.R. 
                  1252)..........................................   156
                Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Act of 1997, 
                  H.R. 702 (H.R. 1252)...........................   156
                To adjust, and provide a procedure for the future 
                  adjustment of, the salaries of Federal judges, 
                  H.R. 875 (H.R. 1252)...........................   156
                To amend chapter 3 of title 28 of the United 
                  States Code to provide for the appointment in 
                  each United States Circuit Court of Appeals, of 
                  at least one resident of each state in such 
                  circuit, H.R. 932 (H.R. 2267)..................   156
                To provide for the conversion of existing 
                  temporary United States district judgeships to 
                  permanent status, H.R. 977 (S. 996)............   157
                State Initiative Fairness Act, H.R. 1170 (H.R. 
                  1252)..........................................   157
                Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, H.R. 1280 (H.R. 
                  1252)..........................................   157
                To reauthorize the program established under 
                  chapter 44 of title 28 of the United States 
                  Code relating to arbitration, H.R. 1581 (S. 
                  996)...........................................   158
                To amend title 28 of the United States Code to 
                  create two divisions in the Eastern Judicial 
                  District of Louisiana, H.R. 1790...............   158
                Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1997, 
                  H.R. 1857 (H.R. 1252)..........................   158
                To amend title 28 of the United States Code to 
                  transfer Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, from 
                  the Eastern Judicial District of Pennsylvania 
                  to the Middle Judicial District of 
                  Pennsylvania, H.R. 2123 (H.R. 2294)............   159
                Judicial Conduct Reform Act of 1997, H.R. 2739 
                  (H.R. 4328)....................................   159
                Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1998, H.R. 3154 
                  (H.R. 2294)....................................   159
                Alternative Dispute Resolution and Settlement 
                  Encouragement Act, H.R. 903 (H.R. 3528)........   159
        Intellectual Property....................................   159
            Copyrights...........................................   159
                WIPO Treaties Implementation Act, H.R. 2281......   159
                Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act of 
                  1997, H.R. 72 (H.R. 2281)......................   162
                Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act, H.R. 
                  2180 (H.R. 2281)...............................   162
                No Electronic Theft Act, H.R. 2265...............   162
                Copyright Term Extension Act, H.R. 2589 (S. 505).   163
                Fairness in Music Licensing Act, H.R. 789 (S. 
                  505)...........................................   163
                To make technical amendments to certain 
                  provisions of title 17 of the United States 
                  Code, H.R. 672.................................   165
                To amend title 17 of the United States Code to 
                  provide that the distribution before January 1, 
                  1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any 
                  purpose constitute a publication of the musical 
                  work embodied therein, H.R. 1967 (H.R. 672)....   165
                Multichannel Video Competition and Consumer 
                  Protection Act, H.R. 2921......................   166
                Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act, 
                  H.R. 3210......................................   167
            Patents..............................................   168
                21st Century Patent System Improvement Act, H.R. 
                  400............................................   168
                Patent and Trademark Office Surcharge Extension 
                  Act of 1997, H.R. 673 (H.R. 400)...............   169
                Patent Term Restoration Act, H.R. 811............   169
                Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act, 
                  H.R. 3723......................................   170
                Plant Patents Amendments Act, H.R. 1197..........   170
                Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 
                  1997, H.R. 2544/To improve the ability of 
                  federal agencies to license federally owned 
                  inventions, H.R. 4859..........................   171
                To provide for the enactment of user fees 
                  proposed by the President in his budget 
                  submission under section 1105(a) of title 31, 
                  United States Code, for fiscal year 1999, H.R. 
                  3989...........................................   171
            Trademarks...........................................   171
                Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, H.R. 567.....   171
                Trade Dress Protection Act, H.R. 3163............   172
                Trademark Anticounterfeiting Act of 1998, H.R. 
                  3891...........................................   172
                Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act, H.R. 
                  1661 (S. 2193).................................   173
                To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 with respect 
                  to the dilution of famous marks, H.R. 3119.....   174
                Registration of Insignia of American Indian 
                  Tribes, S. 2193 and H.R. 4328..................   174
                International Expropriation of Registered Marks, 
                  H.R. 4328......................................   174
                Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, 
                  H.R. 3332 (S. 1609)............................   175
            Other Intellectual Property Rights...................   176
                Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) 
                  Act, H.R. 695..................................   176
                Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, H.R. 2696.....   178
                Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, H.R. 
                  2652...........................................   178
            Oversight Activities.................................   179
                Judicial Discipline and Misconduct...............   179
                Music Licensing in Restaurants and Retail and 
                  Other Establishments...........................   180
                Electronic Copyright Piracy......................   180
                Effect of Pre-1978 Distribution of Recordings 
                  Containing Musical Compositions................   180
                Copyright Term Extension.........................   181
                Copyright Per Program Licenses...................   181
                Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering 
                  Retransmission of Broadcast Signals............   181
                Internet Domain Name Trademark Protection........   182
                Attorneys Fees and the Proposed Global Tobacco 
                  Settlement.....................................   182
                Mass Torts and Class Action Lawsuits.............   182
                U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.................   182
                U.S. Copyright Office............................   183
                Celebrity Imposters/Federal Right of Publicity...   183
                State Commodity Commissions and Product 
                  Certification..................................   183
                International Expropriation of Registered Marks..   184
                Patent Extension Review..........................   184
                U.S. Judicial Conference, Administrative Office 
                  of the United States Courts, and the Federal 
                  Judicial Center................................   184
        Summary of Oversight Plan and Implementation.............   185
            Article III Courts...................................   185
            The U.S. Copyright System............................   185
            The U.S. Patent and Trademark Systems................   185
    Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          Subcommittee...........................................   187
        Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.........................   187
        Public Legislation Enacted Into Law......................   188
            Immigration..........................................   188
                S. 670--U.S. Citizenship for Children Born Abroad   188
                S. 1198, the Religious Workers Act of 1997.......   188
                H.R. 2464, Exempting Internationally Adopted 
                  Children 10 and Under from the Immunization 
                  Requirement of the Immigration and Nationality 
                  Act............................................   189
                Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief 
                  Act of 1997....................................   189
                Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997..................   191
                Sunset of Section 245(i) of the Immigration and 
                  Nationality Act................................   191
                Fingerprints for Criminal Background Checks......   192
                Criminal Background Checks for Naturalization 
                  Applications...................................   193
                Discipline of INS Employees......................   193
                Philippine Army, Scouts, and Guerilla Veterans of 
                  World War II Naturalization Act of 1997........   193
                Special Immigrant Status for Dependents on 
                  Juvenile Courts................................   193
                S. 1161--Authorization of Appropriations for 
                  Refugee Assistance.............................   194
                H.R. 1493, to Require the Attorney General to 
                  Establish a Program in Local Prisons to 
                  Identify, Prior to Arraignment, Criminal Aliens 
                  and Aliens Who Are Unlawfully Present in the 
                  United States..................................   194
                S. 1178, Extending the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.   195
                H.R. 4658, Extending the Deadline for 
                  Implementation of an Automated Entry-Exit 
                  Control System under Section 110 of the Illegal 
                  Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
                  Act of 1996....................................   196
                Amendment to Section 110 of the Illegal 
                  Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
                  Act of 1996 Regarding Implementation of an 
                  Automated Entry-Exit Control System............   196
                The American Competitiveness and Workforce 
                  Improvement Act of 1998........................   197
                    Background...................................   197
                        TheG H-1B Visa Program Prior to the 
                      American Competitiveness and Workforce 
                      Improvement Act of 1998....................   197
                        Labor Department Concerns................   198
                        TheG State of the Labor Market for 
                      Information Technology Workers.............   198
                    The Act......................................   199
                    Procedural History...........................   200
                NATO Special Immigrant Amendments................   201
                Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998.   202
                Modification of Border Crossing Card Program.....   202
                Investor Visas...................................   203
                Injury and Death-Related Benefits for Immigration 
                  Officers.......................................   203
                Exemption of Inspection Fees for Cruise Ship 
                  Passengers.....................................   203
                Exemption of Certain Iraqi Asylees from 
                  Adjustment Cap.................................   203
                Denial of Visas to Haitians Involved in Certain 
                  Killings.......................................   204
                Sense of Congress Regarding U.S. Residence 
                  Obtained by El Salvadoran Killers..............   204
                Consular Authorities of the Department of State..   204
                Refugees and Migration...........................   204
                Limitation on Funding for Regulations Regarding 
                  State Driver's License Integrity...............   205
                H.R. 2431, Freedom from Religious Persecution Act   205
                H.R. 4293, the Irish Peace Process Cultural and 
                  Training Program Act...........................   206
                H.R. 4821, Extending into Fiscal Year 1999 the 
                  Visa Processing Period for Diversity Applicants 
                  Whose Visa Processing Was Suspended Due to 
                  Embassy Bombings...............................   207
            Claims...............................................   207
                H.R. 1023, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund 
                  Act of 1998....................................   207
        Action on Other Public Legislation.......................   208
            Legislation Passed by the House......................   208
                H.R. 2027, Regarding Canadian Border Boat Landing 
                  Permits........................................   208
                H.R. 2570, the Forced Abortion Condemnation Act..   209
                H.R. 2920, Amending Section 110 of the Illegal 
                  Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
                  Act of 1996 as to Implementation of an 
                  Automated Entry-Exit Control System............   209
                H.R. 967, Requiring the Denial of Visas to 
                  Chinese Government Officials Responsible for 
                  Religious Persecution..........................   210
                H.R. 992, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act......   210
                H.R. 2759, the Health Professional Shortage Area 
                  Nursing Relief Act.............................   211
        Legislation Rejected by the House of Representatives.....   212
            H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot 
              Program Act........................................   212
        Legislation Passed by the Judiciary Committee............   213
            H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 
              1997...............................................   213
        Legislation Passed by the Subcommittee...................   214
            H.R. 2413, the Immigration Technical Corrections Act 
              of 1997............................................   214
            H.R. 3410, the Temporary Agricultural Worker Act of 
              1998...............................................   214
            H.R. 2837, Citizenship Integrity and Backlog 
              Reduction Act......................................   215
            H.R. 4264, Restructuring the Immigration and 
              Naturalization Service.............................   216
        Hearings on Public Legislation not Processed.............   216
            Immigration..........................................   216
                H.R. 231 and H.R. 471............................   216
                H.R. 7...........................................   217
                H.R. 1543, H.R. 2172.............................   217
                H.R. 225.........................................   217
            Claims...............................................   217
                H.R. 3022........................................   217
                H.R. 3539........................................   218
        Federal Charters.........................................   218
            Subcommittee Policy on New Federal Charters..........   218
            Amendment to the American Legion Charter.............   219
            S. 1759, Federal Charter for the American GI Forum...   219
        Private Claims and Private Immigration Legislation.......   220
        Oversight Activities.....................................   220
            Immigration..........................................   220
                Implementation of Title III of the Illegal 
                  Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
                  Act of 1996....................................   220
                Deception of a Congressional Task Force 
                  Delegation to Miami District of INS (Krome)....   221
                Improper Granting of U.S. Citizenship Without 
                  Conducting Criminal Background Checks..........   221
                Border Security and Deterring Illegal Entry into 
                  the U.S........................................   221
                Safeguarding the Integrity of the Naturalization 
                  Process........................................   222
                Visa Fraud and Immigration Benefits Application 
                  Fraud..........................................   222
                Visa Waiver Pilot Program........................   222
                Institutional Hearing Program....................   223
                Temporary Agricultural Work Visa Program.........   223
                Final Report of the Commission on Immigration 
                  Reform.........................................   223
                Immigration and the American Workforce for the 
                  21st Century...................................   223
                Alternative Proposals to Restructure the 
                  Immigration and Naturalization Service.........   224
                Alternative Technologies for Implementation of 
                  Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
                  and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 at 
                  Land Borders...................................   224
                Problems Related to Criminal Aliens in Utah......   224
                Oversight Investigation of the Death of Esequiel 
                  Hernandez, Jr..................................   225
                Refugee Consultations............................   225
                    I. Fiscal Year 1998..........................   225
                    II. Fiscal Year 1999.........................   226
            Claims...............................................   226
                Health Care Initiatives Pursued Under False 
                  Claims Act that Impact Hospitals...............   226
    Subcommittee on the Constitution:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          Subcommittee...........................................   229
        Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.........................   229
        Legislation..............................................   229
            Assisted Suicide.....................................   229
            Child Custody Protection Act.........................   230
            Citizen Protection Act...............................   231
            Reform of Laws Governing Lobbying....................   231
            Fair Housing.........................................   231
            Racial and Gender Preferences--The Civil Rights Act..   232
            Religious Freedom....................................   232
            Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.......................   233
            U.S. Commission on Civil Rights......................   234
            Displaying the Ten Commandments......................   234
            Contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr..............   235
            Flag.................................................   235
            Emancipation of African Slaves in Danish West Indies.   235
        Constitutional Amendments................................   235
            Term Limits..........................................   235
            Flag Protection......................................   236
            Religious Freedom Amendment..........................   236
            Tax Limitation Amendment.............................   237
            Electoral College....................................   237
            Alternatives to Article V............................   237
            Campaign Spending....................................   238
        Oversight Activities.....................................   238
            Impeachment..........................................   238
            United States Commission on Civil Rights.............   238
            Clinton Administration Adarand Review................   239
            Respective Roles of Congress and Article III Courts..   240
            Private Property Rights..............................   240
            The First Amendment and Campaign Finance Reform......   240
            Americans with Disabilities Act......................   241



                                                 Union Calendar No. 486

105th Congress                                                   Report
  2d Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                105-845

=======================================================================



 
       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                _______


January 2, 1999.--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 105th 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...................................................   714
    House joint resolutions.......................................    95
    House concurrent resolutions..................................    30
    House resolutions.............................................    28
                                                                  ------
                                                                     867
                                                                  ======
    Senate bills..................................................    35
    Senate joint resolutions......................................     3
                                                                  ------
                                                                      38
                                                                  ======
      Subtotal....................................................   905
                                                                  ======
Private Legislation:
    House bills (claims)..........................................    33
    House bills (copyrights)......................................     1
    House bills (immigration).....................................    35
    House bills (patents).........................................     1
    House resolutions (claims)....................................     1
                                                                  ------
                                                                      71
                                                                  ======
    Senate bills (immigration)....................................     6
                                                                  ------
                                                                      77
                                                                  ======
      Subtotal....................................................   982
                                                                  ======

             ACTION ON LEGISLATION NOT REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

Originated for House action:
    House resolutions.............................................     2
Amended by House with Committee language:
    House bills...................................................     3
    Senate bills..................................................     1
Held at desk for House action:
    Senate bills..................................................    13
Conference appointments:
    House bills...................................................     2
                                                                  ------
                                                                      21
                                                                  ======

                              FINAL ACTION

    House concurrent resolutions approved (public)................     1
    House resolutions approved (public)...........................    10
    Public Laws...................................................    70
    Private Laws..................................................    10

                                Hearings

                          Serial No. and Title

                               __________

    1. Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States. Committee on the Judiciary. February 3, 1997. (H.J. Res. 
1).
    2. Implementation of Title III of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims. February 11, 1997.
    3. 21st Century Patent System Improvement Act; Patent and Trademark 
Office Surcharge Extension Act of 1997; and Patent Term Restoration Act 
of 1997. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. February 26, 
1997. (H.R. 400, H.R. 673, and H.R. 811).
    4. Implementation of the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996. 
Committee on the Judiciary. March 19, 1997.
    5. Congressional Review Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. March 6, 1997.
    6. Volunteer Liability Legislation. Committee on the Judiciary. 
April 23, 1997. (H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167).
    7. Madrid Protocol Implementation Act; and Trademark Law Treaty 
Implementation Act. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. 
May 22, 1997. (H.R. 567 and H.R. 1661).
    8. State Taxation of Employees at Certain Federal Facilities. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. April 17, 1997. 
(H.R. 865 and H.R. 874).
    9. Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act. Subcommittee 
on Courts and Intellectual Property. March 20, 1997. (H.R. 695).
    10. Product Liability Reform. Committee on the Judiciary. April 10, 
1997.
    11. Deception of a Congressional Task Force Delegation to Miami 
District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. February 27, 1997.
    12. Operation of the Bankruptcy System and Status Report from the 
National Bankruptcy Review Commission. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. April 16, 1997.
    13. Bankruptcy Amendments of 1997; and Bankruptcy Law Technical 
Corrections Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. April 30, 1997. (H.R. 764 and H.R. 120).
    14. Improper Granting of U.S. Citizenship Without Conducting 
Criminal Background Checks. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of 
the Committee on the Judiciary jointly with the Subcommittee on 
National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. March 5, 1997. (Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight Serial No. 105-21).
    15. Free Speech and Campaign Finance Reform. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. February 27, 1997.
    16. Apprehension of Tainted Money Act of 1997. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. May 14, 1997. (H.R. 1494).
    17. Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. June 19, 1997. (H.R. 1596).
    18. Grassroots Solutions to Youth Crime. Committee on the 
Judiciary. May 7, 1997.
    19. Antitrust Aspects of Electricity Deregulation. Committee on the 
Judiciary. June 4, 1997.
    20. Fair Housing Reform and Freedom of Speech Act of 1997. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. April 17, 1997. (H.R. 589).
    21. Federal Agency Compliance Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. May 22, 1997. (H.R. 1544).
    22. Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. Committee on the Judiciary. 
June 11, 1997. (H.R. 1835).
    23. Citizenship Reform Act of 1997; and Voter Eligibility 
Verification Act. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. June 25, 
1997. (H.R. 7 and H.R. 1428).
    24. Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997; and Canadian Border 
Boat Landing Permit Requirements. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. June 26, 1997. (H.R. 371 and H.R. 2027).
    25. Internet Tax Freedom Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 17, 1997. (H.R. 1054).
    26. Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. June 17, 1997.
    27. Judicial Reform Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. May 14, 1997. (H.R. 1252).
    28. Proposals to Provide Rights to Victims of Crime. Committee on 
the Judiciary. June 25, 1997. (H.J. Res. 71 and H.R. 1322).
    29. Judicial Misconduct and Discipline. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. May 15, 1997.
    30. Limiting Terms of Office for Members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives and U.S. Senate. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
January 22, 1997.
    31. Gang-Related Witness Intimidation and Retaliation. Subcommittee 
on Crime. June 17, 1997.
    32. Border Security and Deterring Illegal Entry into the United 
States. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. April 23, 1997.
    33. WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act; and On-line 
Copyright Liability Limitation Act. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. September 16, 17, 1997. (H.R. 2281 and H.R. 
2180).
    34. Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1997. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. June 12, 1997. (H.R. 872).
    35. EPA's Rulemakings on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 29, 1997.
    36. Safeguarding the Integrity of the Naturalization Process. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. April 30, 1997.
    37. Legislation Concerning Immigrant Issues. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. May 13, 1997. (H.R. 231, H.R. 429, H.R. 471, 
and H.R. 1493).
    38. Musical Licensing in Restaurants and Retail and Other 
Establishments. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. July 
17, 1997.
    39. Pre-1978 Distribution of Recordings Containing Musical 
Compositions; Copyright Term Extension; and Copyright Per Program 
Licenses. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 27 
(Nashville, Tennessee), 1997.
    40. Seeking Results from the Department of Justice. Committee on 
the Judiciary. September 30, 1997.
    41. State of Competition in the Cable Television Industry. 
Committee on the Judiciary. September 24, 1997.
    42. Visa Fraud and Immigration Benefits Application Fraud. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. May 20, 1997.
    43. The First Amendment and Restrictions on Issue Advocacy. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 18, 1997.
    44. The FBI Investigation into the Saudi Arabia Bombing and Foreign 
FBI Investigations. Subcommittee on Crime. February 12, 1997.
    45. Prohibition on Financial Transactions With Countries Supporting 
Terrorism Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Crime. June 10, 1997. (H.R. 
748).
    46. Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 20, 1997.
    47. Copyright Piracy and H.R. 2265, the No Electronic Theft (NET) 
Act. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. September 11, 
1997. (H.R. 2265).
    48. National Bankruptcy Review Commission Report. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. November 13, 1997.
    49. Temporary Agricultural Work Visa Programs. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. September 24, 1997.
    50. H.J. Res. 54: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States Authorizing Congress to Prohibit the Physical Desecration 
of the Flag of the United States. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
April 30, 1997. (H.J. Res. 54).
    51. The Application of the Antitrust Laws to the Tennessee Valley 
Authority and the Federal Power Marketing Administrations. Committee on 
the Judiciary. October 22, 1997.
    52. Private Trustee Reform Act of 1997 and Review of Post-
Confirmation Fees in Chapter 11 Cases. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. October 9, 1997. (H.R. 2592).
    53. Amendment to the Webb-Kenyon Act; and the Private Property 
Implementation Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
Property. September 25, 1997. (H.R. 1063 and H.R. 1534).
    54. The Role of Congress in Monitoring Administrative Rulemaking. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. September 25, 1997. 
(H.R. 1036 and H.R. 1704).
    55. Protecting Religious Freedom after Boerne v. Flores. (Parts 1, 
2, and 3). Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 14, 1997, February 
26, March 26, 1998.
    56. Exclusions from the United States of Certain Officials from the 
Chinese Government Involved in the Persecution of Religious Believers; 
and Issue of Eligibility for Student Visas. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims. July 24, 1997. (H.R. 967, H.R. 1543, and H.R. 2172).
    57. The Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: The Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal 
Trade Commission. Committee on the Judiciary. November 5, 1997.
    58. The Activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Part 
1). Subcommittee on Crime. May 13, 1997. (See also Serial Nos. 59 and 
60).
    59. The Activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Part 
2). Subcommittee on Crime. June 5, 1997. (See also Serial Nos. 58 and 
60).
    60. The Activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Part 
3). Subcommittee on Crime. July 30, 1998. (See also Serial Nos. 58 and 
59).
    61. United States Department of Justice. Committee on the 
Judiciary. October 15, 1997.
    62. Internet Domain Name Trademark Protection. (Part 1). 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. November 5, 1997.
    63. Background and History of Impeachment. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. November 9, 1998.
    64. Application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Medical 
Licensure and Judicial Officers. Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 
22, 1997
    65. Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 
1997; and the Religious Fairness in Bankruptcy Act of 1997. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. February 12, 1998. 
(H.R. 2604 and H.R. 2611).
    95. Partial-Birth Abortion: The Truth. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly with the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. March 11, 1997. (Oversight/S. 6 and 
H.R. 929). (Senate Committee on the Judiciary Serial No. J-105-3).
    * Civil Liability Portions of the Proposed Tobacco Settlement. 
Committee on the Judiciary. February 5, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Denotes material not assigned a serial number as of filing date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, Fiscal 
Years 1999, 2000, and 2001. Committee on the Judiciary. March 11, 1998. 
(H.R. 3303).
    * State of Competition in the Airline Industry. Committee on the 
Judiciary. May 19, 1998.
    * Protection From Personal Intrusion Act and the Privacy Protection 
Act of 1998. Committee on the Judiciary. May 21, 1998. (H.R. 2448 and 
H.R. 3224).
    * Effects of Consolidation on the State of Competition in the 
Financial Services Industry. Committee on the Judiciary. June 3, 1998.
    * Effects of Consolidation on the State of Competition in the 
Telecommunications Industry. Committee on the Judiciary. June 24, 1998.
    * Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997. Committee on the Judiciary. 
July 22, 1998. (H.R. 3081).
    * Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 1998. Committee on the 
Judiciary. July 29, 1998. (H.R. 4277).
    * Inquiry Pursuant to House Resolution 581 into Whether Grounds 
Exist for the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of 
the United States. Committee on the Judiciary. November 19, December 8, 
9, 1998.
    * Consequences of Perjury and Related Crimes. Committee on the 
Judiciary. December 1, 1998.
    * Administration's Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Initiative. 
Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, jointly. February 26, 1997.
    * Firearms Prohibitions Applicable by Reason of Domestic Violence. 
Subcommittee on Crime. March 5, 1997. (H.R. 26 and section 658 of H.R. 
445).
    * Reforming Juvenile Justice in America. Subcommittee on Crime. 
March 20, 1997.
    * Federal Counter-Narcotic Efforts in the Caribbean. Subcommittee 
on Crime. April 3, 1997 (San Juan, Puerto Rico).
    * Interstate Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Law Enforcement 
Officials; the Community Protection Act of 1997, to provide for a 
national concealed firearms standard, and the Law Enforcement and 
Community Protection Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Crime. July 22, 1997. 
(H.R. 218 and H.R. 339).
    * Money Laundering. Subcommittee on Crime. July 24, 1997.
    * Activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Part III). 
Subcommittee on Crime. July 30, 1997.
    * Cellular Telephone Fraud. Subcommittee on Crime. September 11, 
1997.
    * Criminal Asset Forfeiture. Subcommittee on Crime. September 18, 
1997.
    * Medical Marijuana Referenda Movement in America. Subcommittee on 
Crime. October 1, 1997.
    * Anatomy of a Colombian Drug Trafficking Operation in the United 
States. Subcommittee on Crime. October 16, 1997.
    * Implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994. Subcommittee on Crime. October 23, 1997.
    * Cooperation between Federal Prison Industries and the Private 
Sector. Subcommittee on Crime. October 30, 1997.
    * Combating Crimes Against Children Facilitated by the Internet. 
Subcommittee on Crime. November 7, 1997.
    * Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Crime. 
February 4, and June 24, 1998. (H.R. 2380).
    * Bail Bond Fairness Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Crime. March 12, 
1998. (H.R. 2134).
    * Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997 and Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Crime. March 19 and 25, 
1998. (H.R. 1524 and H.R. 2829).
    * Correction Officers Health and Safety Act of 1997. Subcommittee 
on Crime. March 26, 1998. (H.R. 2070).
    * Protection and Privacy of Children. Subcommittee on Crime. April 
30, 1998. (H.R. 305, H.R. 1972, H.R. 2173, H.R. 2122, H.R. 2488, H.R. 
2815, H.R. 3185, H.R. 3494, H.R. 3729 and H.Con.Res. 125).
    * Congressional Recognition of Acts of Exceptional Valor by Public 
Safety Officers. Subcommittee Crime. May 14, 1998.
    * Ecoterrorism Committed by Radical Environmental Organizations. 
Subcommittee on Crime. June 9, 1998.
    * Federal Bureau of Investigation's Implementation of a National 
Instant-Check System for Screening Prospective Gun Buyers. Subcommittee 
on Crime. June 11, 1998.
    * Free Market Prison Industries Reform Act of 1998 and the Federal 
Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 1997. Subcommittee 
on Crime. June 25, 1998. (H.R. 4100 and H.R. 2758).
    * Civil Application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
Organizations Act (RICO) to Nonviolent Advocacy Groups. Subcommittee on 
Crime. July 17, 1998.
    * Use of Controlled Substance Used to Commit Date-Rape. 
Subcommittee on Crime. July 30, 1998.
    * Drug Diversion Investigations by the United States Drug 
Enforcement Administration. Subcommittee on Crime. August 6, 1998.
    * No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists, or Child Molesters Act 
of 1998. Subcommittee on Crime. September 17, 1998. (H.R. 4258).
    * Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact; Alabama-
Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact; Chickasaw Trail Economic 
Development Compact; and Amendments to the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Regulation Compact. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. October 23, 1997. (H.J. Res. 91, H.J. Res. 92, H.J. 
Res. 95 and H.J. Res. 96).
    * Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. February 25, 1998.
    * Administrative Taxation: the FCC's Universal Service Tax. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. February 26, 1998
    * Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998; Responsible Borrower Protection 
Bankruptcy Act; and the Consumer Lenders and Borrowers Bankruptcy 
Accountability Act of 1998. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. March 10, 12, 18, 19, 1998. Commercial and 
Administrative Law. (H.R. 3150, H.R. 2500 and H.R. 3146).
    * Administrative Crimes and Quasi-Crimes. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. May 7, 1998.
    * Regulatory Fair Warning Act of 1998; and the Taxpayers Defense 
Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 23, 1998. 
(H.R. 4049 and H.R. 4096).
    * Construction Subcontractors Payment Protection Enhancement Act of 
1998. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the House 
Judiciary Committee jointly with the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information and Technology of the House Government Reform 
Committee. September 11, 1998. (H.R. 3032).
    * Potomac Highlands Airport Authority Compact. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. September 25, 1998. (S.J. Res. 51).
    * Alternative Dispute Resolution and Settlement Encouragement Act 
and the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Courts 
and Intellectual Property. October 9, 1997. (H.R. 2603 and H.R. 2294).
    * The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act; the Vessel Hull 
Design Protection Act; and the Trade Dress Protection Act. Subcommittee 
on Courts and Intellectual Property. October 23, 1997; February 12, 
1998. (H.R. 2652, H.R. 2696, and H.R. 3163).
    * Enforcement of Child Custody Orders. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. April 23, 1998. (H.R. 1690).
    * Trademark Anticounterfeiting and Dilution of Famous Marks. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May 21, 1998. (H.R. 
3891 and H.R. 3119).
    * Protecting American Small Business Trade Act of 1998. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 11, 1998. (H.R. 
3578).
    * Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1998. June 18, 1998. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. (H.R. 3789).
    * Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of 
Broadcasting Signals. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. 
October 30, 1997, February 4, 1998.
    * Internet Domain Name Trademark Protection. (Part 2). Subcommittee 
on Courts and Intellectual Property. February 12, 1998.
    * Attorneys Fees and the Proposed Global Tobacco Settlement. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. December 10, 1997.
    * Mass Torts and Class Action Lawsuits. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. March 5, 1998.
    * U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Subcommittee on Courts 
and Intellectual Property. March 19, 1998.
    * Privacy in Electronic Communications. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. March 26, 1998.
    * Trademark Protection and the Impact of Regulatory Delay on 
Patents. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May 21, 
1998.
    * U.S. Judicial Conference, Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center. Subcommittee on Courts 
and Intellectual Property. June 11, 1998.
    * United States Copyright Office. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. July 23, 1998.
    * Institutional Hearing Program. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. July 15, 1997.
    * Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act of 1997. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. September 10, 1997. (HR 992).
    * Health Professional Shortage Area Nursing Relief Act of 1997. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. (HR 2759).
    * Final Report of the Commission on Immigration Reform. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. November 7, 1997.
    * Naturalization Reform Act of 1997. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims. March 5, 1998. (H.R. 2837).
    * Pending and Anticipated Caseload of Naturalization Applications. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 19, 1998.
    * Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. (H.R. 2431). March 24, 1998.
    * Immigration and America's Workforce for the 21st Century. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. April 21, 1998.
    * Health Care Initiatives Pursued Under the False Claims Act That 
Impact Hospitals. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. April 28, 
1998.
    * Alternative Proposals to Restructure the INS. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. May 21, 1998.
    * 4-Year Nonimmigrant Visitor's Visas. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims. June 4, 1998. (H.R. 225).
    * Friendly Fire in Iraq; Settlement and payment of claims. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. June 18, 1998. (H.R. 2986, H.R. 
3022)
    * Radiation Workers Justice Act. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. June 25, 1998. (H.R. 3539).
    * Alternative Technologies for Implementation of Section 110 of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 at 
Land Borders. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. July 23, 1998.
    * Problems Related to Criminal Aliens in Utah. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. July 27, 1998.
    * Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. March 18, 1997. (H.J. Res. 62).
    * Civil Rights Act of 1997. Subcommittee on the Constitution. June 
26, 1997. (H.R. 1909).
    * United States Commission on Civil Rights. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 17, 1997.
    * Religious Freedom Restoration Constitutional Amendment. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 22, 1997. (H.J. Res. 78).
    * Direct Election of the President Constitutional Amendment. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 4, 1997. (H.J. Res. 28 and 
H.J. Res. 43).
    * State Approaches to Protecting Private Property Rights. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 23, 1997.
    * Congress, the Courts and the Constitution. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. January 29, 1998.
    * Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. February 25, 1998.
    * Citizen Protection Act of 1998. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
March 12, 1998. (H.R. 3168).
    * State Proposal of Constitutional Amendments. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. March 25, 1998. (H.J. Res. 84).
    * Child Custody Protection Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
May 21, 1998. (H.R. 3682).
    * Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. June 16, July 14, 1998. (H.R. 4019).
    * Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1998. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 14, 1998. (H.R. 4006).
    * Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 17, 1998.

                            Committee Prints

                          Serial No. and Title

                               __________

    1. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 1997.
    2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 1997.
    3. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 1997.
    4. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 1997.
    5. Compilation of Selected Civil Rights Laws (As Amended Through 
the 105th Congress, First Session)--Civil Rights Commission Act of 
1983, Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1960, Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title III of the Age Discrimination 
Act of 1975, Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Civil Rights Act of 
1968, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights of Institutionalized 
Persons Act, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Americans with Disabilities Act 
of 1990, Section 722 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 
March 1998.
    6. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 2281 as Passed by the United 
States House of Representatives on August 4, 1998. Committee on the 
Judiciary. September 1998.
    7. Votes of the Committee in Executive Session Pursuant to H.Res. 
525 September 17, 18, 25, 1998. Committee on the Judiciary. October 
1998.
    8. Authorization of an Inquiry into Whether Grounds Exist for the 
Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United 
States. Meeting of the House Committee on the Judiciary held October 5, 
1998--Presentation by Inquiry Staff, Consideration of Inquiry 
Resolution, Adoption of Inquiry Procedures. Committee on the Judiciary. 
December 1998.
    9. Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment: Modern 
Precedents. Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry. Committee 
on the Judiciary. November 1998.
    10. Impeachment--Selected Materials. Committee on the Judiciary. 
November 1998.
    11. Oversight Investigation of the Death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. 
A report of Chairman Lamar Smith of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. November 1998.
    12. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 1998.
    13. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 1998.
    14. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 1998.
    15. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 1998.
    16. Submission by Counsel for President Clinton to the Committee on 
the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives. 
Impeachment Inquiry Pursuant to H.Res. 581. Committee on the Judiciary. 
December 1998.
    17. Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment: Modern 
Precedents--Minority Views. Report by the Minority Staff of the 
Impeachment Inquiry. Committee on the Judiciary. December 1998.

                            House Documents

                         H. Doc. No. and Title

                               __________

    105-67. 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. 2074. April 
15, 1997. (Executive Communication No. 2795).
    105-68. 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. 
2074. April 15, 1997. (Executive Communication No. 2796).
    105-69. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Communication 
from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States, 
transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that have been 
adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2074. April 15, 1997. 
(Executive Communication No. 2798).
    105-70. 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 15, 1997. (Executive Communication No. 2797).
    105-107. Report to the Congress on the Right to Bring an Action 
Under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 
1996. Communication from the President of the United States 
transmitting a report to Congress that suspension for 6 months beyond 
August 1, 1997, of the right to bring an action under title III of the 
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 is 
necessary to the national interests of the United States and will 
expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba, pursuant to Public Law 104-
114, section 306(c)(2). July 17, 1997. (Executive Communication No. 
4228).
    105-111. Legislative Proposal Entitled ``Immigration Reform 
Transition Act of 1997''. Message from the President of the United 
States transmitting a legislative proposal to provide relief to certain 
aliens who would otherwise be subject to removal from the United 
States. July 24, 1997. (Presidential Message No. 55).
    105-158. Veto of H.R. 1122. Message from the President of the 
United States transmitting his veto of H.R. 1122, a bill to amend title 
18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions. October 21, 
1997.
    105-266. 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. 2074. May 5, 
1998. (Executive Communication No. 8997).
    105-267. 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. 
2074. May 5, 1998. (Executive Communication No. 8998).
    105-268. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Communication 
from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States, 
transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that have been 
adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2074. May 5, 1998. 
(Executive Communication No. 8996).
    105-269. 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 11, 1998. (Executive Communication No. 9072).
    105-272. Proposed Legislation: International Crime Control Act of 
1998. Message from the President of the United States transmitting a 
draft of proposed legislation to deter and punish international crime, 
to protect United States nationals and interests at home and abroad, 
and to promote global cooperation against international crime. Referred 
jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary, International Relations, 
Ways and Means, Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Banking 
and Financial Services, and Government Reform and Oversight. June 9, 
1998. (Presidential Message No. 135).
    105-310. Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in 
Conformity with the Requirements of Title 28, United States Code, 
Section 595(c). Communication from Kenneth W. Starr, Independent 
Counsel. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to H.Res. 
525. September 11, 1998. (Executive Communication No. 10849).
    105-311. Appendices to the Referral to the United States House of 
Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 
595(c) submitted by the Office of the Independent Counsel, September 9, 
1998. (Parts 1 and 2). Communication from the Office of the Independent 
Counsel, Kenneth W. Starr. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
pursuant to H.Res. 525. September 18, 1998. (Executive Communication 
No. 11083).
    105-316. Supplemental Materials to the Referral to the United 
States House of Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, United States 
Code, Section 595(c) submitted by the Office of the Independent 
Counsel, September 9, 1998. (Parts 1, 2, and 3). Communication from the 
Office of the Independent Counsel, Kenneth W. Starr. Referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to H.Res. 525. September 28, 1998. 
(Executive Communication No. 11340).
    105-317. Preliminary Memorandum of the President of the United 
States Concerning the Referral of the Office of the Independent Counsel 
and the Initial Response of the President of the United States to the 
Referral of the Office of the Independent Counsel. Communication from 
and released by the Committee on the Judiciary. September 28, 1998. 
(Executive Communication No. 11337).

        Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary

                      Legislation Enacted Into Law

                              ----------                              

    A variety of legislation within the Committee's 
jurisdiction was enacted into law during the 105th Congress. 
The public and private laws are listed below and are more fully 
detailed in the subsequent sections of this report recounting 
the activities of the Committee and its individual 
subcommittees.

                              public laws

    Public Law 105-6.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to give further assurance to the right of victims of crime to 
attend and observe the trials of those accused of the crime. 
``Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997''. (H.R. 924) 
(Approved March 19, 1997; effective with respect to cases 
pending on the date of enactment).

    Public Law 105-11.--To make a technical correction to title 
28, United States Code, relating to jurisdiction for lawsuits 
against terrorist states. (H.R. 1225) (Approved April 25, 
1997).

    Public Law 105-12.--To clarify Federal law with respect to 
restricting the use of Federal funds in support of assisted 
suicide. ``Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997''. 
(H.R. 1003) (Approved April 30, 1997).

    Public Law 105-19.--To provide certain protections to 
volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and governmental entities 
in lawsuits based on the activities of volunteers. ``Volunteer 
Protection Act of 1997''. (S. 543) (Approved June 18, 1997; 
effective date September 16, 1997).

    Public Law 105-25.--To amend the President John F. Kennedy 
Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend the 
authorization of the Assassination Records Review Board until 
September 30, 1998. (H.R. 1553) (Approved July 3, 1997).

    Public Law 105-26.--To immunize donations made in the form 
of charitable gift annuities and charitable remainder trusts 
from the antitrust laws and State laws similar to the antitrust 
laws. ``Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity Act of 1997''. 
(H.R. 1902) (Approved July 3, 1997; effective with respect to 
all conduct occurring before, on, or after the date of 
enactment and applicable in all administrative and judicial 
actions pending on or commenced after the date of enactment).

    Public Law 105-30.--To clarify that the protections of the 
Federal Tort Claims Act apply to the members and personnel of 
the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. (H.R. 1901) 
(Approved July 25, 1997; effective date August 3, 1996).

    Public Law 105-38.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 to eliminate the 
special transition rule for issuance of a certificate of 
citizenship for certain children born outside the United 
States. (S. 670) (Approved August 8, 1997).

    Public Law 105-43.--To continue favorable treatment for 
need-based educational aid under the antitrust laws. ``Need-
Based Educational Aid Antitrust Protection Act of 1997''. (H.R. 
1866) (Approved September 17, 1997; effective immediately 
before September 30, 1997).

    Public Law 105-53.--To provide for the authorization of 
appropriations in each fiscal year for arbitration in United 
States district courts, and for other purposes. (S. 996) 
(Approved October 6, 1997).

    Public Law 105-54.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to provide permanent authority for entry into 
the United States of certain religious workers. (S. 1198) 
(Approved October 6, 1997).

    Public Law 105-73.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to exempt internationally adopted children 10 
years of age or younger from the immunization requirement in 
section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of such Act. (H.R. 2464) (Approved 
November 12, 1997).

    Public Law 105-80.--To make technical amendments to certain 
provisions of title 17, United States Code. (H.R. 672) 
(Approved November 13, 1997; effective dates vary).

    Public Law 105-85.--To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 1998 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 1998''. 
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal year 
1998''. ``Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997''. ``Panama Canal 
Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998''. ``Panama 
Canal Transition Facilitation Act of 1997''. (H.R. 1119) 
(Approved November 18, 1997; effective dates vary).

    Public Law 105-101.--To amend chapter 91 of title 18, 
United States Code, to provide criminal penalties for theft and 
willful vandalism at national cemeteries. ``Veterans' Cemetery 
Protection Act of 1997''. (S. 813) (Approved November 19, 
1997).

    Public Law 105-102.--To codify without substantive change 
laws related to transportation and to improve the United States 
Code. (H.R. 1086) (Approved November 20, 1997).

    Public Law 105-104.--Granting the consent of Congress to 
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact. (H.J. 
Res. 91) (Approved November 20, 1997).

    Public Law 105-105.--Granting the consent of Congress to 
the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact. (H.J. Res. 
92) (Approved November 20, 1997).

    Public Law 105-110.--To amend the Act incorporating the 
American Legion to make a technical correction. (S. 1377) 
(Approved November 20, 1997).

    Public Law 105-112.--To provide a law enforcement exception 
to the prohibition on the advertising of certain electronic 
devices. (H.R. 1840) (Approved November 21, 1997).

    Public Law 105-133.--To provide for the establishment of 
not less than 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs of America facilities 
by the year 2000. (S. 476) (Approved December 2, 1997).

    Public Law 105-136.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to authorize appropriations for refugee and 
entrant assistance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. (S. 1161) 
(Approved December 2, 1997; effective date October 1, 1997).

    Public Law 105-141.--To require the Attorney General to 
establish a program in local prisons to identify, prior to 
arraignment, criminal aliens and aliens who are unlawfully 
present in the United States, and for other purposes. (H.R. 
1493) (Approved December 5, 1997).

    Public Law 105-145.--Granting the consent of Congress to 
the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact. (H.J. Res. 
95) (Approved December 15, 1997).

    Public Law 105-147.--To amend the provisions of titles 17 
and 18, United States Code, to provide greater copyright 
protection by amending criminal copyright infringement 
provisions, and for other purposes. ``No Electronic Theft (NET) 
Act''. (H.R. 2265) (Approved December 16, 1997).

    Public Law 105-151.--Granting the consent and approval of 
Congress for the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, and the District of Columbia to amend the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact. (H.J. Res. 96) 
(Approved December 16, 1997).

    Public Law 105-166.--To make certain technical corrections 
to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. ``Lobbying Disclosure 
Technical Amendments Act of 1998''. (S. 758) (Approved April 6, 
1998).

    Public Law 105-172.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
with respect to scanning receivers and similar devices. 
``Wireless Telephone Protection Act''. (S. 493) (Approved April 
24, 1998).

    Public Law 105-173.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to modify and extend the visa waiver pilot 
program, and to provide for the collection of data with respect 
to the number of nonimmigrants who remain in the United States 
after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the 
Attorney General. (S. 1178) (Approved April 27, 1998).

    Public Law 105-180.--To amend Part L of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. ``Care for Police 
Survivors Act of 1998''. (H.R. 3565) (Approved June 16, 1998).

    Public Law 105-181.--To establish a matching grant program 
to help State and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for 
use by law enforcement departments. ``Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Act of 1998''. (S. 1605) (Approved June 16, 
1998).

    Public Law 105-183.--To amend title 11, United States Code, 
to protect certain charitable contributions, and for other 
purposes. (S. 1244) (Approved June 19, 1998).

    Public Law 105-184.--To improve the criminal law relating 
to fraud against consumers. (H.R. 1847) (Approved June 23, 
1998).

    Public Law 105-187.--To establish felony violations for the 
failure to pay legal child support obligations, and for other 
purposes. ``Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998''. (H.R. 
3811) (Approved June 24, 1998).

    Public Law 105-225.--To revise, codify, and enact without 
substantive change certain general and permanent laws, related 
to patriotic and national observances, ceremonies, and 
organizations, as title 36, United States Code, ``Patriotic and 
National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations''. (H.R. 
1085) (Approved August 12, 1998).

    Public Law 105-230.--To establish rules governing product 
liability actions against raw materials and bulk component 
suppliers to medical device manufacturers, and for other 
purposes. ``Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998''. (H.R. 
872) (Approved August 13, 1998; effective with respect to civil 
actions commenced on or after August 13, 1998, including any 
such action with respect to which the harm asserted in the 
action or the conduct that caused the harm occurred before such 
date).

    Public Law 105-231.--To grant a Federal charter to the 
American GI Forum of the United States. (S. 1759) (Approved 
August 13, 1998).

    Public Law 105-233.--To amend chapter 45 of title 28, 
United States Code, to authorize the Administrative Assistant 
to the Chief Justice to accept voluntary services, and for 
other purposes. (S. 2143) (Approved August 13, 1998).

    Public Law 105-246.--To amend section 552 of title 5, 
United States Code, and the National Security Act of 1947 to 
require disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 
regarding certain persons, disclose Nazi war criminal records 
without impairing any investigation or prosecution conducted by 
the Department of Justice or certain intelligence matters, and 
for other purposes. ``Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act''. (S. 
1379) (Approved October 8, 1998; effective date January 6, 
1999).

    Public Law 105-251.--To provide for the improvement of 
interstate criminal justice identification, information, 
communications, and forensics. ``Crime Identification 
Technology Act of 1998''. ``National Criminal History Access 
and Child Protection Act''. ``National Crime Prevention and 
Privacy Compact Act of 1998''. ``Volunteers for Children Act''. 
(S. 2022) (Approved October 9, 1998).

    Public Law 105-259.--To extend the date by which an 
automated entry-exit control system must be developed. (H.R. 
4658) (Approved October 15, 1998).

    Public Law 105-261.--To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 1999 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. 
``Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1999''. (H.R. 3616) (Approved October 17, 1998; effective 
dates vary).

    Public Law 105-271.--To encourage the disclosure and 
exchange of information about computer processing problems, 
solutions, test practices and test results, and related matters 
in connection with the transition to the year 2000. ``Year 2000 
Information and Readiness Disclosure Act''. (S. 2392) (Approved 
October 19, 1998).

    Public Law 105-289.--To amend title 35, United States Code, 
to protect patent owners against the unauthorized sale of plant 
parts taken from plants illegally reproduced, and for other 
purposes. ``Plant Patent Amendments Act of 1998''. (H.R. 1197) 
(Approved October 27, 1998).

    Public Law 105-292.--To express United States foreign 
policy with respect to, and to strengthen United States 
advocacy on behalf of, individuals persecuted in foreign 
countries on account of religion; to authorize United States 
actions in response to violations of religious freedom in 
foreign countries; to establish an Ambassador at Large for 
International Religious Freedom within the Department of State, 
a Commission on International Religious Freedom, and a Special 
Adviser on International Religious Freedom within the National 
Security Council; and for other purposes. ``International 
Religious Freedom Act of 1998''. (H.R. 2431) (Approved October 
27, 1998).

    Public Law 105-297.--To require the general application of 
the antitrust laws to major league baseball, and for other 
purposes. ``Curt Flood Act of 1998''. (S. 53) (Approved October 
27, 1998).

    Public Law 105-298.--To amend the provisions of title 17, 
United States Code, with respect to the duration of copyright, 
and for other purposes. ``Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension 
Act''. ``Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998''. (S. 505) 
(Approved October 27, 1998; effective dates vary).

    Public Law 105-300.--To provide that a person closely 
related to a judge of a court exercising judicial power under 
article III of the United States Constitution (other than the 
Supreme Court) may not be appointed as a judge of the same 
court, and for other purposes. (S. 1892) (Approved October 27, 
1998; applicable with respect to any individual whose 
nomination is submitted to the Senate on or after the date of 
enactment).

    Public Law 105-301.--To increase public awareness of the 
plight of victims of crime with developmental disabilities, to 
collect data to measure the magnitude of the problem, and to 
develop strategies to address the safety and justice needs of 
victims of crime with developmental disabilities. ``Crime 
Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act''. (S. 1976) (Approved 
October 27, 1998).

    Public Law 105-302.--To amend part Q of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to encourage the use of 
school resource officers. (S. 2235) (Approved October 27, 
1998).

    Public Law 105-304.--To amend title 17, United States Code, 
to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization 
Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty. (H.R. 
2281) (Approved October 28, 1998).

    Public Law 105-310.--To amend chapter 53 of title 31, 
United States Code, to require the development and 
implementation by the Secretary of the Treasury of a national 
money laundering and related financial crimes strategy to 
combat money laundering and related financial crimes, and for 
other purposes. (H.R. 1756) (Approved October 30, 1998).

    Public Law 105-314.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
with respect to violent sex crimes against children, and for 
other purposes. (H.R. 3494) (Approved October 30, 1998).

    Public Law 105-315.--To amend title 28, United States Code, 
with respect to the use of alternative dispute resolution 
processes in United States district courts, and for other 
purposes. (H.R. 3528) (Approved October 30, 1998).

    Public Law 105-318.--To amend chapter 47 of title 18, 
United States Code, relating to identity fraud, and for other 
purposes. (H.R. 4151) (Approved October 30, 1998).

    Public Law 105-319.--To establish a cultural training 
program for disadvantaged individuals to assist the Irish peace 
process. (H.R. 4293) (Approved October 30, 1998).

    Public Law 105-330.--To implement the provision of the 
Trademark Law Treaty. (S. 2193) (Approved October 30, 1998).

    Public Law 105-339.--To amend title 5, United States Code, 
to provide that consideration may not be denied to preference 
eligibles applying for certain positions in the competitive 
service, and for other purposes. (S. 1021) (Approved October 
31, 1998).

    Public Law 105-348. Granting the consent of Congress to the 
Potomac Highlands Airport Authority Compact entered into 
between the States of Maryland and West Virginia. (S.J. Res. 
51) (Approved November 2, 1998).

    Public Law 105-354.--To codify without substantive change 
laws related to Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, 
and Organizations and to improve the United States Code. (S. 
2524) (Approved November 3, 1998).

    Public Law 105-357.--To amend the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act to place limitations on controlled 
substances brought into the United States from Mexico. (H.R. 
3633) (Approved November 10, 1998).

    Public Law 105-358.--To authorize funds for the payment of 
salaries and expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office, and 
for other purposes. (H.R. 3723) (Approved November 10, 1998).

    Public Law 105-360.--To extend into fiscal year 1999 the 
visa processing period for diversity applicants whose visa 
processing was suspended during fiscal year 1998 due to embassy 
bombings. (H.R. 4821) (Approved November 10, 1998).

    Public Law 105-369.--To provide for compassionate payments 
with regard to individuals with blood-clotting disorders, such 
as hemophilia, who contracted human immunodeficiency virus due 
to contaminated blood products, and for other purposes. (H.R. 
1023) (Approved November 12, 1998).

    Public Law 105-370.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to provide for the mandatory testing for serious transmissible 
diseases of incarcerated persons whose bodily fluids come in 
contact with corrections personnel and notice to those 
personnel of the results of the tests. (H.R. 2070) (Approved 
November 12, 1998).

    Public Law 105-374.--To amend title 28, United States Code, 
with respect to the enforcement of child custody and visitation 
orders. (H.R. 4164) (Approved November 12, 1998).

    Public Law 105-377.--Granting the consent and approval of 
Congress to an interstate forest fire protection compact. (S. 
1134) (Approved November 12, 1998).

    Public Law 105-381.--Granting the consent of Congress to 
the Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement. (S.J. 
Res. 35) (Approved November 12, 1998).

    Public Law 105-386.--To throttle criminal use of guns. (S. 
191) (Approved November 13, 1998).

    Public Law 105-390.--To provide for financial assistance 
for higher education to the dependents of Federal, State, and 
local public safety officers who are killed or permanently and 
totally disabled as the result of a traumatic injury sustained 
in the line of duty. (S. 1525) (Approved November 13, 1998).

                              private laws

    Private Law 105-1.--For the relief of Michael Christopher 
Meili, Giuseppina Meili, Mirjam Naomi Meili, and Davide Meili. 
(S. 768) (Approved July 29, 1997).

    Private Law 105-2.--For the relief of John Wesley Davis. 
(H.R. 584) (Approved August 11, 1997).

    Private Law 105-3.--For the relief of Roy Desmond Moser. 
(H.R. 2731) (Approved November 21, 1997).

    Private Law 105-4.--For the relief of John Andre Chalot. 
(H.R. 2732) (Approved November 21, 1997).

    Private Law 105-5.--For the relief of Heraclio Tolley. 
(H.R. 378) (Approved November 2, 1998).

    Private Law 105-6.--For the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse. 
(H.R. 379) (Approved November 10, 1998).

    Private Law 105-7.--For the relief of Mai Hoa ``Jasmine'' 
Salehi. (H.R. 1794) (Approved November 10, 1998).

    Private Law 105-8.--For the relief of Mercedes Del Carmen 
Quiroz Martinez Cruz. (H.R. 1834) (Approved November 10, 1998).

    Private Law 105-9.--For the relief of Nuratu Olarewaju 
Abeke Kadiri. (H.R. 1949) (Approved November 10, 1998).

    Private Law 105-10.--For the relief of Chong Ho Kwak. (H.R. 
2744) (Approved November 10, 1998).

                        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. 1119
    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 1119, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1998.'' H.R. 1119 became law on November 18, 1997, as Public 
Law 105-85.
H.R. 3616
    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 3616, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1999.'' H.R. 3616 became law on October 17, 1998, as Public Law 
105-261.
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

 HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          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
JERROLD NADLER, New York             LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico \4\
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California              CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
MAXINE WATERS, California            BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   SONNY BONO, California \1\
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin \6\     BOB BARR, Georgia
                                     WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
                                     ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
                                     EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
                                     CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
                                     JAMES E. ROGAN, California \2\
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 
                                     \3\
                                     MARY BONO, California \5\

----------
    \1\ Sonny Bono, California, deceased January 5, 1998.
    \2\ James E. Rogan, California, elected to the Committee pursuant 
to House Resolution 354, approved by the House February 11, 1998.
    \3\ Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina, elected to the Committee 
pursuant to House Resolution 371, approved by the House February 26, 
1998.
    \4\ Steven Schiff, New Mexico, deceased March 25, 1998.
    \5\ Mary Bono, California, elected to the Committee pursuant to 
House Resolution 429, approved by the House May 13, 1998.
    \6\ Thomas M. Barrett, Wisconsin, elected to the Committee pursuant 
to House Resolution 530, approved by the House September 11, 1998.

Tabulation of activity on legislation held at the full Committee

Legislation held at the full Committee............................   115
Legislation reported to the House.................................    13
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................    16
Legislation pending in the House..................................     2
Legislation failed passage by the House...........................     1
Legislation passed by the House...................................    27
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     5
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden)..............     1
Legislation enacted into public law...............................    13
House resolutions approved........................................     7
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    11
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    25

                       Full Committee Activities

    During the 105th Congress, the full Judiciary Committee 
retained original jurisdiction with respect to a number of 
legislative and oversight matters. This included exclusive 
jurisdiction over the impeachment inquiry of President William 
Jefferson Clinton, and antitrust and liability issues. In 
addition, a number of specific legislative issues were handled 
exclusively by the full Committee, including the Balanced 
Budget Constitutional Amendment, the Victims Rights 
Constitutional Amendment, civil asset forfeiture, the 
Department of Justice authorization bill, and the Protection 
from Personal Intrusion Act.

                              Impeachment

   Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United 
                                 States

Background
    On September 9, 1998, Independent Counsel Starr notified 
Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt that his office 
``delivered to the Sergeant at Arms, the Honorable Wilson 
Livingood, 36 sealed boxes containing two complete copies of a 
Referral to the House of Representatives.'' \1\ The Referral 
included a narrative, appendices, and supporting documents and 
evidence which supported the Office of Independent Counsel's 
findings regarding the Lewinsky matter.\2\ Independent Counsel 
Starr forwarded this information pursuant to the Independent 
Counsel Reauthorization Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591 et. seq., which 
provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Letter from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr to The 
Honorable Newt Gingrich and the Honorable Richard A. Gephardt, 
September 9, 1998.
    \2\ On January 16, 1998, in response to Attorney General Janet 
Reno's request, the Special Division of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, expanded the jurisdiction 
of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. The Special Division's order 
provides in pertinent part:

        The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and 
      authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized 
      by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 
      whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, 
      obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise 
      violated federal law other than a Class B or C misdemeanor 
      or infraction in dealing with witnesses, potential 
      witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Jones v. Clinton.

In re: Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, Order of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 
Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels, January 
16, 1998 (reprinted in H.R. Doc. 105-311, Part I, at 6-7).

          Information relating to impeachment.--An independent 
        counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of 
        any substantial and credible information which such 
        independent counsel receives, in carrying out the 
        independent counsel's responsibilities under this 
        chapter, that may constitute grounds for an 
        impeachment. Nothing in this chapter or section 49 of 
        this title [concerning the assignment of judges to the 
        Special Division that appoints an independent counsel] 
        shall prevent the Congress or either House thereof from 
        obtaining information in the course of an impeachment 
        proceeding.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 28 U.S.C. Sec. 595(c) (1994).

H. Res. 525
    On September 10, 1998, the Committee on Rules received 
testimony regarding the handling of the Referral. Chairman 
Hyde, Ranking Member Conyers, Representative Lofgren, 
Representative Jackson Lee, and Representative Waters, all 
Members of the Committee, testified before the Committee on 
Rules.\4\ After the hearing, the Committee considered an 
original resolution, which provided for a deliberative review 
by the Committee on the Judiciary of a communication from an 
independent counsel, and for the release thereof.\5\ On 
September 10, 1998, the Committee on Rules reported H. Res. 525 
to the House as an original resolution (H. Rept. 105-703). The 
full House of Representatives approved H. Res. 525 on September 
11, 1998, by a vote of 363-63.\6\ As a result of the passage of 
H. Res. 525, the narrative was ordered printed as a House 
document.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Hearing before the Comm. on Rules on H. Res. 525, 105th Cong., 
2nd Sess. (September 10, 1998).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 144 Cong. Rec. H7587-H7608 (daily ed. September 11, 1998).
    \7\ Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in 
Conformity with the Requirements of Title 28, United States Code, 
Section 595(c), H.R. Doc. 105-310, 2nd Sess, 105th Cong., 129-130 
(1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedures Applicable to the Review of the Communication from the 
        Independent Counsel
    After the passage of H. Res. 525, Chairman Hyde issued 
``Procedures Applicable to the Review of the Communication from 
the Independent Counsel.'' These procedures, reprinted herein, 
were promulgated to, inter alia, address security issues 
relating to the material. The Committee is particularly pleased 
that there were few, if any, leaks of executive session 
material. The procedures implemented by the Chairman are as 
follows:

   Procedures Applicable to the Review of the Communication from the 
                          Independent Counsel

    1. Pursuant to H. Res. 525, the Committee will review the 
subject matter of any communication and related matters from 
the Independent Counsel to determine whether sufficient grounds 
exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be 
commenced.
    2. Unless otherwise authorized by the Chairman, the 
designated staff of the initial inquiry shall not disclose to 
anyone other than designated staff and Members of the Committee 
either the substance of their work or that of the Committee 
conducted in executive session. Testimony taken or documents, 
records, and materials received by the Committee in executive 
session shall not be disclosed or made public by Members or 
staff unless authorized by a majority vote of the Committee.
    3. Offices containing executive session information 
regarding the initial inquiry (hereinafter the ``secure area'') 
shall operate under strict security precautions. At least one 
guard shall be on duty at all times to ensure the documents, 
records, and materials are secure and the guard shall control 
ingress to, and egress from, the designated secure areas. All 
persons entering the secure area shall identify themselves and 
a list shall be kept of all persons who enter and exit the 
secure areas. Unless otherwise authorized by the Chairman in 
writing, no person may enter or exit the secure area with a 
cellular phone or any device, electronic or otherwise, which 
may be used to transcribe or keep a record of materials in the 
secure area. No person may enter or exit the secure area with 
briefcases, containers, or any other device that may be used to 
transport an item.
    4. All records received in executive session shall be 
segregated in a secure storage area. Executive session 
transcripts, documents, records, and materials shall be 
available solely to Members of the Committee and designated 
Committee staff in the secure area. They may be examined only 
at supervised reading facilities within the secure area. Unless 
otherwise authorized by the Chairman in writing, no person may 
exit the secure area with documents, records, or materials or 
notes, recordings, or copies thereof.
    5. Access to classified information supplied to the 
Committee shall be limited by the Chairman, after consultation 
with the ranking minority member, to those staff Members with 
the appropriate security clearances and a need to know.
    6. One official set of documents, records, or other 
materials received by the Committee regarding the initial 
inquiry shall be kept in the secure area and maintained by the 
Chairman. Two duplicate sets of documents, records, and other 
materials shall be kept in the secure area. One duplicate set 
shall be available to the majority and one duplicate set shall 
be available to the minority for review in the secure area. 
Additional copies may be made for the purpose of conducting the 
initial review. No copies made pursuant to these rules shall be 
removed from the secure area except for the purpose of 
conducting any committee hearing, meeting, or proceeding 
relating to the initial inquiry. Such removal is subject to 
Rule 4 requiring written authorization by the Chairman.
    7. Each Member of the committee will be given access and 
the opportunity to examine all documents, records, and material 
that have been obtained by the Committee in executive session. 
Members and designated staff shall schedule a time to review 
documents, records, and other materials with the Chief 
Investigative Counsel. Hours for such examination shall be as 
follows:

    Monday through Friday--8 a.m. until midnight
    Saturday--8 a.m. until 10 p.m.
    Sunday--10 a.m. until 10 p.m.

    8. Except for the approximately 445 pages comprising an 
introduction, a narrative, and a statement of grounds, all 
documents, records, and materials referred to the Committee 
under H. Res. 525 have been received in executive session. 
Pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI, no Member or staff 
may discuss, characterize, refer to, or otherwise reveal the 
contents of executive session materials or proceedings related 
thereto. Any violation of the executive session rules of the 
House may be subject to such disciplinary action as the House 
may adjudge.
    9. Once materials that have been received in executive 
session are made available to the public by order of the 
Committee, they may be removed from the secure storage area. If 
any redactions have been made to the materials prior to public 
release, only the redacted versions may be removed. Also, any 
work product created inside the secure storage area which does 
not contain, discuss, characterize, refer to or otherwise 
reveal the contents of executive session materials or 
proceedings related thereto which have not been made available 
to the public by order of the Committee may be removed from the 
secure storage area. Whether material is eligible for removal 
from the secure storage area pursuant to this paragraph shall 
be determined jointly by Tom Mooney and Julian Epstein, or 
their designees, after a review of the materials to be removed. 
The determination by Mr. Mooney and Mr. Epstein, or their 
designees, that materials may be removed from the secure 
storage area pursuant to this paragraph shall be communicated 
by them to the guard who is assigned to monitor the security of 
the secure storage area.
Proceedings Pursuant to H. Res. 525
    In addition to ordering the public release of the 
narrative, section two of H. Res. 525 directed that the 
``balance of [the] material . . . shall be released from 
[executive session status] on September 28, 1998, except as 
otherwise determined by the committee. Material so released 
shall immediately be submitted for printing as a document of 
the House.'' Pursuant to this directive, the Committee staff 
reviewed over 60,000 documents in less than 3 weeks. The task 
was daunting and required a great deal of staff resources to 
complete the job within the allotted time frame. After the 
staff and Members reviewed the material, the Committee met in 
executive session on September 17, 18, and 25 to consider the 
staff's recommendations regarding the release of materials and 
proposed redactions to those materials which were made to 
protect privacy, remove vulgarities, and protect sensitive law 
enforcement information, such as the names of FBI agents.\8\ On 
September 18 and pursuant to H. Res. 525, redacted appendices 
to the Referral were ordered printed as a House document \9\ 
and redacted supplemental materials to the referral were 
released on September 28.\10\ Also, on September 28, the 
President's responses to the Referral, which were received by 
the Committee in executive session, were ordered printed as a 
House document.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See Votes of the Comm. in Executive Session Pursuant to H. Res. 
525, Comm. on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Comm. Print, 
Ser. No. 7, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1998).
    \9\ Appendices to the Referral to the United States House of 
Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 
595(c) Submitted by the Office of the Independent Counsel, September 9, 
1998, H.R. Doc. 105-311, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (September 18, 1998).
    \10\ Supplemental Materials to the Referral to the United States 
House of Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, 
Section 595(c) Submitted by the Office of the Independent Counsel, 
September 9, 1998, H.R. Doc. 105-316, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (September 
28, 1998).
    \11\ Preliminary Memorandum of the President of the United States 
Concerning Referral of the Office of the Independent Counsel and 
Initial Response of the President of the United States to Referral of 
the Office of the Independent Counsel, H.R. Doc. 105-317, 105th Cong., 
2nd Sess. (September 28, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to H. Res. 525, the Committee was also obligated 
to ``determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to 
the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced.'' In order 
to fulfill that important obligation, the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member directed the majority and minority chief 
investigative counsels to advise the Committee regarding the 
information referred by the Independent Counsel. The Committee 
received their orally delivered reports on October 5, 1998. The 
Committee's Chief Investigative Counsel advised that there was 
enough information to warrant a full inquiry, while the 
minority's chief investigative counsel advised against 
conducting a full inquiry.
Consideration and Passage of H. Res. 581
    Following those presentations, the Committee approved an 
original resolution which recommended that the full House of 
Representatives authorize the Committee to conduct an 
impeachment inquiry. The Committee approved that resolution, 
which eventually became H. Res. 581, by a vote of 21 to 16. 
Also, on that day the Committee considered and approved by 
voice vote impeachment inquiry procedures which were modeled 
after the procedures used in 1974.\12\ The procedures adopted 
are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Authorization of an Inquiry Into Whether Grounds Exist for the 
Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United 
States; Meeting of the House Comm. on the Judiciary Held October 5, 
1998; Presentation by Inquiry Staff/Consideration of Inquiry 
Resolution/Adoption of Inquiry Procedures, Committee Print, Ser. No. 8, 
105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (December 1998).

                    House Committee on the Judiciary

                     Impeachment Inquiry Procedures

    The Committee on the Judiciary states the following 
procedures applicable to the presentation of evidence in the 
impeachment inquiry pursuant to H. Res. 581, subject to 
modification by the Committee as it deems proper as the inquiry 
proceeds.
          A. The Committee shall conduct an investigation 
        pursuant to H. Res. 581.
                  1. Any Committee Member may bring additional 
                evidence to the Committee's attention.
                  2. The President's counsel shall be invited 
                to respond to evidence received and testimony 
                adduced by the Committee, orally or in writing 
                as shall be determined by the Committee.
                  3. Should the President's counsel wish the 
                Committee to receive additional testimony or 
                other evidence, he shall be invited to submit 
                written requests and precise summaries of what 
                he would propose to show, and in the case of a 
                witness, precisely and in detail what it is 
                expected the testimony of the witness would be, 
                if called. On the basis of such requests and 
                summaries and of the record then before it, the 
                Committee shall determine whether the suggested 
                evidence is necessary or desirable to a full 
                and fair record in the inquiry, and, if so, 
                whether the summaries shall be accepted as part 
                of the record or additional testimony or 
                evidence in some other form shall be received.
          B. If and when witnesses are to be called, the 
        following additional procedures shall be applicable to 
        hearings held for that purpose:
                  1. The President and his counsel shall be 
                invited to attend all hearings, including any 
                held in executive session.
                  2. Objections relating to the examination of 
                witnesses, or to the admissibility of testimony 
                and evidence may be raised only by a witness or 
                his counsel, a Member of the Committee, 
                Committee counsel or the President's counsel 
                and shall be ruled upon by the Chairman or 
                presiding Member. Such rulings shall be final, 
                unless overruled by a vote of a majority of the 
                Members present.
                  3. Committee counsel shall commence the 
                questioning of each witness and may also be 
                permitted by the Chairman or presiding Member 
                to question a witness at any point during the 
                appearance of the witness.
                  4. The President's counsel may question any 
                witness called before the Committee, subject to 
                instructions from the Chairman or presiding 
                Member respecting the time, scope and duration 
                of the examination.
          C. The Committee shall determine, pursuant to the 
        Rules of the House, whether and to what extent the 
        evidence to be presented shall be received in executive 
        session.
          D. The Chairman is authorized to promulgate 
        additional procedures as he deems necessary for the 
        fair and efficient conduct of Committee hearings held 
        pursuant to H. Res. 581, provided that the additional 
        procedures are not inconsistent with these Procedures, 
        the Rules of the Committee, and the Rules of the House. 
        Such procedures shall govern the conduct of the 
        hearings, unless overruled by a vote of a majority of 
        the Members present.
          E. For purposes of hearings held pursuant to these 
        rules, a quorum shall consist of 10 Members of the 
        Committee.
          F. Information obtained by the Committee pursuant to 
        letter request, subpoena, deposition, or interrogatory 
        shall be considered as taken in executive session 
        unless it is received in an open session of the 
        Committee. The Chairman is authorized to determine 
        whether other materials received by the Committee shall 
        be deemed executive session material.

    On October 7, the Committee reported H. Res. 581 to the 
House as an original resolution (H. Rept. 105-795).\13\ On 
October 8, by a vote of 258 to 176, the House passed H. Res. 
581, which ``authorized and directed [the Committee on the 
Judiciary] to investigate fully and completely whether 
sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to 
exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson 
Clinton, President of the United States of America.'' 144 Cong. 
Rec. H10119 (daily ed. October 8, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Investigatory Powers of the Comm. on the Judiciary with 
Respect to its Impeachment Inquiry, H. Rept. 105-795, 105th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (October 7, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings Pursuant to H. Res. 581
    After the passage of H. Res. 581, Committee staff was 
directed to investigate fully the allegations and evidence 
relating to the Referral. Furthermore, the staff met with 
representatives of the White House to discuss ways in which the 
inquiry could proceed expeditiously. At an October 21, 1998, 
meeting, Charles F.C. Ruff, counsel to the President, and his 
colleagues were asked to provide exculpatory information to the 
Committee. They did not supply any information. Also, the White 
House was provided copies of the Committee's procedures which, 
inter alia, allowed the President's counsel to call witnesses. 
They did not exercise this right until the Committee was 
preparing to vote on articles of impeachment.
    In order to move the process forward, the Committee sent 
the President 81 requests for admission which were to be 
answered in writing under oath.\14\ Notwithstanding repeated 
requests, the White House did not submit its answers until 
after 3 weeks passed.\15\ Many on the Committee felt that the 
President's answers were evasive, misleading, and perjurious. 
His answers became the basis for the fourth article of 
impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Letter from The Honorable Henry J. Hyde to The Honorable 
William Jefferson Clinton, November 5, 1998.
    \15\ Letter from Mr. David Kendall, Esq. to The Honorable Henry J. 
Hyde, November 27, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 9, 1998, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
held a hearing at which 19 legal and constitutional experts 
testified on the background and history of impeachment.\16\ The 
purpose of the hearing was to hear from a diverse group of 
scholars regarding the constitutional standard of impeachment--
``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The Committee also published 
three lengthy documents to assist Members with their research 
into impeachment.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ The Background and History of Impeachment: Hearing before the 
Subcomm. On the Constitution, Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (November 9, 1998).
    \17\ See Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment: 
Modern Precedents, House Comm. on the Judiciary, Comm. Print, Ser. No. 
9, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (November 1998); Impeachment: Selected 
Materials, House Comm. on the Judiciary, Comm. Print, Ser. No. 10, 
105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (November 1998); Constitutional Grounds for 
Presidential Impeachment: Modern Precedents, Minority Views, House 
Comm. on the Judiciary, Comm. Print, Ser. No. 17, 105th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (December 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 19, 1998, the Committee heard testimony from 
Independent Counsel Starr.\18\ Judge Starr was invited after 
many Democrats requested that he be called before the 
Committee. David Kendall, the President's private attorney, 
questioned Judge Starr for an hour. In all of his questioning, 
Mr. Kendall never once asked any questions relating to the 
evidence collected during the grand jury's investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Hearings on Impeachment Inquiry Pursuant to H. Res. 581: 
Hearing before the Comm. On the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(November 19, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 1, the Committee adduced testimony from various 
witnesses regarding the law of perjury.\19\ The Committee heard 
from the Hon. Gerald B. Tjoflat, United States Circuit Judge, 
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; the 
Hon. Charles E. Wiggins, United States Circuit Judge, United 
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; the Hon. A. Leon 
Higginbotham, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, 
Washington, D.C.; the Hon. Elliot Richardson, Milbank, Tweed, 
Hadley & McCloy, Washington, D.C.; Admiral Leon A. Edney, 
U.S.N. (Ret.); Lieutenant General Thomas P. Carney, U.S.A. 
(Ret.); Professor Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor 
of Law, Harvard Law School; Professor Stephen Saltzburg, Howrey 
Professor of Trial Advocacy, Litigation, and Professional 
Responsibility, George Washington University Law School; 
Professor Jeffrey Rosen, Associate Professor of Law, George 
Washington University Law School; Ms. Pam Parsons, Atlanta, 
Georgia; and Dr. Barbara Battalino, Los Osos, California, 
accompanied by her attorney, Mr. Curtis Clark. Ms. Parsons and 
Dr. Battalino were prosecuted for perjury arising out of civil 
cases which had many similarities to the Jones v. Clinton case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ The Consequences of Perjury and Related Crimes: Hearing before 
the Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (December 1, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After several months of requesting the White House to 
submit witnesses, the White House notified the Committee on 
Friday, December 4, that they wished to call witnesses. This 
was after the Chairman had already announced that the Committee 
would consider articles of impeachment the following week. The 
Committee accommodated the White House's request, and held two 
lengthy days of hearings. The White House's witnesses were Mr. 
Gregory B. Craig, Assistant to the President and Special 
Counsel; The Honorable Nicholas Katzenbach, former Attorney 
General of the United States under President Johnson and Under 
Secretary of State; Professor Bruce Ackerman, Sterling 
Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University; 
Professor Sean Wilentz is the Dayton Stockton Professor of 
History and Director of Program and American Studies at 
Princeton University; Professor Samuel H. Beer, Eaton Professor 
of the Science of Government Emeritus at Harvard University; 
The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, a former representative from 
New York and member of the House Judiciary Committee during the 
1974 impeachment proceeding; The Honorable Robert J. Drinan, 
S.J., Professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a 
former representative from Massachusetts and member of the 
House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 impeachment 
proceeding; The Honorable Wayne Owens, a former representative 
from Utah and member of the House Judiciary Committee during 
the 1974 impeachment proceeding; James Hamilton, a member of 
the Washington, D.C. law firm of Swidler, Berlin, Shereff & 
Friedman; Richard Ben-Veniste; Richard J. Davis, a partner with 
the New York law firm of Weil, Gotschal & Manges; Edward S.G. 
Dennis, Jr., a partner in the Litigation Section of the 
Philadelphia law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; William F. 
Weld, a former two-term governor of Massachusetts and currently 
a partner in the Chicago law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery; 
Ronald Noble, Associate Professor of Law at NYU Law School; and 
Mr. Charles F.C. Ruff, Counsel to the President.\20\ The 
Committee ordered printed Mr. Ruff's submission to the 
Committee.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Hearings on Impeachment Inquiry Pursuant to H. Res. 581: 
Hearing before the Comm. On the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(December 9, 1998).
    \21\ Submission by Counsel for President Clinton to the Committee 
on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives, House 
Comm. on the Judiciary, Comm. Print, Ser. No. 16, 105th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (December 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 611
    Finally, on December 10, 11, and 12, 1998, the Committee 
considered and passed an original resolution containing four 
articles of impeachment. The procedure used to consider the 
articles of impeachment was similar to and predicated upon the 
procedures used in 1974. Prior to the consideration of the 
articles, Representative Sensenbrenner moved the resolution's 
favorable recommendation to the House. After the clerk of the 
Committee reported the resolution, the Committee approved 
Chairman Hyde's unanimous consent request that provided in 
pertinent part that ``. . . the proposed articles shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment. Each proposed 
article and any additional article, if any, shall be separately 
voted upon, as amended, for the recommendation to the House, if 
any article has been agreed, the original motion shall be 
considered as adopted and the Chairman shall report to the 
House said resolution of impeachment, together with such 
articles as have been agreed to.'' \22\ Four articles of 
impeachment were adopted and ordered reported to the House. 
Article One, as amended, was ordered favorably reported by a 
vote of 21 to 16. Article Two was ordered favorably reported by 
a vote of 20 to 17. Article Three was ordered favorably 
reported by a vote of 21 to 16. Article Four, as amended, was 
ordered favorably reported by a vote of 21 to 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ See House Committee on the Judiciary Business Meeting, at 3-6, 
December 10, 1998 (unofficial transcript).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although not germane to the consideration of a privileged 
impeachment resolution, Chairman Hyde and the Committee agreed 
to consider a joint resolution sponsored by Mr. Boucher that 
would have rebuked President Clinton by expressing the sense of 
Congress with respect to President Clinton's behavior. This 
joint resolution of censure offered by Mr. Boucher was defeated 
by a vote of 14 ayes to 22 nays with one member voting present.
    On December 16, 1998, the Committee reported H. Res. 611 as 
an original resolution containing the articles of impeachment 
(H. Rept. 105-830). The full House debated H. Res. 611 on 
December 18 and 19. Articles one and three, having to do with 
perjury before the grand jury and obstruction of justice 
respectively, passed the House on December 19.\23\ Article One 
was agreed to by a vote of 228 to 206 and Article Three was 
agreed to by a vote of 221 to 212.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ 144 Cong. Rec. H12040-H12042 (daily ed. December 19, 1998).
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 614
    After passage of H. Res. 611, Chairman Hyde introduced H. 
Res. 614, which appointed Representatives Hyde, Sensenbrenner, 
McCollum, Gekas, Canady, Buyer, Bryant, Chabot, Barr, 
Hutchinson, Cannon, Rogan, and Graham as managers on behalf of 
the House of Representatives. H. Res. 614 authorized the 
managers to, inter alia, exhibit articles of impeachment in the 
Senate.\25\ After the resolution passed by a vote of 228 to 
190, the managers hand carried the official notice to the 
Senate and H. Res. 611, as passed by the House, to the 
Secretary of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id. at H12042-H12043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Legislative Activities

                               Antitrust

Need-Based Educational Aid Antitrust Protection Act of 1997--H.R. 1866 
        (Public Law 105-43)
    Summary.--Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of 
prestigious private colleges and universities agreed to award 
institutional financial aid (i.e., aid from the school's own 
funds) solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need. In a 
recent year, institutional aid at all colleges and universities 
amounted to about $8.6 billion as compared to federal aid of 
about $6.6 billion. These schools also agreed to use common 
principles to assess each student's financial need and to give 
essentially the same financial aid award to students admitted 
to more than one member of the group. Among the schools 
engaging in this practice were the Ivy Overlap Group (Brown, 
Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Penn, Yale, 
and MIT) and the Pentagonal/Sisters Overlap Group (Amherst, 
Williams, Wesleyan, Bowdoin, Dartmouth, Barnard, Bryn Mawr, 
Mount Holyoke, Radcliffe, Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, Colby, 
Middlebury, Trinity, and Tufts).
    From the 1950s through the late 1980s, the practice 
continued undisturbed. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the 
Department of Justice brought suit against the nine members of 
the Ivy Overlap Group to enjoin these practices. In 1991, the 
eight Ivy League schools (i.e. all of the Ivy Overlap Group 
except for MIT) agreed to a consent decree that for all 
practical purposes ended the practices of the Overlap Group. 
See United States v. Brown University, 1991 U.S. Dist. Lexis 
21168, 1993-2 Trade Cases para. 70,391 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
    In 1992, Congress passed a temporary antitrust exemption to 
allow the schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-
blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis. 
Higher Education Amendments of 1992, section 1544, Public Law 
102-325, 106 Stat. 448, 837 (1992). This temporary exemption 
specifically prohibited any agreement as to the terms of a 
financial aid award to any specific student. By its terms, it 
expired on September 30, 1994.
    In the meantime, MIT continued to contest the lawsuit. 
After a non-jury trial, the district court ruled that the 
practices of the Overlap Group violated the antitrust laws, but 
specifically invited a legislative solution. United States v. 
Brown University, 805 F.Supp. 288 (E.D. Pa. 1992). On appeal, 
MIT won a reversal of the district court's decision. United 
States v. Brown University, 5 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1993). The 
appeals court held that the district court had not engaged in a 
sufficiently thorough antitrust analysis and remanded for 
further consideration. After that decision, the parties reached 
a final settlement.
    In 1994, Congress passed another temporary exemption from 
the antitrust laws. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, 
section 568, Public Law 103-382, 108 Stat. 3518, 4060 (1994). 
This exemption resembled the one passed in 1992 in that it 
allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only and 
to use common principles of needs analysis. It also prohibited 
agreements on awards to specific students. However, unlike the 
1992 exemption, it also allows agreement on the use of a common 
aid application form and the exchange of the student's 
financial information through a third party. Section 568 
roughly mirrors the settlement reached in 1993. It provided for 
this exemption to expire on September 30, 1997.
    Under the exemption passed in 1994, the affected schools 
have recently adopted a set of general principles to determine 
eligibility for institutional aid. These principles address 
issues like expected contributions from non-custodial parents, 
treatment of depreciation expenses which may reduce apparent 
income, valuation of rental properties, and unusually high 
medical expenses. Common treatment of these types of issues 
makes sense, and the existing exemption has worked well. H.R. 
1866, as passed by the House, would have made the exemption 
passed in 1994 permanent. It would not have made any change to 
the substance of the exemption. The Senate amendment, which 
ultimately became law, provides for a 4-year extension of the 
exemption and it makes some minor technical changes to the 
information sharing provision of the exemption.
    The need-based financial aid system serves social goals 
that the antitrust laws do not adequately address--namely, 
making financial aid available to the broadest number of 
students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. Without it, 
the schools would be required to compete, through financial aid 
awards, for the very top students. Those very top students 
would get all of the aid available which would be more than 
they need. The rest would get less or none at all. Ultimately, 
such a system would serve to undermine the principles of need-
based aid and need-blind admissions. No student who is 
otherwise qualified ought to be denied the opportunity to go to 
one of the nation's most prestigious schools because of the 
financial situation of his or her family. H.R. 1866 will help 
protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions and preserve 
that opportunity.
    Legislative History.--On June 11, 1997, Representatives 
Lamar Smith and Barney Frank introduced H.R. 1866, the ``Need-
Based Educational Aid Antitrust Protection Act of 1997,'' which 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On June 18, 
1997, the full Committee met and ordered the bill reported 
favorably by a voice vote.
    On June 23, 1997, the Committee favorably reported the bill 
to the House, H. Rept. 105-144. The same day, the House 
suspended the rules and passed H.R. 1866 by voice vote. On July 
30, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 1866 with an amendment by 
unanimous consent. On September 8, 1997, the House suspended 
the rules and agreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1866 by 
voice vote. On September 17, 1997, the President signed H.R. 
1866 into law as Public Law 105-43.
The Curt Flood Act of 1998--S. 53 (Public Law 105-297)
    Summary.--The Supreme Court first held that the business of 
baseball is exempt from the antitrust laws in 1922. Federal 
Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of 
Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922). The Court, 
emphasizing organized baseball's longstanding reliance on that 
exemption, twice declined to overrule its original 1922 
decision. Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972); Toolson v. New 
York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953). Instead, the Court 
left Congress to decide whether the baseball exemption should 
continue.
    Congress decided to legislate in this area this year, but 
it did so only in an extremely narrow manner. S. 53 leaves 
completely unchanged all aspects of the baseball antitrust 
exemption except for the narrow issue of the labor relations of 
major league players at the major league level as set out in 
detail in the new subsection 27(b) of the Clayton Act.
    This bill originates from a compromise struck during the 
last round of collective bargaining between the major league 
owners and the major league players. After a lengthy labor 
dispute, these parties reached a collective bargaining 
agreement that, among other things, required negotiation to 
reach agreement on a limited repeal of baseball's antitrust 
exemption. They did so because the players' union argued that 
the antitrust exemption contributed to the labor disputes that 
have long marked its relationship with the owners. 
Specifically, the union asserted that it was disadvantaged in 
its labor negotiations with the owners because, unlike unions 
of other professional athletes, it could not challenge 
allegedly unlawful employment terms under the antitrust laws.
    The major league clubs disagreed with this view. They 
contended that the baseball exemption was irrelevant to their 
labor negotiations with the union. The clubs argued that, like 
every other multi-employer bargaining group, they were 
protected from antitrust challenges to their employment terms 
by the nonstatutory labor antitrust exemption.
    As a result of this difference of opinion, both the players 
and the owners were willing to support the repeal of the 
specific and narrow portion of the baseball exemption covering 
labor relations between major league players and major league 
clubs. The bill was carefully drafted, however, to leave the 
remainder of the exemption intact.
    Before this bill passed the Senate, several changes were 
adopted to address concerns raised by owners of the minor 
league teams--the members of the National Association of 
Professional Baseball Leagues. Minor league baseball owners 
were concerned that the original bill reported by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee might not adequately protect their 
interests. Specifically, the minor league clubs were concerned 
that the original version of S. 53 was not sufficiently clear 
to preserve antitrust protection for: (1) the relationship 
between the major league clubs and the minor league clubs and 
(2) those work rules and employment terms that arguably affect 
both major league and minor league baseball players.
    Members of Congress agreed that this narrow legislation 
should not hurt the grass roots minor league baseball played in 
over 150 towns across the country. For that reason, the minor 
league clubs were invited into the discussion and given an 
opportunity to suggest changes to address their concerns, and 
those changes were incorporated.
    As a result of these three-way negotiations, the parties 
agreed to amend the bill in several significant ways. These 
amendments clarify the limited reach of the bill and the 
expansive nature of the continued protection the bill affords 
to minor league baseball. For instance, to accommodate the 
concerns of the minor league clubs, subsection (b) of the new 
section 27 of the Clayton Act was changed by adding the word 
``directly'' immediately before the phrase ``relating to or 
affecting employment'' and the phrase ``major league players'' 
was added before the phrase ``to play baseball.'' These changes 
were made to ensure that neither major league players nor minor 
league players could use new subsection (a) to attack conduct, 
acts, practices, or agreements designed to apply to minor 
league employment.
    In addition, new subsection (c) was added to clarify that 
only major league players could sue under the new subsection 
(a). Again, the minor leagues were concerned that, without a 
narrow standing section, minor league players or amateurs might 
attempt to attack minor league issues by asserting that these 
issues also indirectly affected major league employment terms.
    Therefore, the new subsection (c) carefully limits the zone 
of persons protected by the bill to only major league players 
by providing that ``only a major league baseball player has 
standing to sue under'' this limited antitrust legislation. The 
standing provision gives major league baseball players the same 
right to sue under the antitrust laws over the major league 
employment terms that other professional athletes have. Of 
course, the United States has standing to sue to enjoin all 
antitrust violations under 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4 and 25, and 
subsection 27(c) was not intended to limit that broad 
authority.
    This bill does not affect the application of the antitrust 
laws to anyone outside the business of baseball. In particular, 
it does not affect the application of the antitrust laws to 
other professional sports. The law with respect to the other 
professional sports remains exactly the same after this bill 
becomes law.
    The Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, 
Representative John Conyers, had his own bill on this topic, 
H.R. 21, and his work was instrumental in bringing about the 
successful completion of this legislation.
    Legislative History.--Senators Hatch, Leahy, Thurmond, and 
Moynihan introduced S. 53 on January 21, 1997, and it was 
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. On October 
29, 1997, the Committee reported the bill favorably to the 
Senate with an amendment by an 11-6 vote. S. Rept. 105-118. On 
July 30, 1998, S. 53, as amended, passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent with an additional floor amendment.
    On July 31, 1998, S. 53 was referred to the House Committee 
on the Judiciary. On October 7, 1998, the Committee was 
discharged from further consideration. The same day, the House 
suspended the rules and passed S. 53, as it was passed by the 
Senate, by a voice vote. On October 27, 1998, the President 
signed S. 53 into law as Public Law 105-297.
Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity--H.R. 1902 (Public Law 105-26)
    Summary.--The ``Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity Act 
of 1997'' provides antitrust immunity to those involved in 
raising charitable donations in the form of charitable gift 
annuities and charitable remainder trusts. The exemption 
extends to both federal and state law, although a state would 
have until 1998 to expressly override application of the Act to 
its state antitrust laws.
    Charitable gift annuities and charitable remainder trusts 
are fundraising instruments defined and regulated under 
sections 501(m)(5) and 664(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. A 
person who enters into a gift annuity or charitable remainder 
trust 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. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 1011(b).
    The annuity rate applied to the value of the gift is the 
critical element in ensuring that the transaction will result 
in a meaningful gift to the charity. The American Council on 
Gift Annuities, a non-profit organization representing more 
than 1,500 charitable organizations and institutions, provides 
technical assistance to its members in determining appropriate 
annuity rates. The rates recommended by the Council are based 
on actuarial studies of mortality experience among annuitants 
and a conservative projection of the rate of income to be 
earned on invested reserve funds. They are computed to produce 
an average ``residuum'' or gift to the organization of between 
40 and 60 percent of the amount originally donated under the 
agreement. Consequently, the rates are lower than and are not 
in competition with any rates offered commercially.
    The Council promotes the use of its rates for two reasons. 
First, it protects the fiscal integrity of the charity. 
Offering gift annuities at rates higher than the recommended 
rates may jeopardize the gift that is to be available to the 
charity. If the rate is too high, other funds or the general 
assets of the organization may be required to carry out the 
terms of the agreement. Second, it ensures that donative intent 
rather than financial gain motivates the choice of recipient. 
Use of consistent annuity rates, and thus equal rates of 
return, assure a ``level playing field'' for charities, so that 
a donor's choice of the charitable beneficiary of a gift 
annuity will depend on the relative merits of the institutions 
under consideration in the subjective judgment of the donor.
    Charitable giving through gift annuities and charitable 
trusts was threatened by a lawsuit pending in the United States 
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Richie v. 
American Council on Gift Annuities, Inc. (Civ. No. 7:94-CV-128-
X). The Richie suit, as originally filed, alleged that the use 
of the same annuity rate by the various charities constituted 
price fixing, and thus a violation of the antitrust laws. The 
complaint sought to enjoin the charities from offering gift 
annuities using the Council's tables, to obtain a refund, and 
to recover treble damages.
    In recognition of the potential impact of this litigation 
on charitable giving, Congress enacted the ``Charitable Gift 
Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 1995'' (15 U.S.C. section 37, 
et seq.), which grants antitrust protection to entities 
described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 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 3 years after enactment to expressly override 
application of the bill to its state antitrust laws.
    Enactment of the 1995 Act was anticipated to provide a 
complete defense to the antitrust portions of Richie, as well 
as protection from future suits based on the use of agreed-upon 
annuity rates. That did not prove to be the case. A decision by 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Ozee 
v. American Council on Gift Annuities, Inc., 110 F.3d 1082 (5th 
Cir. 1997), upheld the denial of a motion to dismiss based on 
an assertion of the new antitrust exemption. That decision, and 
the ruling of the District Court, indicated that the Charitable 
Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 1995 was not being 
interpreted as broadly as it was intended by Congress.
    H.R. 1902 replaced then-current law with language drafted 
in broader terms, so as to ensure that the provision would be 
interpreted by the courts in a manner which would achieve the 
goals of the 1995 Act. Enactment of the Act was intended to 
obviate the need for further litigation over the antitrust 
portions of the Richie case, in that it extended complete 
immunity to all defendants being sued for participation in the 
issuance of a charitable gift annuity or charitable remainder 
trust.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 1902 on 
June 17, 1997, along with eight original co-sponsors. The 
Committee ordered it reported by voice vote on June 18, 1997. 
House Report 105-146. It passed the House under suspension of 
the rules on June 23, 1997, and was approved by the Senate by 
voice vote on June 24, 1997. H.R. 1902 was approved by the 
President on July 3, 1997, and became Public Law 105-26.
Health Care and Antitrust--H.R. 415 and H.R. 4277
    Summary.--In recent years, health insurers and health 
maintenance organizations (HMOs) have increasingly asserted 
control over health care decisions that doctors and patients 
once made. The insurers and HMOs contend that these kinds of 
controls are necessary to keep prices low and to keep health 
insurance coverage affordable. Doctors contend that these kinds 
of controls invade the traditional doctor-patient relationship 
and that they keep prices so low that doctors cannot practice 
economically. Doctors further contend that in negotiating 
contracts that establish these controls the insurers have much 
greater bargaining power than do individual doctors.
    In response to this problem, doctors have formed their own 
networks to compete with HMOs. However, there has been 
considerable debate about the question of to what degree 
doctors must combine their practices to form a network without 
being charged with price fixing. In August 1996, the antitrust 
enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice and the Federal 
Trade Commission, issued joint guidelines on this topic, and 
they appear to be working well. Nonetheless, to maintain some 
focus on this issue, Chairman Hyde with 17 cosponsors 
introduced H.R. 415 which would have further addressed this 
issue. However, because the Committee believe the guidelines 
were working successfully, it took no further action on H.R. 
415.
    A separate bill introduced by Representative Tom Campbell 
and four cosponsors on July 20, 1998, H.R. 4277, takes a 
different approach--i.e., that doctors ought to have the same 
antitrust exemption that labor unions have when they are 
negotiating with HMOs. Proponents of H.R. 4277 argue that 
doctors will be able to get a fair deal in these negotiations 
only if they are allowed to band together to negotiate with 
insurers and HMOs. They argue that doctors cannot engage in 
these kinds of joint negotiations without an antitrust 
exemption. They also believe that patients will be better 
served because the doctors will use their greater bargaining 
power to seek contracts that allow the insurers less control 
over patient care.
    Critics of H.R. 4277 argue that it would harm consumers 
because it would allow doctors to fix prices and engage in 
group boycotts thereby driving up the cost of insurance. The 
bill places no limits on the percentage of providers in a 
market that could band together. Thus, doctors, particularly in 
smaller markets, could exercise high degrees of market power. 
They also contend that under the guidelines, doctors are free 
to band together and negotiate directly with employers if they 
do not like the deals they get with insurers. Ultimately, they 
argue that the bill would end the ability of competitive forces 
to control health care costs and to improve efficiency.
    Legislative History.--On July 29, 1998, the full Committee 
held a hearing on H.R. 4277 at which the following witnesses 
appeared: Hon. Tom Campbell, United States Representative, 15th 
District of California; Hon. Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal 
Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Donald Palmisano, 
Member, Board of Trustees, American Medical Association, 
Metairie, Louisiana; Dr. Michael Connair, Federation of 
Physicians and Dentists, American Federation of State, County, 
and Municipal Employees, North Haven, Connecticut; Mr. Stephen 
deMontmollin, Vice President and General Counsel, AV-MED Health 
Plan, Gainesville, Florida, on behalf of the American 
Association of Health Plans; Karen Fennell, R.N., M.S., Senior 
Policy Analyst, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Washington, 
D.C., on behalf of the Antitrust Coalition.

                            Liability Issues

Volunteer Protection--H.R. 911/S. 543 (Public Law 105-19)
    Summary.--H.R. 911, the Volunteer Protection Act, promotes 
the interests of social services program beneficiaries and 
taxpayers, and sustains the availability of programs, non-
profit organizations, and governmental entities that depend on 
volunteer contributions, by providing volunteers reasonable 
protections from legal liability.
    Volunteer service has become a high risk venture. From 
school chaperones to Girl Scout and Boy Scout troop leaders to 
Big Brothers and Big Sisters, volunteers perform valuable 
services. But rather than thanking these volunteers, our 
current legal system allows them to be dragged into court and 
subjected to needless and unfair lawsuits. In most instances 
the volunteer is ultimately found not liable, but the potential 
for unwarranted lawsuits creates an atmosphere where too many 
people are pointing fingers and too few remain willing to offer 
a helping hand.
    The need for relief from these debilitating lawsuits has 
increased over the last two decades. The fear of being sued has 
had an impact on volunteerism, in that it has caused non-profit 
organizations to stop offering certain kinds of programs, 
caused potential volunteers to stay home, and led to an 
increase in the cost of insurance against potential verdicts. 
The effect of this increase in litigation--and the media 
attention it has drawn--has been to dampen the willingness of 
people to give of their time to charity. Statistics show that 
the rates at which people volunteer are on the decline, 
particularly in categories where longstanding commitments are 
required. According to a report by the Independent Sector, the 
percentage of Americans volunteering dropped from 54 percent in 
1989 to 51 percent in 1991 and 48 percent in 1993. The Gallup 
organization studied volunteerism and found, in a study titled 
``Liability Crisis and the Use of Volunteers of Nonprofit 
Associations'' that approximately 1 in 10 nonprofit 
organizations had experienced the resignation of a volunteer 
due to liability concerns. Gallup also found that 1 in 6 
volunteers reported withholding services due to a fear of 
exposure to liability suits. And, 1 of 7 nonprofit agencies had 
eliminated one or more of their valuable programs because of 
exposure to lawsuits.
    The increase in liability concerns is also evidenced by the 
increase in the liability insurance costs of nonprofit 
organizations. The average reported increase for insurance 
premiums for nonprofits over the period 1985-1988 was 155%. One 
in eight organizations reported an increase of over 300%. 
Little League Baseball reports the liability rate for a league 
increased from $75 to $795 in just 5 years. In fact, the Little 
League's major expenditure is not bats and balls, but the cost 
of obtaining insurance against liability. Many leagues cannot 
pay the $795 needed, so they operate their programs without 
coverage or discontinue the program altogether.
    It is not enough to leave it to the States to solve this 
problem. Volunteerism is a national activity and the decline in 
volunteerism is a national concern. And in many cases, 
volunteer activities cross state lines. Even a local group may 
operate across state lines. A Boy Scout troop in Georgia may go 
on an outing in Tennessee or Alabama. A Little League team 
might routinely play games in Virginia, Maryland and the 
District of Columbia. A meals-on-wheels volunteer might daily 
deliver meals in Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, 
Missouri. In emergency situations and disasters, such as 
hurricanes or the floods in our upper Midwest states, 
volunteers come from many states. Although every state now has 
a law pertaining specifically to legal liability of at least 
some types of volunteers, many volunteers remain fully liable 
for any harm they cause, and all volunteers remain liable for 
some actions. Only about half of the states protect volunteers 
other than officers and directors. Moreover, every volunteer 
protection statute has exceptions. As a result, state volunteer 
protection statutes are patchwork and inconsistent. In many 
states, the volunteer leaders are granted immunity while the 
direct service providers remain exposed. Substantially 
different civil justice standards apply to volunteers of the 
same organization, providing the same services, depending on 
the state in which the service is delivered. This inconsistency 
hinders national organizations from accurately advising their 
local chapters on volunteer liability and risk management 
guidelines.
    The patchwork quality of State volunteer liability laws 
also has a negative effect on the cost of insurance. Because of 
the small size of the market for volunteer liability insurance, 
insurers do not differentiate among the States. Thus, 
regardless of the State in which organization operates, and how 
broad or how narrow the relevant State volunteer protection 
law, the price for insurance will be the same. This means that 
not only are nonprofit organizations forced to use their scarce 
resources to pay for insurance, but that those in States where 
the law is protective are forced to vastly overpay if they wish 
to obtain coverage at all.
    H.R 911 is intended to eliminate these barriers to 
obtaining volunteer services. As introduced by Congressman John 
Porter, it provided incentives to states to enact legislation 
which would eliminate tort liability of any volunteer if (1) 
the volunteer was acting in good faith and within the scope of 
the volunteer's official functions and duties within volunteer 
organization, and (2) the damage or injury at issue was not 
caused by the volunteer's willful and wanton misconduct. A 
state which could certify within 2 years of enactment that it 
had adopted such reforms would have been entitled to an 
additional one percent allotment in the State's Social Services 
Block Grant award. However, the Committee adopted an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute which takes a more direct 
approach to the problem. H.R. 911, as amended, preempts State 
law to provide that volunteers would not be liable for harm if 
(1) they were acting in the scope the volunteer activity, (2) 
they were properly licensed (if necessary), (3) the harm was 
not caused by willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, 
reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to 
the rights or safety of the claimant, and (4) the harm was not 
caused by the volunteer operating a vehicle.
    In addition, H.R. 911 as amended does not allow punitive 
damages to be awarded against a volunteer unless the harm was 
caused by willful or criminal misconduct, or a conscious, 
flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the claimant. 
In a suit against a volunteer, the volunteer's liability for 
noneconomic damages would be several but not joint. H.R. 911 
allows the States to opt out of coverage under certain 
circumstances. It also specifies certain conditions and 
restrictions which a state could impose without being 
inconsistent with the Act. It further exempts from coverage any 
misconduct which constitutes a crime of violence, an act of 
international terrorism, a hate crime, a sexual offense, a 
violation of a civil rights law, or where the volunteer was 
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 911 was introduced by 
Congressman Porter on March 4, 1997, and ultimately garnered 
156 cosponsors. The Full Committee held a hearing on H.R. 911 
on April 23, 1997. On May 13, 1997, the Committee ordered H.R. 
911 reported, as amended, by a recorded vote of 20 ayes to 7 
nays. House Report 105-101. It was approved by the House of 
Representatives on May 21, 1997, under suspension of the rules, 
by a vote of 390 ayes to 35 nays. On that day, the text of H.R. 
911 was also agreed to as an amendment to S. 543, and the 
Senate then agreed to the House amendment. S. 543 became law on 
June 18, 1997, as Public Law 105-19.
Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act--S. 2392 (Public Law 
        105-271)
    Summary.--The Year 2000 Information and Readiness 
Disclosure Act is intended to promote the voluntary sharing of 
information needed to discover, avoid, or fix problems with 
year 2000 calculations in our nation's software, computers, and 
technology products. In all civil litigation including certain 
antitrust actions, the Act limits the extent to which year 2000 
statements can be the basis for liability and it prevents 
certain evidentiary uses, against the maker, of a subset of 
such statements. However, the Act ensures that only 
responsible, good faith information-sharing gets such 
protection.
    In particular, the Act protects good faith sharing of two 
kinds of year 2000 information: a broad category called ``year 
2000 statements,'' and a narrower subcategory called ``year 
2000 readiness disclosures.'' Year 2000 statements and 
readiness disclosures can include any year 2000 related subject 
matter, but year 2000 readiness disclosures must be in writing, 
be clearly labeled, and concern one's own products or services. 
Certain already-existing year 2000 statements may be designated 
as year 2000 readiness disclosures and receive the protections 
applicable to year 2000 readiness disclosures under the Act. 
The protections given to year 2000 statements and readiness 
disclosures protect all those who help in any way to make a 
year 2000 statement or readiness disclosure, so a broad group 
of individuals and entities are protected.
    The Act encourages the use of the Internet to provide 
notice of all matters relating to year 2000 processing. In 
addition, the Act protects against disclosure and use in civil 
actions year 2000 information voluntarily provided to the 
government under a ``special data gathering request.'' Finally, 
the Act creates a temporary exemption to the antitrust laws for 
sharing of year 2000 information, unless it results in an 
actual agreement to boycott, allocate markets, or fix prices.
    The Act does not create new causes of action or expand any 
existing causes of action, nor does it create new obligations 
or duties. The Act does not create any duty to provide notice 
about a year 2000 processing problem. The intent of this 
legislation is to promote sharing of year 2000 information. 
This would be frustrated if any year 2000 statement were the 
sole basis for any finding of liability on the part of the 
maker. Furthermore, it is not the intent of this legislation to 
hold the maker of a year 2000 readiness disclosure liable for 
the adequacy or sufficiency of its disclosure where such 
disclosure is not otherwise required by law or contract. The 
Act also does not affect existing contracts, tariffs, 
intellectual property rights or consumer protections applicable 
to solicitations or offers to sell consumer products.
    The Act's protections are limited. The Act does not change 
or address in any way liability for a year 2000 processing 
failure; does not change or reduce any underlying duty, 
standard of care or liability for a year 2000 failure; does not 
apply to certain consumer transactions; does not prevent any 
underlying facts regarding a failure from being demonstrated in 
court; does not prevent any governmental entity from requiring 
the disclosure of any information; and does not preclude any 
claim to the extent it is not based on a year 2000 statement.
    The Act prevents the use as evidence against the maker of 
only a narrow range of year 2000 statements--year 2000 
readiness disclosures--to prove the truth of the disclosure. 
They can, however, be put into evidence to demonstrate matters 
other than their truth. Further, year 2000 readiness 
disclosures can be used in contract litigation as part of the 
evidence necessary to show anticipatory breach, repudiation, or 
similar actions, although they should not be the sole evidence 
supporting liability. A judge can limit (but not totally 
abrogate) this protection in order to prevent an abusive or 
bad-faith use of the disclosure contrary to the purposes of the 
Act.
    Year 2000 statements other than year 2000 readiness 
disclosures can be brought into evidence for any purpose. 
However, they may not be the basis for any finding of liability 
against the maker, except where the maker knew the statement 
was false, made it with intent to deceive, or made it with 
reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.
    In cases of alleged trade defamation, product 
disparagement, and the like, year 2000 statements generally can 
be the basis of liability only if the maker knew the statement 
was wrong or was reckless about the statement's truth or 
falsity.
    Internet website notice is generally deemed adequate. 
Important exceptions exist, however, and Internet website 
notice alone is not deemed adequate in cases of personal injury 
or serious property damage. In specified circumstances, in 
order to obtain the benefits of the Act, sellers, 
manufacturers, or providers of year 2000 remediation products 
or services must inform their customers about the effects of 
this Act during the course of solicitations or offers to sell.
    For purposes of actions brought under the securities laws, 
year 2000 statements contained in filings with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission or Federal banking regulators and 
disclosures or writings that, when made, accompanied the 
solicitation of an offer or sale of securities are not covered 
by the Act.
    Legislative history.--At the request of the Administration, 
S. 2392 was originally introduced as the Year 2000 Information 
Disclosure Act by Senator Bennett, Chairman of the Senate 
Select Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. A number 
of similar bills were introduced in the House and referred to 
the Committee, including H.R. 4455 (Dreier) and H.R. 4355 
(Burton).
    After detailed negotiations with the Committee, the Senate 
passed an amended version of S. 2392 on September 28, 1998. By 
unanimous consent, the bill was called up by the House on 
October 1, 1998, and it passed by voice vote. Chairman Hyde 
inserted a statement on the bill into the Congressional Record 
on October 9, 1998. 144 Cong. Rec. E2017 (daily ed. Oct. 10, 
1998). Following that, on October 19, 1998, President Clinton 
signed the bill into law, making it Public Law 105-271.

                     Matters Held at Full Committee

Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment--H.J. Res 1 and S.J. Res. 1
    On the opening day of the 105th Congress, Representative 
Dan Schaefer introduced H.J. Res. 1, a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment (with provisions identical to the 
version that passed the House early in the previous Congress). 
It was designed to discourage the federal government from 
engaging in deficit spending, raising the public debt limit, 
and increasing taxes. The amendment generally required a three-
fifths vote of the total membership of each House for laws 
providing an excess of outlays over receipts [Section 1] and a 
higher public debt ceiling [Section 2]--and a majority of each 
House's total membership for laws increasing revenue. [Section 
4] In addition, the President would be required to submit 
balanced budgets to Congress. [ Section 3] Congress could waive 
the Amendment's requirements for a fiscal year in which a 
declaration of war was in effect. An alternative waiver 
mechanism required a joint resolution (supported by a majority 
of the total membership in each House) that became law--
declaring ``an imminent and serious military threat to national 
security'' caused by U.S. engagement in military conflict. 
[Section 5] The constitutional amendment would take effect 
``beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal 
year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.'' 
[Section 8]
    The major impetus for the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment was concern about the rapidly mounting federal debt 
and the impact of climbing interest payments on future 
generations of Americans. Supporters of a constitutional 
amendment pointed out over the years that--in spite of limited 
successes--legislative efforts to move in the direction of a 
balanced budget had not prevented unacceptable levels of 
deficit spending.
    The national debt had tripled during a recent 10-year 
period, climbing from approximately $1.564 trillion at the end 
of fiscal year 1984 to $4.644 trillion at the end of fiscal 
year 1994--with the figure at $5.31 trillion on January 21, 
1997. Interest paid by the U.S. Treasury (without offsetting 
interest credited to trust funds) totaled approximately $344 
billion for fiscal year 1996. For advocates of a balanced 
budget amendment, such statistics underscored the need for 
constitutional constraints. A constitutional amendment, 
supporters contended, was not a substitute for difficult 
legislative choices but rather a catalyst for congressional 
action.
    The full Committee held a hearing on H.J. Res. 1 on 
February 3, 1997, at which testimony was received from Members 
of Congress and witnesses supporting and opposing a 
constitutional amendment. The witness list consisted of 
Representatives Stenholm, Sabo, Cox, and Wise; Honorable Robert 
E. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury; Honorable Timothy Penny, 
former Member of Congress and Member, Board of Directors, 
Concord Coalition; Stuart M. Gerson, former Assistant and 
Acting Attorney General; John E. Berthoud, Vice President, 
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution; Professor Cass R. Sunstein, 
University of Chicago Law School; and Eugene Lehrmann, Past 
President, American Association of Retired Persons. The printed 
hearing record (Serial No. 1) also incorporated a number of 
written submissions, including a prepared statement of Martin 
Anderson, Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution, who could not 
testify in person because of illness.
    On February 5, 1997, the full Committee began a markup of 
H.J. Res. 1. That markup, however, was not concluded because 
developments in the Senate appeared to preclude a successful 
balanced budget constitutional amendment effort in the 105th 
Congress. On March 4, 1997, a Senate vote of 66 in favor to 34 
opposed on a companion measure (S.J. Res. 1) fell short of the 
two-thirds required by the Constitution.
    Although the Congressional attempt to propose a balanced 
budget constitutional amendment for ratification by the states 
did not succeed, the Committee's efforts helped to focus 
attention on the importance of effectuating balanced budget 
principles. Congress did succeed in enacting a budget that 
resulted in a surplus for fiscal year 1998--the first time this 
had happened in decades.
Terms of Office for Members of the Senate and the House of 
        Representatives--H.J. Res. 2
    On January 7, 1997, Representative McCollum introduced H.J. 
Res. 2, a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States with respect to the number of terms of 
office of Members of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. Although the resolution was held at the full 
Committee for purposes of markup, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution held an oversight hearing on the subject of term 
limits. That hearing and the legislative history of H.J. Res. 2 
are detailed in the Subcommittee section later in this report.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act--H.R. 929 and H.R. 1122
    On March 5, 1997, Representative Canady introduced H.R. 
1122 and on March 19, 1997, Mr. Solomon introduced H.R. 1122, 
different versions of the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 
1997.'' Although the bills were held at the full Committee for 
purposes of markup and floor consideration, the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution held a joint oversight hearing with the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary on the subject of partial-birth 
abortion. That hearing and the legislative history of H.R. 929 
and H.R. 1122 are detailed in the Subcommittee section later in 
this report.
Vacancies Act--H.R. 3420 (Section 151 of Public Law 105-277)
    Summary.--On March 10, 1998, Chairman Hyde introduced the 
``Department of Justice Vacancies Clarification Act of 1998'' 
with 12 Members of the Committee (Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Gekas, 
Mr. Coble, Mr. Smith, Mr. Canady, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Goodlatte, 
Mr. Bryant, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Rogan, and Mr. 
Graham) as cosponsors, and it was referred to the Committee. 
This legislation would have ended the practice of appointing 
acting personnel for indefinite periods of time to important 
jobs in the Department of Justice. For too long, the Department 
of Justice has used this method to evade the political 
accountability provided by the Senate confirmation process.
    In 1988, Congress reenacted the Vacancies Act to prevent 
the filling of Executive Branch positions with acting personnel 
for long periods. Generally speaking, the Vacancies Act 
provides that a person may serve as an acting head of an office 
for no more than 120 days. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3348. These times are 
tolled while a nomination is pending or when Congress has 
adjourned sine die.
    Most organic statutes for government departments have 
language providing that the head of the agency may delegate his 
functions to anyone within the Department. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 509-10 (language for the Department of Justice). Both 
Democrats and Republicans in the Executive Branch have 
interpreted this kind of language to be an alternative method 
of filling vacancies that is not subject to the 120-day period 
provided in the Vacancies Act. That interpretation effectively 
nullifies the Vacancies Act.
    The Department of Justice Vacancies Clarification Act of 
1998 would have clarified that the general language in the 
Department of Justice statute is not intended to override the 
Vacancies Act and that the Vacancies Act is the only method for 
filling vacancies in the Department of Justice.
    In addition, to insure that the language is not ignored, 
the Act would have provided that when any acting person serves 
beyond the time provided in the Vacancies Act, the United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit would step in to appoint someone to fill the job until 
someone is nominated and confirmed. The Court could not appoint 
a person who had previously served as an acting head for that 
particular vacancy or a person who was nominated, but was not 
confirmed. This is similar to language that already exists with 
respect to United States Attorney positions. 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 546. The intent was not so much that the Court ought to 
make such appointments, but to give the Executive Branch an 
incentive not to let the time lapse.
    A slightly different version of this legislation, which 
applies to all government departments including the Department 
of Justice, became law as section 151 of H.R 4328, the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-277.
Clarification That the Protections of the Federal Tort Claims Act Apply 
        to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission--H.R. 1901 
        (Public Law 105-30)
    Summary.--In 1996, Congress passed the National Gambling 
Impact Study Commission Act, Public Law 104-169, to provide for 
a comprehensive 2-year study of the impact of gambling on the 
United States. The nine members of the Commission were 
appointed, and the Commission began meeting in the summer of 
1997.
    Shortly before the Commission's first meeting, two of its 
members approached the Committee regarding their concerns about 
incurring personal liability for their work on the Commission. 
The Committee believed that the protections of the Federal Tort 
Claims Act (``FTCA'') covered members and employees of the 
Commission because it is an ``independent establishment of the 
United States'' under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671. Normally, under the 
FTCA, when someone sues a federal employee for acts occurring 
within the scope of his or her employment, the United States 
substitutes itself as the party, defends the action, and pays 
any judgment.
    The Committee initially believed that this matter could be 
resolved by an exchange of letters with the Department of 
Justice. However, after several weeks of study, the Department 
was unable to clearly resolve its position as to whether the 
Commission was covered under FTCA. Because the Commission was 
about to begin its work, the Committee decided to move forward 
with a legislative solution.
    The bill that Chairman Hyde introduced, H.R. 1901, simply 
provided that, for purposes of FTCA, the Commission is a 
federal agency and its members and employees are federal 
employees. The Department of Justice still makes the 
determination of whether the particular conduct at issue is 
within the scope of employment as it does in all FTCA cases. 
See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2679. Thus, members and employees of the 
Commission did not receive any special treatment under this 
law--rather, they will receive the same treatment as all other 
federal employees. This treatment will apply equally to all 
members and employees of the Commission. The Committee believed 
that the members and employees should not have to put their 
personal assets at risk in order to serve their country in this 
important mission.
    Legislative History.--On June 17, 1997, Chairman Hyde 
introduced H.R. 1901, and it was referred to the Committee. On 
June 18, 1997, the Committee ordered the bill reported 
favorably to the House by a voice vote. On June 23, 1997, the 
Committee reported the bill favorably to the House. H. Rept. 
105-145. The same day, the House suspended the rules and passed 
the bill by voice vote. On July 9, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 
1901 by unanimous consent. On July 25, 1997, the President 
signed H.R. 1901 into law as Public Law 105-30.
Making a Technical Correction to Title 28, United States Code, Relating 
        to Jurisdiction for Lawsuits Against Terrorist States--H.R. 
        1225 (Public Law 105-11)
    Summary.--In response to the revelation that the Libyan 
government assisted in bombing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, 
Scotland, the ``Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 
of 1996'' added a new subsection to the foreign sovereign 
immunity provisions of title 28 of the United States Code. 
Section 231 of Public Law 140-132. See 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1605(a)(7). This new subsection provided that foreign 
sovereign immunity would not shield countries that sponsor 
terrorist acts against American citizens, like the bombing of 
Pan Am 103, from civil liability in American courts. Under the 
new subsection, American citizens can bring an action in 
federal court for money damages against the country that 
sponsored the terrorist act.
    The intent of the drafters was that a family should have 
the benefit of these provisions if either the victim of the act 
or the survivor who brings the claim is an American citizen. 
Due to a drafting error, the law as passed in 1996 required 
that both the survivor and the claimant must be American 
citizens before the claimant can use these provisions. H.R. 
1225 corrected this drafting error and made it explicit that 
the correction should apply to pending cases.
    The correction benefitted several of the Pan Am 103 
families in which one member is an American citizen and another 
is not. For example, Mr. Bruce Smith, who has been one of the 
leaders of the Pan Am 103 families, is an American citizen. His 
wife, who died in the bombing, was a British citizen. Mr. 
Smith, and several others in similar situations, stood to lose 
their claims against Libya if this correction had not been 
passed. The correction the bill made also applies to any future 
cases in which American families are victimized by state 
sponsored terrorism. H.R. 1225 only corrected this drafting 
error and did not make any other change to the foreign 
sovereign immunity provisions.
    Legislative History.--On April 8, 1997, Chairman Hyde and 
seven other Members (Mr. Conyers, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Schumer, 
Mr. Canady, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Mica, and Mr. McNulty) introduced 
H.R. 1225. The same day, the Committee ordered the bill 
reported favorably to the House by a voice vote. On April 10, 
1997, the Committee reported the bill favorably to the House. 
H. Rept. 105-48. On April 15, 1997, the House suspended the 
rules and passed the bill by voice vote. On April 24, 1997, the 
Senate passed H.R. 1225 by unanimous consent. On April 25, 
1997, the President signed H.R. 1225 into law as Public Law 
105-11.
Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment and Implementing Statute--H.J. 
        Res. 71 and H.R. 1322
    Summary.--The modern victims' rights movement began in 
1973, when the chief probation officer in Fresno County, 
California began including victim impact statements with pre-
sentence 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, 21 additional states have adopted some 
form of a constitutional amendment to provide rights to victims 
of crime. (These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, 
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, 
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, 
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.) All 50 
states have some form of victims' rights legislation.
    Beginning in 1995, victims' rights advocates began to push 
for a federal constitutional amendment. Senator Kyl, Senator 
Feinstein, and Chairman Hyde introduced the first versions of 
such an amendment on April 22, 1996. In June, 1996, President 
Clinton endorsed the general concept of a federal 
constitutional amendment, but did not endorse any particular 
version of the amendment.
    In the 105th Congress, Chairman Hyde introduced a new 
version of the amendment, H.J. Res. 71, and Senator Kyl and 
Senator Feinstein introduced a similar new version, S.J. Res. 
6. These versions differ on a few points, but otherwise they 
are almost identical. The major points of difference are: the 
scope of the crimes to be covered, the nature of the right to 
be free from unreasonable delay, the inclusion or exclusion of 
a right to overturn sentences, and the breadth of the 
exceptions clause.
    In addition, this year Chairman Hyde also introduced an 
implementing statute, H.R. 1322. This implementing statute 
provides substantially more detail about how the new 
constitutional amendment would work. The Administration has 
participated in discussions about the various drafts of the 
constitutional amendment, but it has not offered a draft that 
it supports.
    There is a fair amount of consensus on the underlying 
policy that victims should play a larger role in criminal 
cases, although there is some disagreement as to the details. 
However, many question the need for a federal constitutional 
amendment when there is already a constitutional amendment or a 
statute in every state.
    Victims' rights advocates contend that whenever the federal 
constitutional rights of accused persons come into conflict 
with the state rights of victims, the federal rights of the 
accused always prevail. They also contend that existing state 
constitutional amendments and statutes are not working because 
judges and prosecutors do not take them seriously. Most states 
specifically prohibit any action against judges and prosecutors 
who refuse to enforce the statutory rights. For that reason, 
they argue that these rights are dependent on the good will of 
judges and prosecutors. They believe that the rights of victims 
will never be taken seriously until they are formally 
recognized in the federal constitution. Moreover, they say as a 
matter of dignity, if the rights of the accused are formally 
enshrined in the federal constitution, then the rights of the 
victims ought to be also.
    Advocates on the other side say that they generally agree 
with the policies expressed in the various drafts of the 
constitutional amendment, but they believe that a federal 
constitutional amendment is a bad way of enacting that policy. 
They say the amendment would have a profound and unknown effect 
on the 50 state criminal justice systems as well as the federal 
system. Once enacted, it would be almost impossible to change. 
They argue that the Congress, sitting in Washington, cannot 
possibly know the details of the 50 state systems and that by 
enacting a constitutional amendment, it will cause many 
unintended consequences. They say that constitutional rights 
exist to protect unpopular people, like accused persons, and 
that victims are very popular and have no trouble enacting 
statutory solutions. Finally, they contend that the various 
versions of the amendment do not resolve the question of whose 
rights trump in a conflict because the drafts do not address 
this question. They contend that this and other questions will 
lead to years of litigation.
    Legislative History.--On June 25, 1997, the full Committee 
held a hearing on H.J. Res. 71 and H.R. 1322 at which the 
following witnesses appeared: Hon. Deborah Pryce, United States 
Representative, 15th District of Ohio; Hon. Janet Reno, 
Attorney General of the United States, United States Department 
of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Hon. George Kazen, Chief Judge, 
United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Texas, Laredo, Texas, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of 
the United States; Hon. William Terrell Hodges, Judge, United 
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 
Jacksonville, Florida, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of 
the United States; Hon. Joseph Weisberger, Chief Justice, 
Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island, on 
behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices; Ms. Jacquelynn 
Davis, Domestic Violence Victim, Dallas, Texas; Ms. Donna 
Edwards, Executive Director, National Network to End Domestic 
Violence, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Robert Horowitz, Prosecuting 
Attorney, Stark County, Ohio, Canton, Ohio; Mr. Bruce Fein, 
Constitutional Scholar and Syndicated Columnist, McLean, 
Virginia.
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Legislation--H.R. 1835 and H.R. 1965
    Summary.--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 
reform legislation in the 105th Congress, as he had done in the 
previous two Congresses. See H.R. 1916, 104th Congress and H.R. 
2417, 103rd Congress. On June 10, 1997, Chairman Hyde 
introduced H.R. 1835 followed by H.R. 1965 on June 19, 1997, 
both entitled the ``Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.'' The 
two bills would substantially reform civil asset forfeiture 
procedures, but H.R. 1965 represented a bipartisan compromise 
that had the support of the U.S. Department of Justice. When it 
was introduced, H.R. 1965 superceded H.R. 1835 and received the 
active consideration of the Committee.
    Since early in the nation's history, ships and cargo 
violating the customs laws were made subject to federal civil 
forfeiture. Such forfeiture was vital to the federal treasury 
for, at that time, customs duties constituted more than 80% of 
federal revenues. Today, there are scores of federal forfeiture 
statutes, both civil and criminal. They range from the 
forfeiture of gamecocks used in cockfighting, to cigarettes 
seized from smugglers, to property obtained from violations of 
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
    The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 
1970 made civil forfeiture a weapon in the war against drugs. 
The Act provides for the forfeiture of:

          [a]ll controlled substances which have been 
        manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in 
        violation of this subchapter . . . [a]ll raw materials, 
        products, and equipment of any kind which are used, or 
        intended for use, in manufacturing . . . delivering, 
        importing, or exporting any controlled substance[s] . . 
        . in violation of this subchapter . . . [a]ll property 
        which is used, or intended for use, as a container for 
        [such controlled substances, raw materials, products or 
        equipment] . . . [a]ll conveyances, including aircraft, 
        vehicles or vessels, which are used, or intended for 
        use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the 
        transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or 
        concealment [of such controlled substances, raw 
        materials, products or equipment].

21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a) .
    In 1978, the Act was amended to provide for civil 
forfeiture of:

          [a]ll moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or 
        other things of value furnished or intended to be 
        furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled 
        substance in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds 
        traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, 
        negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended 
        to be used to facilitate any violation of this 
        subchapter . . . .

Section 301(a)(1) of the Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978 
(found at 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(6)).
    In 1984, the Act was amended to provide for the forfeiture 
of:

          [a]ll real property . . . which is used, or intended 
        to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to 
        facilitate the commission of, a violation of this 
        subchapter punishable by more than one year's 
        imprisonment. . . .''

Section 306(a) of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 
(found at 21 U.S.C.Sec. 881(a)(7)).
    Prior to 1984, the monies realized from federal forfeitures 
were deposited in the general fund of the United States 
Treasury. Now they primarily go to the Department of Justice's 
Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Department of the Treasury's 
Forfeiture Fund. The money is used for forfeiture-related 
expenses and various law enforcement purposes.
    In recent years, enormous revenues have been generated by 
federal forfeitures. The amount deposited in Justice's Assets 
Forfeiture Fund (from both civil and criminal forfeitures) 
increased from $27 million in fiscal year 1985 to $556 million 
in 1993 and then decreased to $338 million in 1996. Of the 
amount taken in 1996, $250 million was in cash and $74 million 
was in proceeds of forfeitable property; $163 million of the 
total was returned to state and local law enforcement agencies 
who helped in investigations.
    Federal forfeiture has proven to be a great monetary 
success. And, as former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh 
said: ``[I]t is truly satisfying to think that it is now 
possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-
financed prison, after being arrested by agents driving a 
forfeiture-provided automobile, while working in a forfeiture-
funded sting operation.''
    The purposes of federal forfeiture were set out by Stefan 
Cassella, Assistant Chief, Asset Forfeiture and Money 
Laundering Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, in testimony before this Committee on June 11, 1997:

          Asset forfeiture has become one of the most powerful 
        and important tools that federal law enforcement can 
        employ against all manner of criminals and criminal 
        organizations--from drug dealers to terrorists to white 
        collar criminals who prey on the vulnerable for 
        financial gain. . . .
          Federal law enforcement agencies use the forfeiture 
        laws for a variety of reasons, both time-honored and 
        new. . . . [They] allow the government to seize 
        contraband--property that it is simply unlawful to 
        possess, such as illegal drugs, unregistered machine 
        guns, pornographic materials, smuggled goods and 
        counterfeit money.
          Forfeiture is also used to abate nuisances and to 
        take the instrumentalities of crime out of circulation. 
        If drug dealers are using a ``crack house'' to sell 
        drugs to children as they pass by on the way to school, 
        the building is a danger to the health and safety of 
        the neighborhood. Under the forfeiture laws, we can 
        shut it down. If a boat or truck is being used to 
        smuggle illegal aliens across the border, we can 
        forfeit the vessel or vehicle to prevent its being used 
        time and again for the same purpose. The same is true 
        for an airplane used to fly cocaine from Peru into 
        Southern California, or a printing press used to mint 
        phony $100 bills.
          The government also uses forfeiture to take the 
        profit out of crime, and to return property to victims. 
        No one has any right to retain the money gained from 
        bribery, extortion, illegal gambling, or drug dealing. 
        With the forfeiture laws, we can separate the criminal 
        from his profits--and any property traceable to it--
        thus removing the incentive others may have to commit 
        similar crimes tomorrow. And if the crime is one that 
        has victims--like car jacking or fraud--we can use the 
        forfeiture laws to recover the property and restore it 
        to the owners far more effectively than the restitution 
        statutes permit.
          Finally, forfeiture undeniably provides both a 
        deterrent against crime and a measure of punishment for 
        the criminal. Many criminals fear the loss of their 
        vacation homes, fancy cars, businesses and bloated bank 
        accounts far more than the prospect of a jail sentence.

    However, a number of years ago, as forfeiture revenue was 
approaching its peak, some disquieting rumblings were heard. 
The Second Circuit stated that ``[w]e continue to be enormously 
troubled by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked 
use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due 
process that is buried in those statutes.'' United States v. 
All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F.2d 896, 905 
(2nd Cir. 1992). Newspaper and television exposes appeared 
alleging that apparently innocent property owners were having 
their property taken by federal and local law enforcement 
officers with nothing that could be called due process.
    H.R. 1965 was introduced to make federal civil forfeiture 
procedures fair for property owners, to give owners innocent of 
any wrongdoing the means to recover their property and make 
themselves whole. H.R. 1965 is not designed to enfeeble federal 
civil forfeiture efforts. To the contrary, as a consequence of 
making civil forfeiture fairer, H.R. 1965 would expand the 
reach of civil forfeiture and make it an even stronger tool of 
law enforcement against criminals. H.R. 1965 would also expand 
the reach of federal criminal forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture 
is preferable to civil forfeiture because it has the built-in 
procedural safeguards of the criminal law.
    Hearing and Legislative History.--The Committee held a one 
day of hearing on civil asset forfeiture reform on June 11, 
1997. Testimony was received from Billy Munnerlyn, E.E. (Bo) 
Edwards III, F. Lee Bailey, Susan Davis, Gerald B. Lefcourt, 
Stefan D. Cassella, Deputy Chief, Asset Forfeiture and Money 
Laundering Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Jan P. Blanton, Director, Executive Office for Asset 
Forfeiture, Department of the Treasury, Bobby Moody, Chief of 
Police, Marietta, Georgia, and 1st Vice President, 
International Association of Chiefs of Police., and David 
Smith. Additional material was submitted by Nadine Strossen, 
President, American Civil Liberties Organization, and Roger 
Pilon, Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, CATO 
Institute.
    On June 20, 1997, the Committee met in open session and 
favorably reported H.R. 1965 to the House without amendment by 
a recorded vote of 26 to 1. The bill did not come to the floor.
Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
        1999, 2000, and 2001--H.R. 3303
    Summary.--H.R. 3303, the ``Department of Justice 
Appropriation Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, and 
2001,'' is a comprehensive 3-year reauthorization of the 
Justice Department's activities and programs. The bill contains 
four titles. Title I authorizes appropriations to carry out the 
work of the various components of the Department for fiscal 
years 1999, 2000, and 2001. Title I largely adheres to the 
Department's budget request for fiscal year 1999 by providing 
$15,499,000,000, and it would authorize a 5% increase for 
fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The proposed increases for fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001, though an approximation of the 
Department's actual budgetary requirements, are the result of 
consultations with the Department and an analysis of the 
historical trend. The Committee has a high degree of confidence 
that the H.R. 3303 appropriation authorizations for fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001 are accurate.
    Section 151 of Title I would authorize the Attorney General 
to transfer 200 lawyers from among the six litigating divisions 
at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. to the 
U.S. Attorneys. The provision is intended to raise the 
productivity of Washington-based lawyers, who litigate criminal 
and civil cases for the Department across the nation, by moving 
them to the field.
    Title II reauthorizes for two additional years a number of 
successful programs whose authorizations will expire at the end 
of fiscal year 1998. These reauthorized programs will, for 
example, expedite the deportation of aliens who have been 
denied asylum, combat violence against women, and fund 
specialized training for and equipment to enhance the 
capability of metropolitan fire and emergency service 
departments to respond to terrorist attacks. Title II would 
also amend the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement 
Act--also known as C.A.L.E.A.--by changing the effective date 
for purposes of compliance, enforcement, and the 
``grandfathering'' of telecommunications carrier equipment, 
facilities, and services.
    Title III would permanently authorize numerous inherent and 
noncontroversial functions of the Department. Finally, Title IV 
would, among other things, repeal the permanent open-ended 
authorization of the United States Marshals Service, which is 
unique among Department components. Title III of the bill would 
grant the Marshals Service narrower permanent authority in line 
with the permanent authority to be granted other Department 
components.
    Hearing and Legislative History.--The Committee held a 1-
day legislative hearing on H.R. 3303 on March 11, 1998. 
Testifying at the hearing on behalf of the Justice Department 
were Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder and Assistant 
Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate. In 
addition to this hearing, the Committee has conducted 
substantial oversight of the Department's activities and 
programs since the beginning of the 105th Congress. H.R. 3303 
is the culmination of this extensive oversight.
    The bill was marked up on April 29, 1998, and the Committee 
ordered it reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On Monday, 
June 22, 1998, the House passed the bill, as amended, on a 
voice vote. On September 17, 1998, the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary reported the bill to the Senate with an amendment in 
the nature of substitute, but the bill was not taken up on the 
floor.
Protection From Intrusion on Privacy--H.R. 2448 and H.R. 3224
    On May 21, 1998, the Committee held a hearing on 
legislation to protect individuals from overly intrusive 
conduct by the media. The witnesses were: Michael J. Fox, Paul 
Reiser, Ellen Levin, Paul McMasters, David Lutman, Richard 
Masur, Paul Tash, Barbara Cochran, Dick Guttman, Robert 
Richards, and Larry Lessig.
    American society has developed an increasingly voracious 
appetite for information about and candid pictures of famous 
people. Countless newspapers and magazines are devoted to 
gossip about their activities and numerous television programs 
are dedicated to reporting about them. As a result, there is a 
great market for photographers to obtain pictures of 
celebrities in their most private moments. This has led to the 
proliferation of a new category of press to fill this demand, a 
group often referred to as the paparazzi. Paparazzi often stalk 
the famous hoping for that intimate or candid photo that can be 
sold at a substantial profit.
    The impact of the paparazzi is not limited to the people 
who we commonly associate with the term ``celebrity.'' While it 
is certainly true that stars of film, television, song, etc. 
are often the subject of paparazzi attention, there are also 
circumstances under which media attention becomes focused on 
someone because of events that have occurred in their life. 
Unlike persons whose livelihood depends on being noticed, and 
who routinely court press attention by leaking items about 
themselves and each other to raise their profiles, these 
people's notoriety has been foisted on them unwittingly, and 
often under circumstances involving personal pain. A good 
example of this is Ellen Levin, whose daughter was the victim 
of the ``Preppie Murder.'' The incident became the focus of 
intense reporting.
    Of course, the media must engage in newsgathering activity 
in order to report on events of interest to the public, and 
there is no clear line between the conduct engaged in by 
aggressive investigative reporters and by the paparazzi. 
Gathering information, including taking photographs, is First 
Amendment activity and as such is protected under the 
Constitution. Yet, at times, some reporters and photographers 
cross the line and engage in conduct that is harmful and that 
is not protected by the First Amendment. The working press has 
no constitutional immunity from liability for conduct that is 
likely to precipitate individual harm.
    H.R 2448, the ``Protection From Personal Intrusion Act,'' 
was introduced by the late Congressman Sonny Bono on September 
10, 1997. H.R. 2448 would make it a crime to persistently 
physically follow or chase a person, where that person has a 
reasonable expectation of privacy, in order to capture a visual 
image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the 
person. H.R. 3224, the ``Privacy Protection Act of 1998,'' was 
introduced by Congressman Gallegly on February 12, 1998. It 
seeks to criminalize similar conduct, but incorporates 
refinements to the language of H.R. 2448: for example, H.R. 
3224 requires that the person who is being pursued have a 
reasonable fear that death or bodily injury will result from 
the following or chasing. Neither bill would prohibit the 
publication or broadcast of material obtained in this manner: 
their restrictions are aimed at the egregious conduct of the 
information gatherer, not the dissemination of the information.
    Both H.R. 2448 and H.R. 3224 were carefully drafted to 
regulate activity that is not protected by the First Amendment. 
No reporter or photographer has a First Amendment right to 
break the law under the guise of newsgathering. In Cohen v. 
Cowles Media Co., 501 U. S. 663 (1991), the Supreme Court 
discussed the intersection between First Amendment and similar 
laws governing newsgathering activities:

          [g]enerally applicable laws do not offend the First 
        Amendment simply because their enforcement against the 
        press has incidental effects on its ability to gather 
        and report the news. As the cases relied upon by the 
        respondents recognize, the truthful information sought 
        to be published must have been lawfully acquired. The 
        press may not with impunity break and enter an office 
        or dwelling to gather news. Neither does the First 
        Amendment relieve a newspaper reporter of the 
        obligation shared by all citizens to respond to a grand 
        jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a 
        criminal investigation, even though the reporter might 
        be required to reveal a confidential source. The press, 
        like others interested in publishing, may not publish 
        copyrighted material without obeying the copyright 
        laws. Similarly, the media must obey the National Labor 
        Relations Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act; may 
        not restrain trade in violation of the antitrust laws, 
        and must pay non-discriminatory taxes. It is, 
        therefore, beyond dispute that ``[t]he publisher of a 
        newspaper has no special immunity from the application 
        of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade 
        the rights and liberties of others.'' Accordingly, 
        enforcement of such general laws against the press is 
        not subject to stricter scrutiny than would be applied 
        to enforcement against other persons or organizations.

Id. at 669-670 (citations omitted).
    Several states have existing laws which prohibit harassment 
and enable individuals to obtain injunctive relief from 
persistent press hounding. Theories of harassment can rise to 
the level of intrusion and enable individuals to obtain 
indirect protection for even public expectations of privacy. 
For example, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis obtained an injunction 
against a free-lance celebrity photographer and self-described 
``paparazzo.'' An injunction was also issued against reporters 
who were gathering information for a story by engaging in 
aggressive techniques such as following the plaintiffs children 
to school, videotaping their home, and using a ``shotgun mike'' 
to record statements made within the privacy of their home.
    Other common law and statutory remedies include shadowing 
and stalking laws, although these generally apply to 
surveillance activities of private investigators more than the 
aggressive press intrusions that this legislation intends to 
address. Assault and battery provisions are available for 
particularly intrusive behavior, although this is not a widely 
prosecuted offense for merely hounding public figures. Finally, 
the press can be held liable for false imprisonment if the 
targets of press activity are physically prevented from 
carrying on their intended activity.
    Proponents of these bills pointed out that although other 
laws can be used when paparazzi engage in illegal conduct, this 
would be the first statute specifically recognizing the broad 
scope of the problem. These bills would provide a national 
solution by establishing uniform standards to control the 
abusive behavior. It should also be noted that these bills 
would merely supplement, not preempt, any right or remedy 
otherwise available under the law.
Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997--H.R. 3081
    Summary.--H.R. 3081, The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 
1997, expands federal law so as to allow the federal government 
authority to prosecute hates crimes that have traditionally 
been the responsibility of state and local authorities. In 
racial violence cases involving death or serious bodily injury, 
the bill would eliminate the requirement in title 18, United 
States Code, section 245 that the government prove that the 
defendant injured or killed the victim because the victim was 
engaging in a federally protected activity.
    Title 18, United States Code, section 245, is one of the 
primary statutes used to combat racial and religious violence. 
At the time of its passage in 1968, the reach of the statute 
was directed towards civil rights activities and required a 
dual intent so that the universe of cases that fall within 
federal jurisdiction would be limited to crimes committed 
because the victim was engaged in certain federally protected 
activities. To establish a violation of section 245(b)(2), a 
federal prosecutor must prove that the defendant acted because 
of the victim's race, color, religion or national origin and 
because the victim was enjoying or exercising a federally 
protected right. These federally protected rights are 
specifically enumerated in section 245(b)(2) (A)-(F). Section 
245 (b)(2) (A)-(F) provides: (A) enrolling in or attending any 
public school or public college; (B) participating in or 
enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or 
activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision 
thereof; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any 
perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency of 
any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the 
services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, 
or employment agency; (D) serving, or attending upon any court 
of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or 
petit juror; (E) traveling in or using any facility of 
interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or 
facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air; 
(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 
advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or 
other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, 
or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda 
fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which 
is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for 
consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of 
any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, 
stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment 
which serves the public, or of any other establishment which 
serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises 
of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises 
of which is physically located any of the aforesaid 
establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving 
patrons of such establishments. Section 245, which was title I 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, was the antidote prescribed by 
Congress to deter and punish those who would forcibly suppress 
the free exercise of civil rights enumerated in that statute.
    The Hate Crimes Prevention Act amends section 245 to allow 
the federal government to take the lead in most, if not all, 
cases that involve hate crimes. The definition of ``hate 
crime'' in the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act is 
closely aligned to the definition contained in the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act of 1997. The term ``hate crime'' is ``a crime in 
which the defendant intentionally selects a victim . . . 
because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of 
any person.''
    The bill contains a separate provision expanding the 
definition of hate crimes to include crimes motivated by the 
victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. However, in 
order to establish a hate crime motivated by animus based on 
the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability, the 
government would have to prove an interstate commerce 
connection. There is no interstate commerce requirement for 
acts of racial violence, but such a requirement would exist for 
all other hate crimes.
    Crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation have 
become an alarming aspect of the American landscape. Testimony 
was received from a witnesses who was mistaken by his assailant 
for being gay and he testified that the assailant attacked and 
beat him as he left his home. Some social scientists believe 
individuals who commit acts of racial and religious violence 
are frequently the same groups who are involved in violent 
activity against gays and lesbians. For example, on January 4, 
1996, Fred Mangione, was brutally murdered in Houston, Texas by 
two Neo-Nazis who bragged about hating homosexuals. The 
assailants belonged to a white supremacist group from Montana, 
and had traveled to Houston. The victim was stabbed 35 times. 
Although the FBI conducted a limited investigation of this 
incident, the federal government was unable to prosecute the 
murder, as federal law does not extend to crimes motivated by 
animus based on the victim's sexual orientation. The local 
authorities prosecuted these defendants. One was given a life 
sentence and the other was given 10 years' probation.
    In Oregon, two women were murdered in December, 1995, in 
what local authorities have termed a hate crime. The victims 
were lesbians who were active in a number of gay rights causes, 
and the suspect expressed hatred for their lifestyle. Once 
again, the federal government was unable to prosecute these 
murders. The local authorities prosecuted this case and the 
defendant received the death penalty.
    The broad sweep of the statute raises concerns of whether 
states and local jurisdictions will be able to take the lead in 
combating hate crimes or will they be preempted by the federal 
government. It has been argued that there are exceptional 
circumstances when it is appropriate for the federal government 
to get involved. For instance, organized hate groups, often 
have sophisticated interstate networks, which could make it 
more difficult for state and local law enforcement to prosecute 
these cases. The FBI is uniquely positioned to investigate the 
often complex interstate networks operated by organized hate 
groups. But there would be a need for both the proper statutory 
tools and additional funding for the FBI to perform its job 
effectively.
    On a state level, hate crimes committed on the basis of a 
victim's gender are criminal in 19 states and the District of 
Columbia; hate crimes committed on the basis of the victim's 
sexual orientation are criminal in 20 states and the District 
of Columbia; hate crimes committed on the basis of a victim's 
disability or handicap are criminal in 21 states and the 
District of Columbia. Wyoming does not have any hate crime 
laws. Forty states and the District of Columbia have penalty 
enhancement hate crime statutes.
    Hate crimes often involve multiple offenders and multiple 
incidents. Some states have very restrictive rules pertaining 
to joinder of defendants, which make it difficult to try 
defendants together. For example, in Lubbock, Texas, (United 
States v. Mungia et. al.) three racists attempted to start a 
race war in October, 1994, by shooting three African American 
victims in three separate incidents within 30 minutes. Under 
Texas law, the three defendants would have been entitled to 
separate trials if the matter had proceeded in state court. It 
was also conceivable that each defendant would have been 
entitled to a separate trial on each incident. This means that 
there would have been a minimum of three trials, and possibly 
as many as nine trials, if the matter had proceeded in state 
court. These separate trials would have placed an enormous 
burden on the victims' families, and the investigating 
authorities. In addition, under Texas law, the defendants would 
have been eligible for parole perhaps as early as 20 years 
later, whereas federal law provides a mandatory life sentence.
    As a result, the local prosecuting authorities worked in 
tandem with federal authorities, and the joint decision was 
made to prosecute the case in federal court, where one trial 
was held resulting in the defendants' convictions. This case 
illustrates that hate crimes are neither exclusively a state 
and local problem, nor exclusively a federal problem. This bill 
would give a new prosecutorial tool to the entire team.
    Specifically, hate crimes prosecution under this law must 
be approved by the Attorney General or another high ranking 
Justice Department official, not just by local federal 
prosecutors. This requirement is already in place in current 
law. It is expected that this requirement would serve to 
limited the number of prosecutions.
    Critics of the bill ask whether the bill is 
unconstitutional and opine that the bill will not pass the test 
set out in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). In 
Lopez, the Supreme Court held the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 
1990 unconstitutional because it did not fall within any of 
Congress' legislative powers enumerated in Article I. Chief 
Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, found that the 
government claim of a substantial effect on interstate commerce 
of guns near schools was not supported by congressional 
findings. Some scholars believe this bill, like the Act in 
Lopez, regulates intrastate non-economic activities and that 
the bill will meet the same fate as the Act in Lopez. It is 
also unclear how prosecutors and courts would determine that an 
act of violence was committed because of an individual's gender 
or disability. Others suggest the bill covers crimes already 
covered at the state level and fills no gaps in criminal law. 
They reject the need for an expanded federal jurisdiction for 
hate crimes. The bill presents a long term systemic cost to the 
federal court that may preempt the federal judiciary's core 
responsibility--cases that traditionally are reserved for 
federal court.
    Legislative History.--Although the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime, on July 22, 1998, the Full Committee 
held a hearing on H.R. 3081, the ``Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
of 1997.'' The witnesses were: Acting Assistant Attorney 
General of the Civil Rights Division, Bill Lann Lee, United 
States Department of Justice--Washington, D.C. Professor Cass 
Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School, Professor John 
Harrison, University of Virginia Law School, Mark Bangerter, 
Boise, Idaho, Richard A. Devine, State Attorney for Cook 
County, Illinois, Professor Jack McDevitt, Northeastern 
University, Kimberly Potter, Senior Research Fellow, Center for 
Crime and Justice, New York University Law School.
Title 36 Codification--H.R. 1085 (Public Law 105-225)
    On March 17, 1997, Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 1085, a 
bill to revise, codify, and enact without substantive change 
certain general and permanent laws, related to patriotic and 
national observances, ceremonies, and organizations, as title 
36, United States Code. H.R. 1085 was drafted by the Office of 
the Law Revision Counsel under its statutory authority to 
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary bills to enact the 
titles of the United States Code into positive law. At a markup 
in the full Committee on October 7, 1997, H.R. 1085, as 
amended, was approved by a voice vote and ordered reported. The 
Committee on the Judiciary formally reported the legislation 
favorably to the House (H. Rept. 105-326) on October 21, 1997. 
Under suspension of the rules, the House passed H.R. 1085, as 
amended, on February 3, 1998. The Senate passed the legislation 
on July 30, 1998, and the President approved it (Public Law 
105-225) on August 12, 1998.
Title 36 Codification Update--S. 2524 (Public Law 105-354)
    On September 28, 1998, Senator Hatch introduced S. 2524, a 
bill to codify without substantive change laws related to 
patriotic and national observances, ceremonies, and 
organizations and to improve the United States Code. (The text 
of the bill was identical to H.R. 4529, introduced by Chairman 
Hyde on September 9, 1998.) This legislation, drafted by the 
Office of the Law Revision Counsel, updated the recently 
enacted (Public Law 105-225) codification of Title 36 and 
incorporated technical corrections. The Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary, on October 1, 1998, reported the legislation 
favorably to the Senate--which in turn passed it on October 8, 
1998. In the House, the Senate passed legislation was referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary and held at the full 
Committee. On October 12, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary 
was discharged from further consideration and the legislation 
passed the House under suspension of the rules. The President 
approved it on November 3, 1998 (Public Law 105-354).
Title 49 Codification Update--H.R. 1086 (Public Law 105-102)
    On March 17, 1997, Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 1086, a 
bill to codify without substantive change laws related to 
transportation and to improve the United States Code. H.R. 1086 
was drafted by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel under its 
statutory authority to submit periodically revisions of 
positive law titles of the Code to keep those titles current. 
The legislation updated title 49 to incorporate a law related 
to transportation that was not already included in the 
codification and made technical corrections. At a markup on 
June 18, 1997, the full Committee ordered H.R. 1086, as 
amended, favorably reported to the House. The Committee on the 
Judiciary formally reported the legislation (H. Rept. 105-153) 
on June 25, 1997. Under suspension of the rules, H.R. 1086, as 
amended, passed the House on July 8, 1997. The legislation 
passed the Senate on November 8, 1997 and was approved by the 
President (Public Law 105-102) on November 20, 1997.
Assassination Records Review Board Authorization Extension--H.R. 1553 
        (Public Law 105-25)
    On May 8, 1997, Representative Burton of Indiana introduced 
H.R. 1553, a bill to amend the President John F. Kennedy 
Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend the 
authorization of the Assassination Records Review Board until 
September 30, 1998. On June 19, 1997, the legislation was 
reported favorably to the House (Rept. 105-138, Part 1) by the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The Committee on 
the Judiciary--which had held the bill at the full Committee--
was discharged from further consideration on June 20, 1997. 
Under suspension of the rules, the House passed the legislation 
on June 23, 1997. The Senate passed it on June 25, 1997, and 
the President approved it (Public Law 105-25) on July 3, 1997.
Airline Service Improvement Act of 1998--H.R. 2748
    On October 28, 1997, Representative Duncan introduced H.R. 
2748, a bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide 
assistance and slots with respect to air carrier service 
between high density airports and airports not receiving 
sufficient service, to improve jet aircraft service to 
underserved markets, and for other purposes. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, on October 15, 1998, 
favorably reported the bill as amended to the House (H. Rept. 
105-822, Part 1). The legislation was sequentially referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary until October 16, 1998--with the 
period subsequently extended until October 20, 1998 and then 
until October 21, 1998. No further action was taken on H.R. 
2748 during the 105th Congress.
Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act of 1998--H.R. 3485
    On March 18, 1998, Representative Thomas introduced H.R. 
3485, legislation to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971 to reform financing of campaigns for election for federal 
office and for other purposes. The Committee on House 
Oversight, on March 23, 1998, favorably reported the bill as 
amended to the House (H. Rept. 105-457, Part 1). That same day, 
the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and 
Means received sequential referrals and were discharged from 
further consideration of the legislation. Although the House 
took no further action on H.R. 3485, the House--on March 30, 
1998--did consider and failed to pass under suspension of the 
rules a related but not identical bill, H.R. 3581, introduced 
that day by Representative Thomas.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998--H.R. 
        3829
    On May 12, 1998, Representative Goss introduced H.R. 3829, 
a bill to amend the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 to 
provide a process for agency employees to submit urgent 
concerns to Congress, and for other purposes. The Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, on September 25, 1998, 
reported the legislation as amended favorably to the House (H. 
Rept. 105-747, Part 1). The Committee on the Judiciary--and 
other committees to which the legislation was referred--were 
discharged from further consideration on October 20, 1998. No 
further action on H.R. 3829 was taken in the 105th Congress.
Money Laundering Deterrence Act of 1998--H.R. 4005
    On June 5, 1998, Representative Leach introduced H.R. 4005, 
a bill to amend title 31 of the United States Code to improve 
methods for preventing financial crimes, and for other 
purposes. The Committee on Banking and Financial Services, on 
July 8, 1998, favorably reported the bill as amended to the 
House. On July 31, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary--which 
had received a sequential referral--was discharged from further 
consideration. On September 11, 1998, the Committee on Ways and 
Means also was discharged. By a letter dated September 28, 
1998, Chairman Hyde of the Committee on the Judiciary wrote to 
Chairman Leach of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services requesting that the section entitled ``Fungible 
Property in Bank Accounts'' be removed before floor 
consideration, pointing out: ``As the House Leadership wants to 
delay consideration of reforms to our federal civil asset 
forfeiture laws until the 106th Congress, it would be more 
appropriate for this provision to be considered at that time.'' 
Congressional Record, October 5, 1998, at H9477. Chairman Leach 
responded by letter dated October 1, 1998 that ``[i]n deference 
to your concerns--and to the House leadership's view that 
further consideration of civil asset forfeiture reforms should 
await the next Congress--this provision will be removed from 
the bill reported by the Banking Committee on July 8, 1998.'' 
Id. During floor consideration on October 5, 1998, the House 
passed the bill in revised form under suspension of the rules--
with the bill's title changed to reflect the fact that title 
18, United States Code, also was being amended. The Senate, 
however, did not act on H.R. 4005 during the 105th Congress.
Financial Information Privacy Act of 1998--H.R. 4321
    On July 23, 1998, Representative Leach introduced H.R. 
4321, a bill to protect consumers and financial institutions by 
preventing personal financial information from being obtained 
from financial institutions under false pretenses. The 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, on August 21, 
1998, favorably reported the bill as amended to the House (H. 
Rept. 105-701, Part 1). The legislation was sequentially 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and to the Committee 
on Commerce. On September 25, 1998, the Committee on Commerce 
favorably reported the bill, as amended (H. Rept. 105-701, Part 
2), and the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from 
further consideration of the legislation. No further action on 
H.R. 4321 was taken in the 105th Congress.
Sense of the Congress Relating to an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, 
        and Sanctions--H.J. Res. 107
    On February 3, 1998, Representative Hayworth introduced 
H.J. Res. 107 expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
award of attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions of $285,864.78 
ordered by United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 
December 18, 1997, should not be paid with taxpayer funds. (The 
resolution included a finding that ``American taxpayers should 
not be held responsible for the inappropriate conduct of 
Federal Government officials and lawyers involved with the 
[President's] Task Force [on National Health Care Reform].'') 
On the same day, the Committee on Rules reported a rule for 
Floor consideration of H.J. Res. 107. The following day the 
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further 
consideration of the joint resolution and the joint resolution 
passed the House by a recorded vote of 273 yeas to 126 nays. 
The resolution was referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary, but the Senate took no action during the 105th 
Congress.
Criminal Charges for Failure to Comply with a Valid Subpoena--H. Res. 
        244
    On September 25, 1997, Representative Thomas submitted H. 
Res. 244 demanding that the Office of the United States 
Attorney for the Central District of California file criminal 
charges against Hermandad Mexicana Nacional for failure to 
comply with a valid subpoena under the Federal Contested 
Elections Act. The resolution noted that ``the United States 
Attorney's failure to enforce criminal penalties for violation 
of the [Federal Contested Elections] Act encourages disrespect 
for the law and hinders the Constitutionally mandated process 
of determining the facts in the contested election case [of 
Dornan v. Sanchez pending before the Committee on House 
Oversight], including the discovery of any election fraud that 
may have influenced the outcome of the election.'' The 
Committee on Rules, on September 29, 1997, reported a rule 
providing for Floor consideration of the resolution. The 
following day the Committee on House Oversight and the 
Committee on the Judiciary--to which the resolution had been 
referred--were discharged from further consideration. On 
October 1 (legislative day of September 30), 1997, the House by 
a recorded vote of 219 yeas to 203 nays (with one member 
answering ``present'') agreed to the resolution as amended.
President's Assertions of Executive Privilege--H. Res. 432
    On May 14, 1998, Representative DeLay submitted H. Res. 432 
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning 
the President's assertions of executive privilege. The 
resolution expressed the sense of the House that ``all records 
or documents (including legal memoranda, briefs, and motions) 
relating to any claims of executive privilege asserted by the 
President should be immediately made publicly available.'' That 
same day the Committee on Rules reported a rule providing for 
Floor consideration of this resolution and H. Res. 433 (H. 
Rept. 105-536). On May 21, 1998, the Committee on the 
Judiciary--to which H. Res. 432 had been referred--was 
discharged from further consideration, and the House by a 
recorded vote of 259 yeas to 157 nays (with six Members 
answering ``present'') agreed to the resolution.
Urging Full Cooperation with Congressional Investigations--H. Res. 433
    On May 14, 1998, Representative Solomon submitted a 
resolution calling upon the President of the United States to 
urge full cooperation by his former political appointees and 
friends and their associates with congressional investigations. 
The resolution noted that ``approximately 90 witnesses in the 
campaign finance investigation have either asserted a fifth 
amendment privilege or fled the country to avoid testifying in 
congressional investigations.'' On the same day the resolution 
was submitted, the Committee on Rules reported a rule providing 
for floor consideration of both H. Res. 432 and H. Res. 433 (H. 
Rept. 105-536). On May 21, 1998, the Committee on the 
Judiciary--to which H. Res. 433 had been referred--was 
discharged from further consideration, and the House by a vote 
of 342 yeas to 69 nays (with 12 members answering ``present'') 
agreed to the resolution.
Condemning the Brutal Killing of Mr. James Byrd, Jr.--H. Res. 466
    On June 11, 1998, Representative Waters submitted H. Res. 
466 condemning the brutal killing of Mr. James Byrd, Jr. The 
resolution stated in findings that ``[t]his was not a random 
act of violence, but a senseless, hate-filled crime.'' Also on 
June 11th , the Committee on the Judiciary--to which the 
resolution had been referred--was discharged from further 
consideration, and the House--by a vote of 397 yeas to 0 nays--
agreed to the resolution.
Impeachment Resolution Directed at Independent Counsel Kenneth W. 
        Starr--H. Res. 545
    On September 18, 1998, Representative Hastings of Florida 
submitted H. Res. 545 to impeach independent counsel Kenneth W. 
Starr. On September 23, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary 
(to which the resolution had been referred) was discharged from 
further consideration, and the House--considering the 
resolution as a privileged matter--agreed to a motion to table 
by a vote of 340 yeas to 71 nays.
Condemning the Brutal Killing of Mr. Matthew Shepard--H. Res. 597
    On October 14, 1998, Representative Cubin submitted H. Res. 
597 condemning the brutal killing of Mr. Matthew Shepard, a 
student at the University of Wyoming, and pledging ``to do 
everything in its [the House's] power to fight the sort of 
prejudice and intolerance that leads to the murder of innocent 
people.'' On October 15, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary--
to which the resolution had been referred--was discharged from 
further consideration and the House, under suspension of the 
rules, agreed to the resolution.
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act--S. 1379 (Public Law 105-246)
    On November 5, 1997, Senator DeWine introduced S. 1379, a 
bill to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and 
the National Security Act of 1947 to require disclosure under 
the Freedom of Information Act regarding certain persons, 
disclose Nazi war criminal records without impairing any 
investigation or prosecution conducted by the Department of 
Justice or certain intelligence matters, and for other 
purposes. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on March 5, 
1998, reported the bill with an amendment. On June 19, 1998, 
the Senate passed the bill as amended in Committee and on the 
Floor. After being held at the desk in the House, the 
legislation passed the House on August 6, 1998. The President 
approved it on October 8, 1998 (Public Law 105-246).
Authorization for Acceptance of Voluntary Services by the 
        Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice--S. 2143 (Public 
        Law 105-233)
    On June 9, 1998, Senator Hatch introduced S. 2143, a bill 
to amend chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, to 
authorize the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice to 
accept voluntary services, and for other purposes. The Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary, on July 9, 1998, reported the 
legislation favorably to the Senate with an amendment. The bill 
as amended passed the Senate on July 16, 1998. After being held 
at the desk in the House, the legislation passed the House 
under suspension of the rules on August 3, 1998. The President 
approved it on August 13, 1998 (Public Law 105-233).

                          Oversight Activities

    Pursuant to Rule X, clause 2(d), the Committee adopted an 
oversight plan for the 105th Congress. The oversight plan 
incorporated the matters which the Committee deemed, at the 
beginning of the Congress, to be worthy of its attention. Some 
of the matters contained in the oversight plan were addressed 
in the context of legislative hearings. The following is a list 
of the oversight hearings held by the full Committee. The 
oversight activities of the subcommittees will be discussed 
separately.
Full Committee Oversight Hearings
Implementation of the ``Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996'' 
        (Public Law 104-105), March 19, 1997 (Serial No. 4).
Product Liability Reform, April 10, 1997. (Serial No. 10).
Grassroots Solutions to Youth Crime, May 7, 1997 (Serial No. 
        18).
Antitrust Aspects of Electricity Deregulation, June 4, 1997 
        (Serial No. 19).
State of Competition in the Cable Television Industry, 
        September 24, 1997 (Serial No. 41).
Seeking Results from the Department of Justice, September 30, 
        1997 (Serial No. 40).
United States Department of Justice, October 15, 1997 (Serial 
        No. 61).
Application of the Antitrust Laws to the Tennessee Valley 
        Authority and the Federal Power Marketing 
        Administrations, October 22, 1997 (Serial No. 51).
Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: the Antitrust Division of the 
        Department of Justice and the Bureau of Competition of 
        the Federal Trade Commission, November 5, 1997 (Serial 
        No. 57).
Civil Liability Portions of the Proposed Tobacco Settlement, 
        February 5, 1998.
State of Competition in the Airline Industry, May 19, 1998.
Effects of Consolidation on the State of Competition in the 
        Financial Services Industry, June 3, 1998.
Effects of Consolidation on the State of Competition in the 
        Telecommunications Industry, June 24, 1998.
Consequences of Perjury and Related Crimes, December 1, 1998.
                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

 BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico \1\
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               BOB BARR, Georgia
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
                                     GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
                                     HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 
                                     \2\

----------
    \1\ Steven Schiff, New Mexico, deceased March 25, 1998.
    \2\ Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina, assigned March 3, 1998, to 
fill the vacancy resulting from the illness of Steven Schiff, New 
Mexico.

Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................   308
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    24
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....     3
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................     4
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     2
Legislation reported to the House.................................    29
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................    21
Legislation pending in the House..................................     2
Legislation passed by the House...................................    39
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................    18
Legislation vetoed by the President...............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................    14
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    24
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    32

                    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 
105th Congress include the following:

                             JUVENILE CRIME

The Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Act of 1997
    On January 7, 1997, Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 3, 
the ``Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997.'' H.R. 3 evolved from 
a bill considered in the 104th Congress, H.R. 3565, the 
``Violent Youth Predator Act of 1996.'' Several field hearings 
were held in the 104th Congress 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 forums in their area. H.R. 3565 was 
marked up in the full Judiciary Committee on July 16, 1996, but 
the bill was not reported out of the full Committee in the 
104th Congress.
    Throughout the United States today, state and local 
juvenile justice systems are failing to hold juvenile offenders 
accountable for their wrongdoing. The statistics describe a 
juvenile justice system in collapse. Only 10 percent of violent 
juvenile offenders--those who commit murder, rape, robbery, and 
assault--receive any sort of secure confinement. Many juveniles 
receive no sentence at all: Nearly 40 percent of violent 
juvenile offenders who come into contact with the justice 
system have their cases dismissed. By the time the courts 
finally lock up an older teenager on a violent crime charge, 
the offender often has a long rap sheet with arrests starting 
in the early teens. According to the Justice Department, 43 
percent of juveniles in state institutions had more than five 
prior arrests, and 20 percent had been arrested more than 10 
times. Approximately four-fifths of these offenders had 
previously been on probation, and three-fifths had been 
committed to a correctional facility at least once in the past.
    The average length of institutionalization for a juvenile 
who has committed a violent crime is only 353 days. Nationally, 
according to the FBI, if trends continue as they have over the 
past 10 years, juvenile arrests for violent crime will more 
than double by the year 2010. The FBI predicts that juveniles 
arrested for murder will increase 145 percent; forcible rape 
arrests will increase 66 percent; and aggravated assault 
arrests will increase 129 percent. In the final years of this 
decade and throughout the next, America will experience a 
population surge made up of the children of today's aging baby 
boomers. Today's enormous cohort of 5-year-olds will be 
tomorrow's teenagers. This is ominous news, given that more 
violent crime is committed by older juveniles than by any other 
age group. At the same time, youth drug use is rising rapidly. 
The confluence of these trends portends the possibility of an 
unprecedented period of violent youth crime.
    The introduction of H.R. 3, the ``Juvenile Crime Control 
Act of 1997,'' was an effort by Chairman McCollum to continue 
to promote juvenile justice reform in the 105th Congress. The 
bill strengthens the outdated federal juvenile justice system 
and provides assistance to states and localities to restore 
accountability to their juvenile justice systems. The bill does 
so by reforming and strengthening the federal juvenile justice 
system, with the aim of providing a model federal system for 
the states. The bill also establishes a grant program for 
states and localities for the purpose of promoting greater 
accountability in their juvenile justice systems. The grant 
program, which allows jurisdictions to decide how best to use 
their funds to fight juvenile crime, encourages prosecution of 
serious violent offenses by juveniles as adults, meaningful 
sanctions for every act of delinquency, and reform of juvenile 
records to improve quality and accessibility.
    On January 28, 1997, H.R. 3 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. On February 26, 1997, the Subcommittee 
held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce on the Administration's anti-gang and youth violence 
initiative. The Subcommittee heard testimony from only one 
witness, Attorney General Janet Reno.
    On March 20, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
Reforming Juvenile Justice in America. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from the Honorable Patricia West, Secretary of Public 
Safety, Commonwealth of Virginia; Chief David Walchak, Chief of 
Police, Concord, New Hampshire and Past President, 
International Association of Chiefs of Police; Judge David 
Grossman, Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Cincinnati, Ohio and 
Past President, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 
Judges; Barbara O'Connor, Federal Public Defender, Los Angles, 
California, Special Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission; Eric 
Joy, Director, Allegheny County Juvenile Court; Sergeant Roger 
Redd, Director, Cumberland County Physical Training Program and 
Bailiff, Cumberland County Sheriff's Office; Reverend Eugene 
Rivers, Director, Ten Point Leadership Program; Peter Jackson, 
Director, Alliance of Concerned Men of Washington, D.C. and 
Deputy Warden, Lorton Youth Center; Richard Green, Director, 
Crown Heights Youth Collective, Inc.
    On April 22, 1997, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged 
from further consideration. On April 24, 1997, and April 29, 
1997, the full Committee met in open session to consider the 
bill. On April 29, 1997, the Committee ordered the bill 
favorably reported to the House, amended, by a vote of 15 yeas 
to 9 nays. H.R. 3 was reported favorably to the House, (H. 
Rept. 105-86). On May 8, 1997, the House passed H.R. 3, the 
``Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997,'' by a vote of 286 ayes 
to 132 nays. Title III of H.R. 3, The ``Juvenile Accountability 
Block Grants'' portion of the bill was amended and incorporated 
in the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, which was signed into 
law on November 26, 1997, (Public Law 105-119). Similar 
language was also included in the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 
(H. Rept. 105-825, Public Law 105-277).
    On September 15, 1998, the House passed S. 2073, a bill to 
authorize appropriations for the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children, (with an amendment including the 
language of H.R. 3) under suspension of the rules by a vote of 
280 yeas to 126 nays. On October 1, 1998, the House agreed to a 
motion to insist on amendments and request a conference. No 
further action was taken on S. 2073 or H.R. 3 in the 105th 
Congress.
Community Police Officers in Schools
    S. 2235, to amend part Q of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Public Law 103-322) to encourage the 
use of school resource officers, was passed by the Senate on 
October 7, 1998. The bill allows police officers from the 1994 
Crime bill's ``100,000 COPS on the Beat'' program to be used in 
schools. Several random school-related shootings occurred in 
1997 and 1998, evoking public shock and outrage. These 
shootings resulted in numerous deaths and serve as sobering and 
tragic examples of just how urgent the need to address youth 
crime has become. A look at crime statistics show that while 
murder rates for young people may have declined during the 
105th Congress, the schoolyard murder rate almost doubled in 2 
years. Twenty-five students were killed in U.S. schools in 
1998.
    On October 8, 1998, S. 2235 was referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, in addition to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, for the consideration of such 
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
concerned. On October 8, 1998, the Judiciary Committee and the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce were discharged from 
further consideration. On October 9, 1998, S. 2235 passed the 
House under suspension of the rules and the bill was signed by 
the President on October 27, 1998 (Public Law 105-302).
Establishment of 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs of America by the year 2000
    H.R. 1753 amends a provision enacted as part of the 
``Economic Espionage Act of 1996,'' (Public Law 104-294), which 
authorized $100 million in federal seed money over 5 years to 
establish an additional 1,000 Boys and Girls Clubs in public 
housing and distressed areas throughout the country. As of 
1996, there were 1,800 Boys and Girls Clubs facilities in the 
United States. H.R. 1753 makes several administrative changes 
to current law, streamlining the application process for the 
clubs and ensuring that at least 2,500 facilities are 
established by the year 2000.
    On October 9, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and considered the bill H.R. 1753, to establish 2,500 Boys and 
Girls Clubs of America by the year 2000. The bill was ordered 
reported favorably to the full Committee. On October 29, 1997, 
the full Committee considered H.R. 1753 and the bill was 
ordered reported favorably to the House, amended (H. Rept. 105-
368). On November 13, 1998, H.R. 1753 was passed by the House, 
as amended, under suspension of the rules. On November 13, 
1998, the Senate companion of H.R. 1753, S. 476 passed the 
House with an amendment substituting the language of H.R. 1753 
as passed by the House. S. 476 was signed into law on December 
2, 1997 (Public Law 105-133).
National Youth Crime Prevention Demonstration Act
    On March 31, 1998, Mr. Conyers introduced H.R. 3607, the 
``National Youth Crime Prevention Demonstration Act.'' H.R. 
3607 provides grants to grassroots organizations in certain 
cities to develop youth intervention models. The bill was 
referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
the Education and the Workforce. On April 15, 1998, the bill 
was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime. On July 31, 1998, 
the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged from further 
consideration. On August 5, 1998, the full Committee met in 
open session and considered H.R. 3607. The bill was ordered 
reported favorably to the House, amended. No further action was 
taken on H.R. 3607 in the 105th Congress.
Juvenile Rape in Prison Protection Act of 1997
    On June 16, 1997, Ms. Jackson Lee introduced H.R. 1898, the 
``Juvenile Rape in Prison Protection Act of 1997.'' H.R. 1898 
would amend section 2241(a) of title 18 of the United States 
Code so as to establish mandatory life imprisonment for anyone 
21 years of age or older who comments the federal offense of 
aggravated sexual abuse in violation of section 2241(a) of 
title 18 of the Unites States Code, where the victim is a 
Federal prisoner who has not attained the age of 18 years.
    On June 18, 1997, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged 
from further consideration and H.R. 1898 was ordered reported 
to the House by the full Committee. H.R. 1898 was reported to 
the House on June 26, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-159). No further 
action was taken on H.R. 1898 in the 105th Congress.

                        PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN

The Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act
    On May 20, 1997, Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 1683, 
the ``Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
Violent Offender Registration Improvements Act of 1997.'' H.R. 
1683 strengthens state Megan's law programs and closes several 
loopholes which allow convicted sex offenders to avoid 
registering their whereabouts with local law enforcement. 
Congress has made several efforts to encourage States to 
establish a system which requires persons who commit sexual or 
kidnaping crimes against children or who commit sexually 
violent crimes against any person (adult or child) to register 
their address and other pertinent information with state law 
enforcement upon release from prison. The Jacob Wetterling Act, 
which passed in the 1994 Crime Bill was the first of such 
legislation (Public Law 103-322). In 1996, Congress amended the 
Wetterling Act in ``Megan's Law'' (Public Law 104-145) which 
requires states to notify the public when sexually violent 
offenders move into their communities. Also in 1996, Congress 
passed the ``Pam Lychner National Sexual Offender Tracking and 
Identification Act,'' which was designed to ensure the 
nationwide availability of sex offender registration 
information to law enforcement (Public Law 104-236). H.R. 1683, 
the ``Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act'' was designed to amend 
previous efforts regarding sex offender registries to require 
federal and military offenders to participate in the program, 
as well as provide States with more flexibility as they 
implemented their own systems. While no hearings were held on 
the bill, formal and informal input was received from the 
Department of Justice and from several State and local 
government officials, law enforcement officers and criminal 
history repository directors.
    On June 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Crime considered H.R. 
1683, and the bill was ordered reported favorably to the full 
Committee. On September 9, 1997, the full Committee ordered the 
bill reported favorably to the House, amended, (H. Rept. 105-
256). On September 23, 1997, the bill passed the House, as 
amended, under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 415 yeas, 
2 nays, and 1 voting ``present.'' The text of H.R. 1683 was 
incorporated into the Commerce, Justice, State and the 
Judiciary Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, which was 
signed on November 26, 1997 (Public Law 105-119).
The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998
    During the 104th and 105th Congresses, the Subcommittee on 
Crime held a total of seven hearings on issues related to 
crimes against children. At those hearings, the Subcommittee 
heard testimony from victim parents, child safety advocacy 
groups, and federal, state and local law enforcement about the 
nature, threat and best ways to stop pedophiles who prey on 
innocent children.
    While there are currently no estimates as to the number of 
children victimized via cyberspace, the rate at which federal, 
state, and local law enforcement are confronted with these 
types of cases is growing rapidly. As we usher in the computer 
age, law enforcement will be confronted with even newer 
challenges. ``Cyber-predators'' often ``cruise'' the Internet 
in search of lonely, rebellious or trusting young people. 
Pedophiles can easily find children through on-line ``chat 
rooms'' and ``bulletin boards'' designed for and frequented by 
children. These on-line forums allow computer users to exchange 
typed messages about a particular subject and to engage in 
conversations with like-minded souls, often perfect strangers. 
In this environment, a middle-aged man could actually be 
masquerading as a 12-year-old girl. Clever pedophiles manage to 
befriend and gain the trust of youngsters who may eventually 
agree to a face-to-face meeting. In recent cases, youths who 
have agreed to such meetings have been photographed for child 
pornography, raped, beaten, robbed, and kidnaped.
    Several well-publicized tragedies occurred around the 
nation during the 105th Congress which led to the hearings held 
by the Subcommittee on Crime: In New Jersey, a 15-year-old 
teenager accused of sexually assaulting and murdering an 11-
year-old boy was discovered to be himself a victim of sexual 
assault by a 43-year-old-man he met in an America On Line chat 
room. In Maryland, a computer consultant was convicted in 
federal court of two counts of crossing state lines to engage 
in sex with a minor. The man had used the Internet to contact 
over 100 girls and had arranged to meet a 12-year-old girl at 
the Burke, Virginia, public library when he was caught. A 
missing 12-year-old, Palm Springs, California, boy was found in 
the home of a Fairfax, Virginia, man with whom he had 
communicated via telephone and the Internet. The boy was 
apparently persuaded by the Fairfax man to take a bus to 
Virginia. There, the boy was sexually abused for several weeks 
before he was located by authorities.
    During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime held 2 
days of hearings on issues related to H.R. 3494 on November 7, 
1997, and April 30, 1998. At the November 7, 1997, hearing, 
witnesses invited by the Subcommittee were members of law 
enforcement who had worked cases involving Internet crimes 
against children on a day-to-day basis, or they were 
individuals who had worked with children and families to 
promote on-line safety on the Internet. They included: Steven 
Wiley, Section Chief, Violent Crimes Unit, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation; Carol Ellison, senior editor, HomePC Magazine; 
D. Douglas Rehman, Special Agent, Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement; Cathy Cleaver, Legal Counsel, Family Research 
Council; and Paul Reid, Detective, Arlington County Police 
Department.
    On March 18, 1998, Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 3494, 
the ``Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 
1998.'' The bill is a comprehensive package of new crimes and 
increased penalties developed in response to assaults on 
children, particularly those facilitated by computers. The bill 
toughens penalties for pedophiles who stalk children on the 
Internet and provides law enforcement with tools to track down 
kidnappers, child pornographers and serial killers. As 
introduced, the bill prohibits contacting a minor over the 
Internet for the purposes of engaging in illegal sexual 
activity and prohibits knowingly transferring obscene materials 
to a minor over the Internet. H.R. 3494 also prohibits the use 
of interstate facilities to transmit identifying information 
about a minor for criminal sexual purposes. Moreover, the bill, 
as introduced, establishes a minimum sentence of 3 years for 
using a computer to coerce or entice a minor to engage in 
illegal sexual activity.
    H.R. 3494 targets pedophiles who use and distribute child 
pornography to lure children into sexual encounters. The bill 
increases penalties for possessing 50 or more images of or 
items containing child pornography and broadens the scope of 
current law relating to the coercion of a minor to travel in 
interstate commerce to engage in sexual activity to include the 
``production of child pornography.'' In addition, the bill 
permits the forfeiture of assets utilized to distribute or 
possess ``morphed'' child pornography. H.R. 3494 also 
authorizes pretrial detention of federal child sex offenders 
and allows for criminal forfeiture for certain federal sex 
offenses.
    As introduced, H.R. 3494 also mandates life in prison for 
serial rapists--those who commit federal sexual assaults and 
have been convicted twice previously of serious state or 
federal sex crimes. The bill increases the maximum prison 
sentence from 10 to 15 years for transporting a minor in 
interstate commerce for prostitution or sexual activity, and 
requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend the 
sentencing guidelines to increase the penalties for certain 
federal sex offenses against minors. H.R. 3494 also doubles 
prison sentences for abusive sexual contact if the victim is 
under the age of 12 and doubles the maximum prison sentence 
available for second-time sex offenders. The bill also 
authorizes the pursuit of a civil remedy for personal injuries 
resulting from certain sex crimes against children.
    Lastly, H.R. 3494 gives law enforcement the tools it needs 
to track down kidnappers, and serial killers. Importantly, the 
bill allows for administrative subpoenas in certain child 
exploitation investigations and provides for the immediate 
commencement of federal investigations in kidnaping cases. H.R. 
3494 also restructures the currently existing Morgan P. 
Hardiman Missing and Exploited Children's Task Force into a 
resource center to improve its effectiveness in kidnaping and 
serial murder investigations. As amended in Committee, the bill 
also prohibits unsupervised access to the Internet by federal 
prisoners; expresses a sense of Congress that state governors, 
state legislators, and state prison officials should also 
prohibit unsupervised access to the Internet by state 
prisoners; and requires the Attorney General to report to 
Congress on the extent to which states currently allow prisoner 
access to the Internet.
    On April 30, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
3494 and related bills pertaining to crimes against children. 
Those bills included H.R. 305, the ``Protection from Sexual 
Predators Act of 1997''; H.R. 1972, the ``Children's Privacy 
Protection and Parental Empowerment Act of 1997''; H.R. 2173, 
the ``Child Abuse Notification Act of 1997''; H.R. 2122, the 
``Joan's Law Act of 1997''; H.R. 2488, the ``Volunteers for 
Children Act''; H.R. 2815, the ``Protecting Children From 
Internet Predators Act of 1997''; H.R. 3185, the ``Abolishing 
Child Pornography Act''; H.R. 3729, the ``Stop Trafficking of 
Pornography in Prisons Act of 1998'' and H. Con. Res. 125, 
expressing the sense of the Congress that each State should 
enact legislation regarding notification procedures necessary 
when a sexually violent offender is released.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from Deborah Niemann-
Boehle, Chicago, Illinois; the Honorable Jerry Weller, Eleventh 
District of Illinois, U.S. House of Representatives; the 
Honorable Bob Franks, Seventh District of New Jersey, U.S. 
House of Representatives; the Honorable Gil Gutknecht, First 
District of Minnesota, U.S. House of Representatives; the 
Honorable Debra Pryce, Fifteenth District of Ohio, U.S. House 
of Representatives; the Honorable Nick Lampson, Ninth District 
of Texas, U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Bob 
Riley, Third District of Alabama, U.S. House of 
Representatives; the Honorable Louise Slaughter, Twenty-Eighth 
District of New York, U.S. House of Representatives; and the 
Honorable Mark Foley, Sixteenth District of Florida, U.S. House 
of Representatives. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from 
the Administration: Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
    On April 30, 1998, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged 
from further consideration. On May 6, 1998, the full Committee 
considered the bill in open session and ordered it reported 
favorably to the House as amended (H. Rept. 105-557). On June 
11, 1998, H.R. 3494 passed the House, as amended, with 
additional floor amendments by a vote of 416 yeas to 0 nays, 
and 1 voting ``present.'' On June 16, 1998, the bill was 
reported favorably to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On 
September 17, 1998, H.R. 3494, the ``Protection of Children 
from Sexual Predators Act'' was reported favorably to the 
Senate, amended. On October 9, 1998, the bill passed the Senate 
with additional floor amendments by unanimous consent.
     Several provisions were stricken from the House-passed 
bill by the Senate. While the House bill would have prohibited 
contacting a minor over the Internet for the purposes of 
engaging in illegal sexual activity and would have established 
a 3-year minimum term of imprisonment for using a computer to 
entice or coerce a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, 
the Senate did not adopt this language. The House bill would 
have also cracked down on serial rapists by mandating life in 
prison for such repeat offenders and would have increased 
penalties for possessing 50 or more images of or items 
containing child pornography, the Senate struck this language 
during Committee markup. The House bill would have authorized 
federal jurisdiction in kidnaping cases if any facility or 
means of interstate or foreign commerce was used in furtherance 
of the offense or the kidnaping offense affects interstate or 
foreign commerce and would have reauthorized certain Violence 
Against Women Act provisions, but Senate did not adopt these 
provisions. On October 12, 1998, the House agreed to the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 3494 by a vote of 400 yeas to 0 nays, and 2 
voting ``present.'' H.R. 3494, the ``Protection of Children 
from Sexual Predators Act of 1998,'' was signed into law by the 
President on October 30, 1998 (Public Law 105-314).
Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997
    On March 26, 1998, the Subcommittee held a markup and 
considered H.R. 2925, the ``Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 
1997.'' The bill was ordered favorably reported to the full 
Committee. H.R. 2925 establishes federal penalties for the 
egregious failure to pay legal child support obligations. On 
April 1, 1998, H.R. 2925 was considered by the full Committee 
and ordered reported favorably to the House. On May 7, 1998, 
Mr. Hyde introduced an identical version to H.R. 2925, H.R. 
3811, the ``Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998.'' On May 
11, 1998, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged from further 
consideration; on May 12, 1998, the full Committee was 
discharged from further consideration. On May 12, 1998, H.R. 
3811 passed the House in lieu of H.R. 2925 under suspension of 
the rules, by a vote of 402 yeas to 16 nays. H.R. 3811 was 
passed by the Senate on June 5, 1998, and signed by the 
President on June 24, 1998 (Public Law 105-187).
No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists, or Child Molesters Act of 
        1998
    Despite the fact that violent criminals are serving longer 
sentences nationwide, and expected days of imprisonment have 
slowly recovered from an all-time-low in the mid-70s, 
accountability in our nation's criminal justice systems is 
still lacking. The justice system imprisons barely one criminal 
for every 100 violent crimes. In 1994, the most recent year in 
which coinciding data is available 10,900,000 million violent 
crimes were committed in the United States, yet 1,860,000 of 
these violent crimes were reported to the police. There were 
778,000 arrests, 165,000 convictions, and of those arrested, 
100,000 were sent to prison.
    According to the Department of Justice, the average 
sentence for a violent crime is 9.8 years. The average time 
served for a violent crime is 4.5 years, or 46 percent of that 
sentence. For all offenses, the average sentence is 5.9 years, 
the average time served 2.2 years or 38 percent of that 
sentence. Many offenders who are released from prison go on to 
commit new crimes. Two-thirds of all individuals arrested for 
murder, rape, robbery, or assault in 1994 had a prior arrest, 
almost 40 percent had at least 5 prior arrests. Over a 3-year 
period following prison release, more than half of individuals 
convicted rape and half of those convicted of sexual assault 
were re-arrested for new crimes. The failure to hold convicted 
violent or repeat criminals accountable for their crimes has 
done much to erode public trust in our criminal justice system. 
The failure to incarcerate these chronic offenders costs 
thousands of lives each year. . . .
    On September 17, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 4258, the ``No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists, or 
Child Molesters Act of 1998.'' H.R. 4258 would levy penalties 
against states after they have released violent offenders who 
have served their sentences if the offender crosses state lines 
and commits a new crime of violence. If an offender is 
convicted of murder or specified sex crimes in one state served 
his time, was released, and traveled to a second state where he 
committed a similar crime, the bill would require the U.S. 
Attorney General to transfer $100,000 from the first state's 
funds from federal law enforcement assistance programs to the 
second state. In addition to the sponsor of the bill, 
Congressman Matt Salmon, 1st District of Arizona, the witnesses 
who testified at the hearing were victims, or family members of 
victims, of violent crimes committed by repeat offenders. They 
included: Marc Klaas, Sausalito, California; Mary Vincent and 
Mark Edwards, Esq., Santa Ana California; Louis Gonzales, 
Newfield, New Jersey; Trina Easterling, Slydell, Louisiana; and 
Jeremy Brown, South Nyack, New York. No further action was 
taken on H.R. 4258 in the 105th Congress.
Violent Crimes Committed by Repeat Offenders and Criminals Serving 
        Abbreviated Sentences
    On May 7, 1997, Mr. Barcia introduced H. Con. Res. 75, 
which expresses the sense of Congress that States should work 
more aggressively to attack the problem of violent crimes 
committed by repeat offenders and criminals serving abbreviated 
sentences. The legislation commends those States which have 
made improvements in their criminal justice laws to ensure that 
criminals serve an appropriate amount of time in prison, and 
encourages the remaining States to adopt legislation to 
increase the amount of time served by violent offenders. The 
resolution further emphasizes Congress' support for the 
requirement that violent criminals should serve at least 85% of 
their sentences. H. Con. Res. 75 was ordered reported to the 
full Committee by the Subcommittee on Crime on June 12, 1997. 
On June 18, 1997, the resolution was ordered reported to the 
House and reported to the House on June 26, 1997, (H. Rept. 
105-157). On June 28, 1997, H. Con. Res. 75 was considered by 
the House and agreed to by the House with an amendment on July 
29, 1997 (400 yeas; 24 nays; and 1 present). On July 29, 1997, 
the resolution was referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary. On June 15, 1998, the Senate Judiciary Committee was 
discharged and the resolution was agreed to by the Senate.
The Protection of Our Children Should Be the Nation's Highest Priority
    On May 20, 1997, Mr. Collins introduced H. Res. 154, a 
resolution expressing the sense of the House that the Nation's 
children are its most valuable assets and that their protection 
should be the Nation's highest priority. H. Res. 154 is to 
express Congressional commitment to the safety and protection 
of our Nation's children. It provides that the States should 
have in place laws which severely punish individuals convicted 
of offenses against children. The resolution declares that law 
enforcement agencies should take the necessary steps to 
safeguard children against the dangers of abduction and 
exploitation and should work in close cooperation with Federal 
law enforcement to ensure a rapid and efficient response to 
reported child abductions, especially in cases where a child's 
life may be in danger. No hearings were held on H. Res. 154.
     The Subcommittee on Crime ordered H. Res. 154 reported to 
the full Committee on June 12, 1997. On June 18, 1997, the 
resolution was ordered reported to the House by the Judiciary 
Committee and the resolution was reported to the House on June 
26, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-160). On July 8, 1997, H. Res. 154 was 
agreed to by the House.

                    REINVIGORATING THE WAR ON DRUGS

    Almost all of the indicators regarding the drug problem in 
America--most significantly, youth drug use--are heading in the 
wrong direction. Drug quantity is up; drug prices are down, and 
drug use is up. Consequently, the Subcommittee on Crime has 
focused aggressively on the growing drug crisis in America. It 
has done so with an eye toward ensuring an effective counter 
drug response on all fronts: drug source countries, where the 
drugs are grown; the transit zone, where drugs can be 
interdicted; domestic law enforcement, focusing on dismantling 
large trafficking organizations; and demand reduction. 
Specifically, the Subcommittee has sought to correct the 
imbalanced approach to the drug problem of the last 6 years by 
rebuilding the U.S. source country and interdiction capability, 
and by further strengthening our domestic law enforcement 
capability.
Western Hemisphere Act of 1998
    H.R. 4300, The ``Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act'' 
was introduced by Chairman McCollum on July 22, 1998. In 1998, 
the streets of our nation are flooded with more cocaine and 
heroin at cheaper prices than at any time in our history. This 
legislation is intended to provide the resources and the 
direction to reduce the supply of drugs coming into our nation 
from abroad. The plan put forth in this legislation is designed 
to cut the flow of drugs into our country by 80% within 4 
years. It is the most dramatic, exhaustive, targeted effort 
ever conceived to stop the drug flow from Latin America.
    The legislation is intended to strengthen the counter 
narcotics infrastructure in source countries and transit zones 
from 1999 through 2001. Such infrastructure will require a mix 
of improved intelligence, personnel, technology and training, 
all of which are provided by this legislation.
    All of the cocaine entering the United States comes from 
Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. More than half the heroin entering 
the United States and virtually all of it in the eastern half 
comes from Colombia. While some heroin is produced in Mexico, 
Mexico is principally a transit country. The objective in this 
legislation is to cut the flow of cocaine and heroin not only 
before it reaches the United States, but before it reaches 
Mexico. The plan and the specific resources authorized in this 
bill were developed from a ``bottom-up'' review involving 
extensive input from the Department of Defense, State 
Department, Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. 
Intelligence personnel on the ground working in Colombia, Peru, 
Bolivia, and the transit zone north of these source countries.
    The legislation was referred to 5 committees (Committees on 
International Relations, Ways and Means, the Judiciary, 
National Security, and Transportation and Infrastructure). The 
Judiciary Committee was discharged on September 15, 1998. On 
September 16, 1998, H.R. 4300 passed the House, amended, by a 
vote of 384 yeas to 39 nays. Much of the language from H.R. 
4300 was included in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 (H. Rept. 
105-825, Public Law 105-277).
Drug Demand Reduction Act
    On September 11, 1998, Mr. Portman introduced H.R. 4550, 
the ``Drug Demand Reduction Act.'' H.R. 4550 was referred to 
the Committee on Commerce in addition to the Committees on 
Government Reform and Oversight, Small Business, Transportation 
and Infrastructure, the Judiciary and Education and the 
Workforce. On September 14, 1998, this bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. The Judiciary Committee was discharged 
on September 16, 1998. On September 16, 1998, the House passed 
the bill with an amendment (396 yeas; 9 nays). On September 17, 
1998, H.R. 4550 was received in the Senate. No hearings were 
held, no report was filed on this bill. No further action was 
taken on H.R. 4550 in the 105th Congress.
The Medical Marijuana Referenda Movement in America
    After years of decline, marijuana use dramatically 
increased in recent years. The number of individuals seeking 
treatment for marijuana addiction rose to more than 140,000 in 
1996. The University of Michigan's ``Monitoring the Future 
Survey'' reveals that marijuana use by 8th, 10th, and 12th 
graders declined steadily from 1980 to 1992. But, from 1992 to 
1996, marijuana use by these populations increased 
dramatically--by 253 percent among 8th graders, 151 percent 
among 10th graders, and 84 percent among 12th graders. 
Marijuana users are also younger. The annual survey conducted 
by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America released on March 4, 
1997, found that among children 9 through 12 years of age who 
were interviewed, nearly one-fourth of them were offered drugs 
in 1996, with marijuana being the predominant drug offered. 
Only 19 percent of the same age group gave this response on the 
survey covering 1993. The 1996 ``Monitoring the Future Survey'' 
reported that 8 percent of 6th graders interviewed said they 
had tried marijuana, while 23 percent of the 7th graders and 33 
percent of the 8th graders said they had done so.
    The harmful effects of marijuana use are now clear, having 
been extensively studied since the 1960s. For example, the 
gateway effect of marijuana is better understood: According to 
the 1994 study by Columbia University's Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse, 12 to 17-year-olds who use marijuana are 85 
times more likely to use cocaine than those who abstain from 
marijuana. The study further reveals that 60 percent of 
adolescents who use marijuana before the age 15 will later use 
cocaine, and 43 percent of teenagers who use marijuana by age 
18 go on to use cocaine.
    A review of over 6,000 articles from the medical 
literature, published in the May 15, 1997, Annals of Internal 
Medicine evaluating the potential medicinal applications of 
crude marijuana, concluded the following: marijuana is not a 
medicine; its use causes significant toxicity; numerous safe 
and effective medicines are available which makes the use of 
crude marijuana unnecessary and inappropriate for medicinal 
purposes. Claims that smoking marijuana is beneficial for a 
variety of illnesses are anecdotal and not founded in 
scientifically accepted research. To the contrary, according to 
the National Institute of Health (NIH), research indicates that 
smoking marijuana may lead to a variety of clinically 
significant impairments. At the same time, experts at the NIH 
have indicated that some of the more than 65 cannaboids in the 
marijuana plant may prove to be medically beneficial, 
suggesting that additional research in this area may be 
helpful. However, due to the fact that smoking plant material 
poses patient dangers as well as dose standardizing problems, 
NIH encourages the development of delivery routes other than 
smoking.
    The federal drug approval process has been a long-
established element of U.S. drug control policy. Before any 
drug can be approved as a medication it must meet rigorous and 
extensive scientific criteria, as established by the Food and 
Drug Administration. As such, no drug can be prescribed without 
first having obtained FDA approval. Currently, marijuana--in 
any form--has not been approved as medication.
    On October 1, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
Medical Marijuana Referenda Movement in America. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Barry McCaffrey, Director, 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, The White House; Dr. 
Alan Leshner, Director, National Institute of Drug Abuse, 
Department of Health and Human Services; James E. Copple, 
President and CEO, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, 
Alexandria, Virginia; Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County 
Attorney, Maricopa County, Arizona; Dennis Peron, Director, 
Californians for Compassionate Use, San Francisco, California; 
Dr. Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor of Psychiatry, 
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Ronald E. 
Brooks, Chair, Drug Policy Committee, California Narcotic 
Officers'' Association, Santa Clara, California; Dr. Janet D. 
Lapey, Executive Director, Concerned Citizens for Drug 
Prevention, Inc., Hanover, Massachusetts; Dr. Roger Pilon, 
Senior Fellow, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.
    On February 26, 1998, Chairman McCollum introduced H. Res. 
372, expressing the sense of the House that marijuana is a 
dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized for 
medicinal use. The resolution also calls on the Attorney 
General to submit a report to the House Judiciary Committee 
within 90 days of the adoption of this resolution which reports 
on: (a) the total quantity of marijuana eradicated in the 
United States from 1992 through 1997; and (b) the annual number 
of arrests and prosecutions for marijuana offenses from 1992 
through 1997.
    H. Res. 372 was introduced February 26, 1998 (in form 
agreed upon by the Subcommittee on Crime on February 25, 1998) 
and forwarded to the full Committee as an original resolution. 
It was additionally referred to the Committee on Commerce. The 
full Committee met in open session and considered H. Res. 372, 
ordering it reported favorably to the House (H. Rept. 105-451). 
On March 18, 1998, the Committee on Commerce was discharged 
from further consideration. On March 18, 1998, H. Res. 372 was 
placed on the House Calendar. On April 30, 1998, Chairman 
McCollum introduced a revised version of H. Res. 372, H.J. Res. 
117. On September 15, 1998, H.J. Res. 117 passed the House, 
under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 310 yeas to 93 
nays. The title was amended to read, ``Expressing the sense of 
Congress in support of the existing Federal legal process for 
determining the safety and efficacy of drugs, including 
marijuana and other schedule I drugs, for medicinal use.''
    Language similar to H.J. Res. 117 was incorporated into the 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 1999. The resolution declares the support 
of Congress for the current legal, medical process for 
evaluating the safety and efficacy of medications and expresses 
Congressional opposition to legalizing marijuana for medicinal 
use without the Food and Drug Administration approving its use 
as a medication (can be found in H. Rept. 105-825, Public Law 
105-277).
Money Laundering
    Since the current money laundering laws were enacted in 
1986, the criminal conduct that those laws were intended to 
address has become increasingly international in scope. 
Criminals who commit crimes abroad are using the United States 
and its financial institutions as havens for laundered funds, 
at the same time that criminals committing offenses in the 
United States are using foreign banks and bank secrecy 
jurisdictions to conceal the proceeds of their offenses.
    In the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime sought to 
address this truly international law enforcement problem. On 
July 24, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the nature 
and extent of domestic and international money laundering, its 
role in the international drug trade, and methods of combating 
the problem. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Mary Lee 
Warren, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, 
U.S. Department of Justice; Raymond Kelly, Under Secretary of 
the Treasury for Enforcement, Department of the Treasury; 
Michael Zeldin, Partner, Price Waterhouse LLP; Vincent 
Bugliosi, author, The Phoenix Solution; Charles Saphos, 
Partner, Fila & Saphos; John Byrne, Senior Counsel & Compliance 
Manager, American Bankers Association; Brendon Hewson, Senior 
Vice President, International Investigations, NationsBank.
    The Subcommittee also held a hearing on October 16, 1997, 
on the anatomy of a Colombian drug trafficking operation in the 
United States. The Subcommittee heard testimony from only one 
witness, ``Mr. Rodriguez,'' a former member of the New York 
Branch of the Medellin Cartel (assumed name for the purposes of 
the hearing). At the hearing the Subcommittee heard first hand 
information about how drugs and money are illegally transported 
by drug cartels.
    On April 29, 1998, Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 3745, 
the ``Money Laundering Act of 1998.'' H.R. 3745 updates the 
money laundering laws to enable law enforcement to respond to 
the increasingly international nature of money laundering. It 
does so by making the operation of an illegal money 
transmitting business subject to civil forfeiture; authorizing 
federal courts to restrain the U.S. assets of a person arrested 
abroad for certain offenses (including money laundering, 
reporting violations, and ``structuring'' offenses) so as to 
prevent those assets from disappearing; requiring litigants to 
make records in bank secrecy jurisdictions (in foreign 
countries) available to the Government, if the records are 
material to a claim pending in federal court; granting federal 
courts jurisdiction over civil money laundering actions filed 
against foreign banks that launder money in the U.S.; expanding 
the list of foreign ``specified unlawful activities'' 
(predicate offenses for money laundering) to include offenses 
such as foreign crimes of violence, fraud, bribery, and 
smuggling; and authorizing the Secretary of State to transfer 
forfeited property to a foreign country which participated in 
the seizure or forfeiture of the property, even if that country 
has not been fully certified (pursuant to the annual drug 
certification process), if the Secretary finds the transfer to 
be in the national interest.
    On June 5, 1998, the Subcommittee on Crime held a markup 
and considered H.R. 3745, the ``Money Laundering Act of 1998,'' 
and the bill was ordered reported favorably to the full 
Committee. No further action was taken on H.R. 3745 in the 
105th Congress.
Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1997
    On June 16, 1997, H.R. 1756, the ``Money Laundering and 
Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1997,'' was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. H.R. 1756 was reported favorably to the 
House with an amendment from the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services on June 25, 1998 (H. Rept. 105-608, part 1). 
The Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further 
consideration July 31, 1998. On October 5, 1998, H.R. 1756 
passed the House with an amendment under suspension of the 
rules. On October 6, 1998, the bill was received in the Senate. 
The Senate passed H.R. 1756 with an amendment on October 15, 
1998. On October 16, 1998, the House agreed to the Senate 
amendment. H.R. 1756 was approved by the President on October 
30, 1998. (Public Law 105-310).
Violent Crimes Committed by Repeat Offenders and Criminals Serving 
        Abbreviated Sentences
    On June 9, 1998, Mr. Bachus introduced H. Con. Res. 288, a 
resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United 
States should support the efforts of Federal law enforcement 
agents engaged in investigation and prosecution of money 
laundering associated with Mexican financial institutions.
    On June 16, 1998, H. Con. Res. 288 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. No hearings were held and no report was 
filed. On June 22, 1998, the Committee was discharged from 
further consideration and the resolution was agreed to by the 
House (404 yeas; 3 nays). H. Con. Res. 288 was referred the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary June 23, 1998. No further 
action was taken on H. Con. Res. 288 in the 105th Congress.
Speed Trafficking Life in Prison Act of 1997
    In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee held two hearings 
on the increased presence of methamphetamine (often called 
``speed'') trafficking in America. One of those hearings 
examined issues related to a bill introduced in the 104th 
Congress, H.R. 3852, the ``Comprehensive Methamphetamine 
Control Act of 1996.'' The Senate companion bill, S. 1965 was 
amended and passed by the Congress and signed by the President 
on October 3, 1996 (Public Law 104-237). Not all the provisions 
in the ``Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996,'' 
were passed in the final version that became law in the 104th 
Congress. The Senate did not adopt a provision to increase 
penalties for trafficking methamphetamine equal to those of 
crack-cocaine.
    In the 105th Congress, Congressman Pete Sessions introduced 
H.R. 3898, the ``Speed Trafficking Life in Prison Act of 
1997.'' H.R. 3898 included the provision from the 
``Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996'' which was 
not adopted in the 104th Congress. H.R. 3898 reduces by one-
half the quantity of methamphetamine required to trigger 
already existing mandatory minimum prison sentences, so as to 
make the penalty equal to that of crack-cocaine. On May 19, 
1998, H.R. 3898 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
and the Committee on Commerce for consideration of such 
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
concerned. On May 26, 1998, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. On June 5, 1998, the Subcommittee held a 
markup and H.R. 3898 was ordered favorably reported the full 
Committee. On July 21, 1998, the full Committee held a markup 
and H.R. 3898 was ordered favorably reported to the House by a 
vote of 21 yeas to 6 nays (H. Rept. 105-711, part I). On 
September 14, 1998, the Committee on Commerce was discharged 
from further consideration. On September 15, 1998, H.R. 3898 
passed the House, under suspension of the rules. While no 
further action was taken on H.R. 3898 in the 105th Congress, 
language from H.R. 3898 was incorporated in the Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 1999 (H. Rept. 105-825, Public Law 105-277).
Controlled Substances Trafficking Prohibition Act
    On April 1, 1998, Mr. Chabot introduced H.R. 3633, the 
``Controlled Substances Trafficking Prohibition Act'' which 
places limitations on controlled substances brought into the 
United States from Mexico. The bill was referred jointly to the 
Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Commerce. On March 26, 
1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on issues related to the 
problem of individuals bringing large quantities of illegal 
prescription drugs across our borders into the United States. 
The Subcommittee heard testimony from the sponsor of the bill, 
the Honorable Steve Chabot, First District of Ohio, U.S. House 
of Representatives; Matt Meagher, Senior Investigative 
Correspondent, Inside Edition; Wesley S. Windle, Program 
Officer, Passenger Operations Division, U.S. Customs Service; 
Christopher E. Anders, Legislative Counsel, American Civil 
Liberties Union; Marilyn Wolfe; Michael G. Graney, Executive 
Vice President, New York Council 82, American Federation of 
State, County, and Municipal Employees; Correctional Officer 
John L. Parcell, Corrections and Criminal Justice Coalition.
    On May 7, 1998, the Subcommittee held a markup and 
considered the bill, H.R. 3633, the ``Controlled Substances 
Trafficking Prohibition Act,'' ordering it favorably reported 
to the full Committee. On May 20, 1998, the full Committee held 
a markup and H.R. 3633 was ordered reported favorably to the 
House (H. Rept. 105-629, part 1). On July 16, 1998, the 
Committee on Commerce was discharged from further 
consideration. On August 3, 1998, H.R. 3633 passed the House, 
was amended by title, under suspension of the rules. On August 
31, 1998, the bill was received in the Senate and on October 
20, 1998, passed by the Senate. H.R. 3633 was approved by the 
President on November 10, 1998. (Public Law 105-357)
Drug Diversion Investigations by the United States Drug Enforcement 
        Administration
    Diversion (the redirecting of drugs from the legal stream 
of commerce into criminal hands) of legitimately produced, 
prescription controlled substances has long been a serious 
problem in the United States. In 1996, licitly manufactured 
controlled substances accounted for one-quarter of drug deaths 
reported by medical examiners and one-quarter of drug-related 
emergency room admissions. In 1995, at least 6.6. million 
Americans abused at least one prescription psychotherapeutic 
drug (e.g., a stimulant, sedative, antidepressant or 
analgesic). Prior to enacting the Controlled Substances Act 
(CSA) in 1970, an estimated 65 percent of all drug deaths in 
the United States arose from licitly produced drugs, and almost 
50 percent of the amphetamines and barbiturates produced 
legitimately in the United States were diverted into illicit 
channels.
    Preventing the diversion of legitimately produced drugs 
into illicit channels is one of the primary missions of the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and a major purpose of 
the CSA. The CSA and the Code of Federal Regulations establish 
a system of drug distribution which is designed to prevent 
unauthorized individuals from engaging in drug diversion and to 
prevent registered individuals from using their authority under 
the CSA to engage in pharmaceutical drug diversion. The core 
requirements of the federal diversion prevention program are 
the registration of all drug manufacturers, distributors, 
dispensers (including hospitals), pharmacies and doctors with 
the DEA and the requirement that all such registrants maintain 
careful records, as prescribed in the Code of Federal 
Regulations. These records ensure a ``paper trail'' to account 
for each transaction, both to deter diversion and to enable 
actual diversion to be investigated. The registration and 
extensive record-keeping requirements make the pharmaceutical 
and legitimate drug industry among the most pervasively 
regulated industries in the United States.
    The DEA is charged with enforcing the record-keeping 
requirements established in the CSA, with the aim of deterring 
drug diversion and identifying actual and potential sources of 
diversion. Section 842 of title 21, United States Code, 
establishes the principal record-keeping requirements on 
registrants. Subsection 842(a)(5) provides that it is unlawful 
for any registrant ``to refuse or fail to make, keep, or 
furnish any record, report, notification, declaration, order or 
order form, statement, invoice, or information required under 
this subchapter . . .'' Subsection (a)(10) imposes an 
additional, similar record-keeping requirement on registrants. 
These two regulatory provisions do not require that the failure 
to keep records properly must be ``knowing.'' Rather, they 
establish a strict liability standard for non adherence. This 
strict liability standard has been identified by law 
enforcement as the principal contributing factor to the 
development of an industry culture of extensive care and 
precision regarding record-keeping. Industry representatives, 
on the other hand, have argued that the strict liability 
standard punishes innocent, unintentional and minor record-
keeping mistakes, whether or not those mistakes led to any 
diversion.
    Section 842(c) establishes civil penalties of up to $25,000 
for a violation of the record-keeping and reporting 
requirements in the CSA. This maximum fine amount has been 
identified by law enforcement as an extremely effective 
inducement to comply with the record-keeping requirements. 
Industry representatives, on the other hand, have argued that 
the maximum fine amount has led to unacceptable practices by 
law enforcement. This includes the tallying up of all of the 
record-keeping mistakes by a registrant and then threatening 
the maximum possible civil fine corresponding to the mistakes--
at times totaling millions of dollars. Even if no case is 
brought, or no settlement is reached, the registrant has had to 
endure the considerable cost and possible damage to reputation 
associated with defending against the possible suit. Witnesses 
on the second panel will provide testimony regarding specific 
instances of this practice.
    There were 2,211 total diversion investigations in fiscal 
year 1997. Of these, 151 (or 6.8%) were pharmacy 
investigations, leading to 130 ``actions'' being taken against 
pharmacies. These 130 actions consisted of 52 letters of 
admonition, 35 civil fines, 22 criminal fines, 19 voluntary 
surrenders of registration, and two administrative hearings.
    The civil penalty authority has been used sparingly over 
the years. The total number of registrants under the CSA in 
fiscal year 1997 was 955,207. Of these, 63,065 (or 6.6%) were 
pharmacy registrants. Of the 63,065 pharmacies registered with 
the DEA in fiscal year 1997, only 35 (or 0.055%) paid a civil 
penalty. Of those 35 pharmacies, four were chain drug stores.
    The DEA Diversion Program emphasizes cooperation with and 
voluntary compliance by registrants. It is DEA policy that 
civil actions are not encouraged as a primary compliance tool, 
except in instances of actual, willful diversion, or where a 
registrant's irresponsibility or unwillingness to comply has 
created a strong potential for diversion. The Department of 
Justice maintains that federal prosecutors have not, as a rule, 
sought civil penalties except in cases of egregious, extensive 
or repeated violations.
    On August 6, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on drug 
diversion investigations by the United States Drug Enforcement 
Administration. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Rick 
Beard, owner, Harvest Drug & Gift, Burkburnett, Texas; Philip 
P. Burgess, National Director of Pharmacy Operations, Walgreen 
Corporation, Deerfield, Illinois; David R. Work, Executive 
Director, North Carolina Board of Pharmacy, Carrboro, North 
Carolina; James R. Phelps, Attorney, Phelps & McNamara, P.C., 
Washington, D.C. Language providing pharmacies with a needed 
measure of relief, without weakening DEA diversion 
investigation was incorporated in the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 
(H. Rept. 105-825, Public Law 105-277).
Date-Rape Drugs
    On July 30, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
use of controlled substance used to commit date-rape. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Raul Farias, La Porte, Texas; 
Michael Stevens, Detective, Undercover Drug Investigations, 
Orlando Police Department, Orlando, Florida; Dr. Joyce M. 
Carter, Chief Medical Examiner, Joseph A. Jachimczyk, Forensic 
Center, Houston, Texas; Paul Doering, Professor, Department of 
Pharmacy Practice, University of Florida; John H. King III, 
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

                    VITAL TOOLS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Multipoint Wiretapping
    In the last few years there have been rapid advances in the 
area of wireless communications. Wireless telephones have 
become increasingly available in all areas of the country and 
have become so affordable that they have become common, 
everyday devices. Unfortunately, this technology has also given 
criminals new tools with which to commit crime and a new 
mobility allowing them to better evade detection. Over the past 
several years, law enforcement agencies have discussed with the 
Committee their concern that the common manner of intercepting 
telephone calls--placing a wiretap on a single, stationary 
telephone--was inadequate to investigate crimes such as drug 
dealing, kidnaping, and domestic terrorism. Criminals 
committing these and other crimes well know the limits of the 
wiretap law and often use public telephones, or stolen or 
cloned wireless telephones, in order evade the placing of a 
wiretap that would intercept their communications. Because 
criminals who use pay telephones may never use the same 
telephone with regularity, law enforcement officials are unable 
to obtain a wiretap order on that telephone. Criminals who use 
wireless telephones often discard the telephone or reprogram 
its number every few days in order to evade the placing of a 
wiretap on the phone.
    Existing law does allow law enforcement agencies to obtain 
a wiretap order that does not specify the phone to be tapped--
and thus allowing law enforcement officials to tap any 
telephone used by the person named in the application--but only 
if the agency can show that the person named had acted with the 
``purpose'' to ``thwart interception'' on his telephone calls 
by changing telephones. Law enforcement officials have long 
informed the Committee that they have found it hard to make 
this showing of purpose to the satisfaction of judges.
    In order to remedy this problem, Representative Bill 
McCollum together with Representative Henry Hyde, 
Representative John Conyers, and Representative Chuck Schumer, 
introduced H.R. 3753, the ``Multipoint Wiretap Act of 1998.'' 
The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime. While the 
Subcommittee did not take formal action on this bill, the text 
of the bill was included as section 604 of the Intelligence 
Authorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-272). This section 
makes it easier for law enforcement officials to obtain wiretap 
orders on a specific person. Under the Act, officials now only 
must show the court that the actions of the person named in the 
wiretap application could have the ``effect'' of substantially 
thwarting an interception. In order to balance this lower 
standard to obtain the wiretap order, however, the Act requires 
that judges impose a new requirement--that law enforcement 
officials be prohibited from activating a wiretap until it is 
reasonable to presume that the person named in the order is 
``reasonably proximate'' to the telephone to be tapped.
    Under this new requirement, a person would only be deemed 
``reasonably proximate'' to the telephone when law enforcement 
officials actually observe the person using a telephone (e.g., 
in a public place, at a pay phone, or using a wireless phone in 
a car) or when they are in communication with informants 
present in a building who observe the person using a telephone 
or entering a room where a telephone is known to be. The intent 
behind this provision is to minimize the possibility that the 
government would hear conversations not involving the person 
named in the wiretap order.
Crime Identification Technology Act
    On July 13, 1998, the Senate passed the bill S. 2022, the 
``Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998.'' The bill 
authorizes $250 million a year over 5 years for flexible 
discretionary grants to states to upgrade criminal history 
record systems, promote integration of local, state and 
national criminal justice information and communications 
systems, and assist crime laboratories to reduce the backlog of 
forensic analysis requests that exists throughout the country. 
Grants may be given to states to be used in conjunction with 
units of local government, State and local courts, and other 
states.
    Effective access to criminal history data has become a 
necessity not only for law enforcement agencies, but for school 
districts, volunteer organizations, and a host of professions 
that want to conduct background checks to avoid hiring 
convicted offenders who pose a danger to children. The FBI 
processes approximately 52,000 requests for criminal history 
information via fingerprint cards each day, about half the 
requests are for criminal justice purposes, the other half are 
for civil purposes (government licensing, child care, etc.). 
The federal government has invested significant federal 
resources into systems providing criminal history data, 
including almost $2 billion for the Integrated Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), and the Crime 
Information Center 2000 (NCIC 2000), both of which should be 
fully operational by fall of 1999. The National Integrated 
Ballistics Network (NIBN), the National Criminal History 
Improvement Program (NCHIP), the FBI's National Sex Offender 
Database and the National Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) all 
provide automated searching capabilities to allow law 
enforcement obtain essential evidence and solve crimes. States 
are requested to participate in all of these federal 
initiatives, but many are a long way from becoming 
computerized, nevertheless in a position to exchange compatible 
crime data in a timely manner or in a computer-ready format. 
Many state agencies have inadequate equipment to retrieve 
information from a computer database quickly, or on a 
widespread geographic basis. Presently, there is no 
comprehensive program to support the integration of all of 
these new technologies and systems. All of the benefits of 
these federally funded information and identification systems 
may go largely unrealized unless the states develop the ability 
to use them. It is the purpose of this grant program to enable 
states to utilize such federal initiatives.
    The bill also includes two other provisions. Title II, 
subtitle A of the bill is called the ``National Criminal 
History Access and Child Protection Act'' and provides for a 
compact between the states and the federal government to 
facilitate the exchange of criminal history records for 
noncriminal justice purposes. The compact is somewhat 
administrative in nature, and requires no authorization for 
funding. The Act facilitates authorized interstate criminal 
history record exchanges for noncriminal justice purposes on a 
uniform basis, while permitting each state to effectuate its 
own dissemination and privacy policies within its own borders. 
The Act also allows federal and state records to be provided 
expeditiously to government and nongovernment agencies that use 
such records in accordance with pertinent federal and state law 
while enhancing the accuracy of the records and safeguarding 
the information contained in the records from unauthorized 
disclosure.
    Subtitle B of the bill is called the ``Volunteers for 
Children Act,'' which would amend the National Child Protection 
Act of 1993 (called the ``Oprah Act'') to allow child care, 
elder care or volunteer organizations to request access to FBI 
criminal fingerprint background checks in the absence of 
specific state laws or procedures allowing that access. This 
modest change to current law does not override any state laws 
regarding the use or dissemination of records. The House passed 
this provision in H.R. 3494, the ``Child Protection and Sexual 
Predator Punishment Act,'' which is pending in the Senate.
    On August 4, 1998, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. On September 11, 1998, the Subcommittee 
held a markup and considered S. 2022. On September 14, 1998, 
the bill was ordered reported favorably, as amended, to the 
full Committee. On October 7, 1998, the House Committee on the 
Judiciary was discharged from further consideration. On October 
7, 1998, S. 2022 passed the House, amended, under suspension of 
the rules. On October 8, 1998, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment. On October 9, 1998, S. 2022 was signed into law by 
the President (Public Law 105-251).
National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act of 1997
    H.R. 1839, the ``National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer 
Protection Act of 1997,'' was introduced by Representative Rick 
White on June 10, 1997. This bill will establish nationally 
uniform requirements regarding the titling and registration of 
salvage, nonrepairable, and rebuilt vehicles. On June 23, 1997, 
H.R. 1839 was referred to the Committee on Commerce and the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, for consideration of such provisions 
as fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee concerned. On 
June 23, 1997, H.R. 1839 was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Crime. On September 30, 1997, the bill was reported with an 
amendment to the House by the Committee on Commerce (H. Rept. 
105-285, part 1); also, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
discharged from further consideration. On November 4, 1997, the 
bill passed the House with an amendment and on November 13, 
1997, H.R. 1839 was referred to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation. No hearings were held and 
no further action was taken on H.R. 1839 in the 105th Congress.
Law Enforcement Advertisement Clarification Act of 1997
    On June 10, 1997, Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 1840, 
the ``Law Enforcement Advertisement Clarification Act of 
1997.'' This bill provides a narrow exception to the 
prohibition on advertisement of electronic devices primarily 
designed for interception. Under section 2512 of title 18, 
United States Code, it is unlawful to advertise in interstate 
or foreign commerce ``any electronic, mechanical or other 
device knowing or having reason to know that the design of such 
device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of 
surreptitious interception.'' Unfortunately, the broad 
restriction against advertisements also applies to 
advertisements sent to legitimate law enforcement users.
    H.R. 1840 creates an exception to section 2512, to permit 
the advertisement of devices designed for surreptitious 
interception to an agency of the United States, a State, or a 
political subdivision thereof which is duly authorized to use 
such devices. This bill will allow companies which manufacture 
electronic devices to mail information about their equipment to 
law enforcement agencies. No hearings were held on H.R. 1840.
    On June 12, 1997, H.R. 1840 was ordered reported to the 
full Committee by the Subcommittee on Crime. On June 26, 1997, 
H.R. 1840 was ordered reported to the House (H. Rept. 105-162). 
The bill passed the House on July 8, 1997, and was referred to 
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on July 9, 1997. The 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary was discharged on November 
10, 1997. H.R. 1840 passed the Senate on November 10, 1997. On 
November 21, 1997, the bill was approved by the President and 
became Public Law 105-112.

                             VIOLENT CRIME

Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Criminals Using Firearms
    H.R. 424, introduced by Representative Sue Myrick, amends 
section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code. Section 924(c) 
provides for a mandatory minimum 5 years in prison for ``using 
or carrying'' a firearm during and in relation to the 
commission of a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking 
crime. In the December, 1995 decision Bailey v. United States, 
116 S.Ct. 501, the Supreme Court rejected the Justice 
Department's interpretation of the words ``use or carry,'' so 
that the section 924(c) penalty enhancement could only be 
applied in a narrower set of circumstances. The Court held 
that, in order to receive an enhancement for using or carrying 
a firearm, a defendant must ``actively employ the firearm'' 
during and in relation to the crime of violence or drug 
trafficking offense. In crafting this new standard, the Court 
struck down two decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia.
    H.R. 424 would have changed section 924(c) by striking the 
current ``uses or carries'' standard, and replacing it with the 
terms ``possessing, brandishing or discharging.'' The bill also 
increased penalties under the new scheme of ``possessing, 
brandishing or discharging'' to a mandatory minimum of 10 years 
in prison for possessing, fifteen for brandishing and 20 years 
for discharging.
    On July 16, 1997, the Subcommittee held a markup and H.R. 
424 was ordered reported favorably to the full Committee, 
amended. On September 9, 1997, the full Committee considered 
H.R. 424, and the bill was ordered reported favorably to the 
House, as amended, with an additional Committee amendment, by a 
vote of 17 yeas to 8 nays. The bill was reported to the House 
on October 24, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-344). On February 24, 1998, 
H.R. 424 passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the 
rules, by a vote of 350 yeas to 50 nays). No further action was 
taken on H.R. 424 in the 105th Congress.
    The Senate companion bill to H.R. 424, S. 191, passed the 
Senate on November 6, 1997, as amended. The bill was referred 
to the House Subcommittee on Crime on January 30, 1998. On 
October 9, 1998, the Judiciary Committee was discharged from 
further consideration. On October 9, 1998, S. 191 passed the 
House, amended, under suspension of the rules. The Senate 
concurred in the House amendment on October 15, 1998. The bill 
was signed by the President on November 13, 1998 (Public Law 
105-386). S. 191, as sent to the President, retains the 
``possessing, brandishing or discharging'' language, but lowers 
the penalties to 5, 7 and 10 years, respectively. The penalties 
are higher for a second offense, or if a machine gun, 
destructive device, firearm muffler or firearm silencer are 
used.
Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act of 1997
    On June 12, 1998, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and considered the bill, H.R. 1532, the ``Veteran's 
Cemetery Protection Act of 1997.'' H.R. 1532 provides criminal 
penalties for theft and willful vandalism at national 
cemeteries. During the markup, the Subcommittee amended the 
legislation so that, rather than create a new federal crime, 
the United States Sentencing Commission is directed to increase 
penalties for persons who steal, deface or destroy any federal 
cemetery property. The bill was ordered reported favorably to 
the full Committee, as amended on June 12, 1998. The full 
Committee met in open session and considered the bill, H.R. 
1532, and ordered it favorably reported to the House on June 
21, 1998 (H. Rept. 105-142.) On June 23, 1997, H.R. 1532 passed 
the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules.
    The Senate companion bill to H.R. 1532, S. 813, passed the 
Senate on November 4, 1997, with amendment, by unanimous 
consent. The bill was held at the desk in the House on November 
5, 1997. On November 8, 1997, S. 813 passed the House (in lieu 
of H.R. 1532) under suspension of the rules. The bill was 
signed by the President on November 19, 1997 (Public Law 105-
101.)
Domestic Violence Misdemeanor and Firearms Ownership
    Passed during the 104th Congress, section 658 of the 
Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 (H. Rept. 104-
863) amended Sec. Sec. 921 and 922 of title 18, United States 
Code, to prohibit persons previously convicted of a misdemeanor 
crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. This 
provision was originally adopted in the Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1997 in the Senate through 
a floor amendment offered by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). A 
modified version of this amendment was included in the omnibus 
consolidated appropriations bill by the conferees. The modified 
version narrowed the definition of a ``misdemeanor crime of 
domestic violence,'' included some procedural safeguards, and 
applied the ban to government employees, including police 
officers. Neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate 
held hearings on this issue.
    A ``misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'' is defined 
under the new law as an offense that is (1) either a federal or 
state charge, and (2) has as an element the use or attempted 
use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly 
weapon, and (3) is committed by a current or former spouse, 
parent or guardian, by a person with whom the victim shares a 
child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has 
cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian, or 
by a person similarly situated as a spouse, parent or guardian.
    In order for the gun ban to apply, the law requires that a 
convicted person must have been represented by counsel, or 
knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel. Also, 
if the person was entitled to a jury trial, the law requires 
that the case was tried by a jury, or the right to a jury was 
knowingly and intelligently waived. Furthermore, no person 
shall be considered to have been convicted of a misdemeanor 
crime of domestic violence for purposes of gun ownership if the 
conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for 
which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights 
restored.
    This ban does apply to law enforcement officers, including 
federal agents. A general exemption for police officers and 
military personnel from federal gun control laws does not apply 
to this section. This law represents the first time that law 
enforcement has not enjoyed an exemption from the federal gun 
laws. Employees of government agencies convicted of qualifying 
misdemeanors will not be able to lawfully possess firearms. 
This includes law enforcement officers who may be required by 
their departments or agencies to carry guns for employment 
purposes.
    Law enforcement agencies have been made aware of this new 
restriction. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sent 
out an ``open letter'' to all State and local law enforcement 
agencies describing their responsibilities under the new law. 
BATF warned that all employees subject to this disability must 
immediately dispose of all firearms and ammunition in their 
possession. As this ban also applies to federal agencies, the 
federal government has determined that the appropriate way to 
handle this new requirement is to require all federal agents to 
sign a form certifying that they have never been convicted of a 
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    The Administration is interpreting section 658 to apply 
retroactively to persons convicted of qualifying misdemeanors 
which occurred before the date of enactment of the 
appropriations bill. Advocates for those impacted by the 
prohibition argue that such an interpretation is a violation of 
the ex post facto clause, Article I, section 9 of the U.S. 
Constitution. Broadly defined, an ex post facto law is one 
which retroactively alters or increases a person's punishment 
for a criminal act. These advocates assert that a person who 
had been previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of 
domestic violence is now having that punishment 
unconstitutionally increased by this belated loss of firearm 
ownership.
    Defenders of the provision respond that the law does not 
increase punishment for any earlier misdemeanor crime, rather 
it creates a new law. A person who continues to possess a gun 
after the law became effective is in violation of the new law. 
Moreover, they argue that the prohibitions of Article I, 
section 9 relate only to penal laws, and that the disability 
imposed is designed to accomplish a legitimate governmental 
purpose.
    The ``Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act'' (Public Law 
103-159), which became law in 1993, had two distinct phases. 
Phase I required a 5-day waiting period (unless a State had an 
exemption) for the purchase of a handgun. Phase II required the 
Attorney General to establish, by November 30, 1998, a 
national, instant, criminal background check system. Under the 
Phase II provisions, the 5-day waiting period would terminate, 
and all presale firearms inquiries will be made to a national 
computer system, operated by the FBI.
    The Brady law also required the Attorney General to 
determine the type of computer hardware and software necessary 
to develop the national system, to evaluate each State's 
criminal history records, and set a timetable by which the 
State should be able to provide criminal records on-line. This 
role has been delegated to the FBI.
    This new gun ban for misdemeanor domestic violence 
convictions was added to the list of items in title 18 which a 
State must be able to check before a federal firearms licensee 
can lawfully sell a gun. In order to comply with the Brady law, 
States must now re-develop their computer systems before 
November, 1998, so that the systems have the capability to 
instantly check for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. 
Several States have raised questions regarding the 
implementation of this new law as it impacts on their recently 
developed computer systems. Other States do not have access to 
all misdemeanor conviction records. For example, some States 
destroy the records after a certain period of time, and those 
States are concerned about liability if an unlawful purchaser 
is inadvertently sold a gun.
    Three bills were referred to the Crime Subcommittee. On 
January 7, 1997, Representative Bob Barr introduced H.R. 26, to 
provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of 
a domestic violence conviction do not apply if the conviction 
occurred before the prohibitions became law. On January 9, 
1997, Representative Bart Stupak introduced H.R. 445, to 
provide that firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a 
domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to 
government entities. On March 11, 1997, Representative Helen 
Chenoweth introduced H.R. 1009, to repeal the Lautenberg 
amendment completely.
    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
26 and H.R. 445. (H.R. 1009 was not introduced until the 
following week.) The Subcommittee heard testimony from Bernard 
H. Theodorski, National Vice President, Fraternal Order of 
Police; William Johnson, General Counsel, National Association 
of Police Organizations; Ronald E. Hampton, Executive Director, 
National Black Police Association; Donna F. Edwards, Executive 
Director, National Network to End Domestic Violence; Captain R. 
Lewis Vass, Records Management Officer, Department of State 
Police, Commonwealth of Virginia; Gerald E. Wethington, 
Chairman, Systems and Technology Program Advisory, SEARCH, Pete 
Gagliardi, Deputy Associate Director, Criminal Enforcement 
Programs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; David R. 
Loesch, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information 
Service Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation. No further 
action was taken on either H.R. 26 or H.R. 445 in the 105th 
Congress.
Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 1997
    On June 17, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on gang-
related witness intimidation and retaliation. In a growing 
number of criminal cases around the United States, police and 
prosecutors are unable to investigate and prosecute cases 
successfully because key witnesses refuse to provide critical 
evidence or to testify because they fear retaliation by 
defendants or their associates. This problem has become 
particularly acute in gang-related and drug-related criminal 
cases. Witnesses' refusal to testify is a major concern because 
it undermines the administration of justice while 
simultaneously eroding public confidence. Increasingly, there 
is an interstate dimension to witness intimidation, with gangs 
able to follow witnesses to other States and gangs utilizing 
gang members from other states to victimize witnesses. There is 
currently no federal law directly addressing the interstate 
relocation of witnesses. As such, unless required by state law 
or other agreement, programs are under no legal obligation to 
notify local law enforcement officials of witnesses with 
criminal records who are relocated interstate. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from Charles F. Gallagher III, Deputy District 
Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Jennifer Lentz Snyder, 
Deputy District Attorney, Los Angles County, California; Sgt. 
Ron Stallworth, Gang Intelligence Coordinator, Utah Department 
of Public Safety Division of Investigations.
    On July 17, 1997, Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 2181, 
the ``Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 
1997.'' H.R. 2181 addresses the problem of gang-related witness 
intimidation by establishing a federal offense for traveling in 
interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to delay or 
influence the testimony of a witness in a State criminal 
proceeding by bribery, force, intimidation, or threat, or by 
any such means to cause any person to destroy, alter, or 
conceal a record, document, or other object, with the intent or 
hindering the document's availability for use in such a 
proceeding. The bill also establishes enhanced conspiracy 
penalties for obstruction of justice offenses involving 
victims, witnesses, and informants.
    H.R. 2181 addresses the need for coordination among 
jurisdictions when a witness is relocated interstate. The bill 
directs the Attorney General to survey State and local witness 
protection programs to determine the extent and nature of such 
programs and the training needs of those programs, and then to 
make training available to those programs (the bill authorizes 
$500,000 to carry out these initiatives). The Attorney General 
is also directed to promote coordination among State and local 
witness interstate relocation programs, including by 
establishing a model Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for 
States and localities that engage in interstate witness 
relocation. This model MOU is to include a requirement that 
notice is to be provided to the jurisdiction to which the 
relocation has been made in certain cases. The Attorney General 
is authorized to make grants under the Byrne discretionary 
grant program (section 511 of subpart 2 of part E of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968) to those 
jurisdictions that have interstate witness relocation programs 
that have substantially followed the MOU.
    On July 17, 1998, H.R. 2181 was forwarded to the full 
Committee. On July 23, 1997, the full Committee held a markup 
on H.R. 2181 and ordered the bill favorably reported to the 
House by a vote of 20 yeas to 4 nays. On September 18, 1997, 
the bill was reported to the House (H. Rept. 105-258). H.R. 
2181 passed the House by a vote of 366 yeas to 49 nays, with 1 
voting ``present.'' On February 26, 1998, the bill was referred 
to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. No further action was 
taken on H.R. 2181 in the 105th Congress.
RICO Reform and Nonviolent Advocacy Groups
    In 1986, the National Organization for Women, Inc. filed a 
class action lawsuit against several defendants who are anti-
abortion activists. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, 
that the defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced 
Corrupt Organizations Act. Passed in 1970 and originally 
intended to be used to combat organized crime, the RICO law 
makes it a federal crime to commit certain ``prohibited 
activities'' involving ``racketeering activity'' or the 
collection of an unlawful debt. The law defines ``racketeering 
activity'' by setting out a long list of federal crimes which, 
under the Act, are deemed to constitute racketeering activity. 
These ``predicate acts'' include acts of violent crime, but 
principally involve crimes in which violence need not 
necessarily occur such as fraud, embezzlement, counterfeiting, 
and trafficking in stolen or otherwise contraband items. In 
addition to the federal crimes listed, the definition of 
racketeering activity also includes certain acts which are 
felonies under state law, such as murder, kidnaping, gambling, 
arson, bribery, and extortion. The RICO law is uncommon in that 
although it is a criminal statute, it also authorizes civil 
suits to be brought by private citizens seeking monetary 
damages for a violation of the statute.
    After two rounds of procedural challenges to the lawsuit, 
one of which was ultimately decided by the United States 
Supreme Court, the case went to trial. In 1998, the jury 
rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, marking the 
first time in which a jury imposed civil liability against an 
advocacy group using the RICO law. In response to the requests 
of several Members, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the use 
of the RICO statute against non-violent advocacy groups on July 
17, 1998. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Frank J. 
Marine, Acting Chief, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, 
Department of Justice; G. Robert Blakey, Professor of Law, 
Notre Dame Law School; Louis Bograd, Senior Staff Attorney, 
American Civil Liberties Union; Thomas Brejcha, Pro-Life Law 
Center, Chicago, Illinois; Jeff Kerr, General Counsel, People 
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Eugene Volokh, Professor 
of Law, UCLA Law School; Fay Clayton, Robinson, Curley & 
Clayton, P.C., Chicago, Illinois; Susan Hill, President, 
National Women's Health Organization; Gerald Lynch, Professor 
of Law, Columbia Law School; Emily Lyons, Birmingham, Alabama.
    Also discussed at the hearing, but not officially 
considered by the Subcommittee, was H.R. 4245, the ``Civil RICO 
Clarification Act of 1998,'' introduced by Representative John 
Shadegg. This bill would amend the RICO law to limit certain 
types of civil cases brought under the statute. No further 
action was taken on H.R. 4245 in the 105th Congress.
Prohibition on Financial Transactions with Countries Supporting 
        Terrorism Act of 1997
    On February 13, 1997, Chairman McCollum, with 
Representative Chuck Schumer, introduced H.R. 748, the 
``Prohibition on Financial Transactions with Countries 
Supporting Terrorism Act of 1997.'' H.R. 748 expands section 
321 of the ``Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
1996,'' by eliminating overly permissive regulations 
promulgated by the Administration and the authority to issue 
such regulations in the future. It establishes, in place of 
regulations, specific exceptions to the prohibition, created by 
section 321, on engaging in financial transactions with 
countries that have been designated as sponsors of terrorism.
    The effect of section 321 is to prohibit financial support 
of U.S. persons by terrorist countries and all financial 
transactions by U.S. persons with this countries, regardless of 
where these transactions take place. The provision also 
authorizes the Department of Treasury, in consultation with the 
State Department, to make specific exceptions to the ban 
through regulations.
    In August of 1996, the Treasury Department published 
regulations in relation to section 321 which essentially 
reversed the effect of the new prohibition. The regulations 
permit all financial transactions with terrorist list 
governments, except for transactions otherwise prohibited by 
law or which pose a risk of furthering domestic terrorism. The 
regulations prohibit U.S. persons from receiving unlicenced 
donations and from engaging in financial transactions with 
respect to which the U.S. person knows or has reasonable cause 
to believe that the financial transaction poses a risk of 
furthering terrorist acts in the United States.
    H.R. 748 strips the executive branch of its authority to 
issue regulations exempting transactions from the prohibition. 
It establishes instead a legislative exception only for 
specified transactions. The list of permitted activities, and 
transactions incident thereto, include: routine diplomatic 
relations among countries; official acts by representatives of 
the U.S. government; news reporting; humanitarian assistance; 
emergency medical services; postal and telephone services; the 
protection of intellectual property rights; hospitality or 
transportation services; the fulfillment of existing contracts; 
and payments of claim to U.S. persons.
    On June 10, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
748, hearing testimony from Kate Almquist, Policy Analyst, 
World Vision Relief and Development, Inc.; Mansoor Ijaz, 
Chairman, Crescent Investment Management, L.P.; James D. 
Latham, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, ITT Sheraton 
Corp.; Hillary Mann, Associate Fellow, Washington Institute for 
Near East Policy; R. Richard Newcomb, Director, Office of 
Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury; William C. 
Ramsay, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Energy, 
Sanctions and Commodities, Bureau of Economic and Business 
Affairs, Department of State.
    On June 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Crime held a markup 
and H.R. 748 was ordered favorably reported to the full 
Committee, amended. On June 18, 1997, the full Committee 
considered H.R. 748 and ordered it favorably reported to the 
House, amended, with additional Committee amendments. On June 
21, 1997, the bill was reported favorably to the House (H. 
Rept. 105-141). On July 18, 1997, H.R. 748 passed the House, as 
amended, under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 377 yeas 
to 33 nays, with one voting ``present.'' On July 9, 1997, H.R. 
748 was received in the Senate. No further action was taken on 
H.R. 748 in the 105th Congress.

                    PROTECTING AND SUPPORTING POLICE

Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998
    H.R. 3565, the ``Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998,'' 
amends part L of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 relating to public safety officers' death benefits. It 
authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to 
expend not less than $150,000 out of the Public Safety 
Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program to maintain and enhance 
national peer support and counseling programs to assist 
families of public safety officers who have died in the line of 
duty. There had been a cap on that funding at $150,000. The 
legislation also allows the PSOB office to reduce its current 
hearing backlog by authorizing the expenditure of funds for 
outside hearing officers. On March 26, 1998, the Subcommittee 
on Crime met in open session and considered a committee print 
of H.R. 3565, which was introduced later that same day. On 
April 1, 1998, the Judiciary Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably H.R. 3565 without amendment. On 
April 21, 1998, the House passed H.R. 3565 under suspension of 
the rules by a vote of 403 to 8. The Senate passed H.R. 3565 on 
May 15, 1998, and it was signed by the President on June 16, 
1998 (Public Law 105-180).
Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grants Act
    H.R. 2829, introduced by Representative Visclosky (D-IN), 
establishes a matching grant program to help State and local 
jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement 
departments. The legislation gives discretionary authority to 
the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to award 
grants to those departments which have the greatest need, a 
mandatory wear policy and a violent crime rate at or above the 
national average. At least half of the funds awarded under this 
program shall be allocated to units of local government with 
fewer than 100,000 residents. H.R. 2829 also prohibits any 
State or unit of local government which receives funds made 
available by the bill to use equipment or products manufactured 
using prison inmate labor. The legislation expresses the sense 
of the Congress that entities receiving such funds should 
purchase only American-made equipment and goods.
    On March 25, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
2829, the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997.'' 
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Laurie Robinson, 
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Bernard H. Teodorski, Vice President, 
National Fraternal Order of Police; Sheriff Stephen O. Simpson, 
National Sheriffs' Association.
    On May 7, 1998, the Subcommittee on Crime held a markup and 
the bill was ordered reported favorably to the full Committee. 
The Subcommittee amended the legislation by adding a 
requirement that the Director give preferential consideration 
to those entities which do not receive funds under the Local 
Law Enforcement Block Grants program. Also, all units of local 
government which receive such grants are required to certify 
that they did not receive sufficient funding for vests under 
the Block Grant program. On May 12, 1998, the Committee on the 
Judiciary was discharged from further consideration, and the 
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules, by a vote 
of 412 to 4.
    The compromise legislation agreed to by the House and 
Senate authorizes to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 1999 through 2001. On May 12, 1998, the Senate 
companion bill to H.R. 2829, S. 1605, passed the House with an 
amendment substituting the language of H.R. 2829, as passed by 
the House. The Senate passed S. 1605, as amended by the House 
on May 15, 1998, and the President signed the bill into law on 
June 16, 1998 (Public Law 105-181).
Police, Fire, and Emergency Officers Educational Assistance Act
    H.R. 3046, ``Police, Fire, and Emergency Officers 
Educational Assistance Act,'' extends federal educational 
assistance benefits to dependants of state and local law 
enforcement officers killed or permanently injured in the line 
of duty. The Federal Law Enforcement Dependants Assistance 
Program costs are estimated to be $515,000 in 1998, including 
the estimated number of new survivors. That number includes 
$182,000 for 30 federal survivors, plus $333,000 for an 
estimated 55 new survivors under the extension this legislation 
proposes. The Bureau of Justice Assistance within the 
Department of Justice anticipates that this additional funding 
for other public safety officers' dependants should not pose 
any new difficulties.
    On May 15, 1998, the companion bill to H.R. 3046, S. 1525, 
the ``Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act of 
1998,'' passed the Senate. The bill was referred to the House 
Judiciary Committee on May 18, 1998, and discharged from the 
Committee on October 10, 1998. On October 10, 1998, the bill 
passed the House in lieu of H.R. 3046. The Senate agreed to the 
House amendment by unanimous consent on October 15, 1998. The 
bill was signed by the President on November 13, 1998 (Public 
Law 105-390).
Correction Officers Health and Safety Act of 1998
    H.R. 2070, the ``Correction Officers Health and Safety Act 
of 1997,'' was introduced by Representative Solomon. On March 
26, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2070. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Christopher E. Anders, 
Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union, 
Washington, D.C.; Marilyn Wolfe, New York; Michael G. Graney, 
Executive Vice President, New York Council 82, American 
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; 
Correctional Officer John L. Parcell, Corrections and Criminal 
Justice Coalition.
    As passed by the House, the bill required the testing of 
all inmates in the Federal prison system for the HIV virus upon 
their arrival in the system. It also required the testing of 
any inmate in the Federal penal system when there is reason to 
believe that an inmate or a person ordered detained pending 
trial may have intentionally or unintentionally transmitted the 
HIV virus to any government employee or to any person lawfully 
present in a federal correctional facility. The bill allowed 
federal employees, should be they involved in the type of 
incident with an inmate or detained person in which the HIV 
virus could have been transmitted, to request that the inmate 
or detained person be tested for the virus. The bill then 
required the government to test the person and report the test 
results to the employee requesting the test, the person tested, 
and the warden of the facility in which the person is 
incarcerated or detained.
    The need for this type of legislation is simple. Drugs have 
now been developed which can prevent the transmission of the 
HIV virus after exposure to someone who carries the virus. The 
drugs are effective in preventing transmission approximately 
80% of the time. However, the drugs must be administered with 2 
to 24 hours after exposure and have extremely unpleasant side 
effects. If a Bureau of Prisons or Marshals Service employee 
were to come in contact with the blood of a inmate, knowing the 
HIV status of the inmate will enable the employee and his or 
her doctor to make a more informed decision as to whether to 
undergo this course of treatment. Unfortunately, some inmates 
refuse to be tested when Bureau of Prison officials request. 
This bill will require that they be tested.
    H.R. 2070 passed the House under suspension of the rules on 
August 3, 1998, by voice vote. On October 20, 1998, the Senate 
passed the bill by unanimous consent, with an amendment. On 
October 21, 1998, the House agreed to the bill as amended by 
the Senate. The bill was signed by the President on November 
12, 1998 (Public Law 105-370). As enacted, the bill does not 
contain the House provision allowing Federal employees to 
require that the testing called for in the bill be conducted. 
Instead, the bill simply states a general direction to the 
Attorney General to test inmates or detained persons who are 
involved in incidents with Federal employees or other persons 
lawfully present in a correctional facility who are not 
incarcerated there where the HIV virus may have been 
intentionally or unintentionally passed. The bill as enacted 
also did not contain the House provision requiring all persons 
incarcerated in Bureau of Prisons facilities to be tested for 
the HIV virus. As enacted, the bill only requires testing for 
those persons that the Attorney General deems to be at risk for 
infection of the virus in accordance with Bureau of Prisons 
guidelines.
Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act
    On March 19, 1998, and March 25, 1998, the Subcommittee 
held hearings on H.R. 1524, the ``Rural Law Enforcement 
Assistance Act of 1997.'' H.R. 1524, introduced by 
Representative Asa Hutchinson, authorizes the establishment of 
the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, 
Arkansas, as a private, nonprofit corporation in order to 
promote rural law enforcement training programs around the 
country. On March 19, 1998, the Subcommittee heard testimony 
from The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Third District of Arkansas, 
U.S. House of Representatives; The Honorable John Elias 
Baldacci, Second District of Maine, U.S. House of 
Representatives; Dr. Lee Colwell, Professor and Director, 
Criminal Justice Institute, University of Arkansas, Little 
Rock, Arkansas; Sheriff Herman Young, Fairfield County 
Sheriff's Office, Winnsboro, South Carolina; Mr. Hobart Henson, 
Director, Office of State, Local and International Training, 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Georgia; Chief 
Michael Carillo, Deming Police Department, Deming, New Mexico; 
Jack Roberts, President, Southern States Benevolent 
Association; Sheriff Ted Sexton, Executive Board Member, 
National Sheriffs' Association.
    On March 25, 1998, the Subcommittee heard testimony from 
one witness, Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, 
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1524 in the 105th 
Congress.
Interstate Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials 
        and the Community Protection Act of 1997
    Two bills referred to the Subcommittee on Crime in the 
105th Congress, H.R. 218 and H.R. 339, would create a national 
standard which would allow any police officer, active-duty or 
retired in good standing, to carry a concealed firearm into 
another State. Both of these bills preempt state laws. Thus, 
there would not be any impact on federal laws which restrict 
the right to carry firearms.
    H.R. 218, the ``Community Protection Act of 1997,'' was 
introduced by Representative Cunningham (R-CA) on January 7, 
1997. Mr. Cunningham introduced similar legislation in the 
104th Congress. H.R. 218 amends chapter 44 of title 18, United 
States Code, by creating a new section 926B, ``Carrying of 
concealed handguns by qualified current and former law 
enforcement officers.'' This legislation would permit any 
``qualified'' current or former law enforcement officer who is 
carrying appropriate written identification of such status to 
carry a concealed handgun. The term ``qualified law enforcement 
officer'' is defined to mean a law enforcement officer who is 
authorized to carry a firearm, is not subject to disciplinary 
action, and meets all agency established requirements with 
respect to firearms. A ``qualified former law enforcement 
officer'' is defined as an individual who is retired from 
service for reasons other than a mental disability, meets State 
requirements with respect to firearm training, is not 
prohibited by law from receiving a firearm and has a 
nonforfeitable right to benefits under the agency retirement 
plan. This legislation would apply to any individual authorized 
by law to engage in or supervise the detection, prevention, 
investigation or prosecution of any violation of law. It 
specifically includes corrections, probation, parole and 
judicial officers.
    H.R. 339 was introduced by Representative Stearns on 
January 7, 1997. It provides for a national standard for 
nonresidents of a State to carry a concealed firearm, and it 
exempts current and former law enforcement officers from State 
laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. H.R. 339 
also amends chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, by 
creating a new section 926C, ``Carrying of concealed handguns 
by qualified current and former law enforcement officers.'' 
This legislation applies to qualified current or former law 
enforcement officers carrying appropriate identification. The 
terms ``qualified current and former officers'' are defined the 
same as under H.R. 218. This legislation also specifically 
includes corrections, probation, parole and judicial officers.
    On July 22, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
218 and H.R. 339. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Bernard 
H. Teodorski, National Vice President, Fraternal of Police; 
Bill Thompson, Director of Governmental Affairs, Southern 
States Police Benevolent Association; James A. Rhinebarger, 
Chairman, National Troopers Coalition; Officer Ed Nowicki, Twin 
Lakes Police Department and Host, ``American Crime Line'' Law 
Enforcement Alliance of America; Chief John F. Farrell, Prince 
George's County Maryland, Police Executive Research Forum; 
Chief Darrell Sanders, President, International Association of 
Chiefs of Police; Albert Eisenberg, Commissioner, Arlington 
County, Virginia, U.S. Conference of Mayors/National League of 
Cities.
    On June 19, 1998, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and considered the bill, H.R. 218. The bill was ordered 
favorably reported to the full Committee, as amended. The 
Subcommittee amended the legislation to include a new section 
which would allow private citizens in limited circumstances the 
right to carry a concealed firearm into another state. This new 
section directed the Attorney General to review all states' 
concealed carry laws and compile a list of states which are 
``shall-issue'' or ``may-issue'' states for the purposes of 
permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons. The Attorney 
General was then directed to publish a list of states which had 
the same or substantially similar concealed carry laws. 
Citizens from one state on the list would be permitted to carry 
their lawfully possessed concealed weapon into another state on 
the list. On August 5, 1998, the full Committee considered H.R. 
218 and ordered the bill favorably reported to the House, as 
amended. On October 14, 1998, the bill was ordered reported 
favorably to the House (H. Rept. 105-819). No further action 
was taken on H.R. 218 in the 105th Congress.
Medal of Valor
    H.R. 4090, the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act 
of 1998,'' establishes a medal, given by the President in the 
name of the Congress of the United States, to a public safety 
officer who is recognized by the Attorney General for 
extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty. The 
Attorney General is limited to naming not more than six medal 
recipients in a given year.
    On June 19, 1998, Chairman McCollum introduced H.R. 4090, 
the ``Public Safety Medal of Valor,'' which was immediately 
forwarded to the full Committee as an original bill. The 
legislation creates the Medal of Valor Review Board composed of 
eleven members appointed by Congress and the President. The 
members of the Review Board, who shall serve 4-year terms, 
shall be persons with knowledge or experience in the field of 
public safety, including firefighter, law enforcement and 
emergency services expertise. Each year, the Board will be 
charged with reviewing applications and determining which names 
to present to the Attorney General for approval. They may 
conduct hearings and take testimony as necessary. The Board 
will be staffed by a new office within the Department of 
Justice, known as the National Medal Office. The Committee 
expects that this office shall consist of a few persons who 
will be available to review material, acquire background 
information and otherwise assist the Medal of Valor Review 
Board.
    On May 14, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
Congressional recognition of acts of exceptional valor by 
public safety officers. The Subcommittee heard testimony from 
Peter E. Bergin, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
and Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, U.S. 
Department of State; Donnie R. Marshall, Acting Deputy 
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; Richard J. 
Gallo, National President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association; Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President, Fraternal 
of Police; Robert G. Parry, Communications Director, Local 341 
Houston Fire Department, International Association of Fire 
Fighters.
    On July 16, 1998, the full Committee considered H.R. 4090 
and ordered the bill favorably reported to the House, amended. 
On July 31, 1998, the bill was reported to the House, as 
amended (H. Rept. 105-667). On September 9, 1998, the bill 
passed the House under suspension of the rules. The bill was 
referred to the Senate Committee of the Judiciary on September 
10, 1998. No further action was taken on H.R. 4090 in the 105th 
Congress.
Law Enforcement Officers Who Have Died in the Line of Duty Should Be 
        Honored, Recognized, and Remembered for Their Great Sacrifice
    On May 7, 1998, Mr. Burton introduced H. Res. 422, 
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that law 
enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty should 
be honored, recognized, and remembered for their great 
sacrifice. On May 11, 1998, H. Res. 422 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. The Committee on the Judiciary was 
discharged from further consideration on May 12, 1998, and H. 
Res. 422 was agreed to by the House (416 yeas; 0 nays). No 
hearings were held.

                    PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM FRAUD

Cellular Telephone Protection Act
    Cellular telephone fraud is a significant criminal activity 
in the United States. Each year the wireless telephone industry 
loses hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue as the result 
of calls made from stolen telephones or cloned telephones. In 
1996, the last year for which data is available, the wireless 
telephone industry reported that the aggregate loss to the 
industry was approximately $710 million.
    As significant as is the loss of revenue to the wireless 
telephone industry, cellular telephone fraud poses another, 
more sinister, crime problem. A significant amount of the 
cellular telephone fraud which occurs in this country is 
connected with other types of crime. In most cases, criminals 
used cloned phones in an effort to evade detection for the 
other crimes they are committing. This phenomenon is most 
prevalent in drug crimes, where dealers need to be in constant 
contact with their sources of supply and confederates on the 
street. These criminals often use several cloned phones in a 
day, or switch from one cloned phone to another each day, in 
order to evade detection. Most significantly, this technique 
thwarts law enforcement's efforts to use wiretaps in order to 
intercept the criminals'' conversations in which they plan 
their illegal activity.
    In 1994, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for 
Law Enforcement Act (Public Law 103-414) which, in part, 
amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1029, which concerns fraud and related 
activity in connection with access devices. That Act added a 
new provision to section 1029 to make it a crime for persons to 
knowingly, and with intent to defraud, use, produce, traffic 
in, or have custody or control of, or possess a scanning 
receiver or hardware or software used for altering or modifying 
telecommunications instruments to obtain unauthorized access to 
telecommunications services.
    On September 11, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
Cellular Telephone Fraud. The Subcommittee heard testimony from 
Michael C. Stenger, Special Agent in Charge, Financial Crimes 
Division, United States Secret Service; John Navarrete, Deputy 
Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Anthony R. 
Bocchichio, Assistant Administrator, Operational Support 
Division, Drug Enforcement Agency; Thomas E. Wheeler, President 
and CEO, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association; John 
Marinho, Telecommunications Industry Association.
    Law enforcement officials have testified before the 
Subcommittee that it is often hard to prove the intent to 
defraud aspect of this section with respect to the possession 
of hardware or software used for altering or modifying 
telecommunications instruments to obtain unauthorized access to 
telecommunications services. In the most common case, law 
enforcement officials will arrest criminals for other crimes 
and find telephone cloning equipment in the possession of the 
criminals. Without finding specific evidence that the criminals 
intended to use this equipment to clone cellular telephones, 
law enforcement officials often have been thwarted in an effort 
to prove a violation of this statute. But because there is no 
legitimate reason why any person not working for wireless 
telephone industry carriers would possess this equipment, there 
is no question that these criminals intended to use that 
equipment to clone cellular telephones. Law enforcement 
officials informed the Subcommittee that deleting the ``intent 
to defraud'' requirement from section 1029(a)(8) with respect 
to this equipment would enable the government to punish a 
person who merely possesses this equipment, as well as those 
who produce, traffic in, or have custody or control over it.
    Generally speaking, while Congress is hesitant to 
criminalize the mere possession of technology without requiring 
proof of an intent to use it for an improper purpose, the 
testimony before the Subcommittee on Crime, both by law 
enforcement agencies and representatives of the wireless 
telephone industry, confirms that the only use for this type of 
equipment, other than by persons employed in the wireless 
telephone industry and law enforcement, is to clone cellular 
telephones. Although wireless telecommunications companies use 
this equipment to test the operation of legitimate cellular 
telephones, to test the anti-fraud technologies their companies 
employ to thwart the use of cloned telephones, and in other 
ways to protect their property and legal rights, the equipment 
has no other legitimate purpose. Thus, there is no legitimate 
reason for any other person to possess this equipment.
    Representative Sam Johnson introduced H.R. 2460, the 
``Wireless Telephone Protection Act.'' The bill amended 
existing law by deleting the intent to defraud requirement 
currently found in section 1029(a)(8). The bill also clarifies 
the penalties which may be imposed for violations of section 
1029. Under existing law, violations of subsections (a)(5), 
(6), (7), or (8) were subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years 
under section 1029(c)(1). However, these same violations also 
were subject to a maximum penalty of 15 years under subsection 
(c)(2) of that same section. The bill corrected this problem by 
restating the punishment section of section 1029 to more 
clearly state the maximum punishment for violations of each 
paragraph of section 1029(a).
    In order to ensure that telecommunications companies may 
continue to use these devices, the bill provides that it is not 
a violation of new subsection (a)(9) for an officer, employee, 
or agent of, or a person doing business with, a facilities-
based carrier to use, produce, have custody or control of, or 
possess hardware or software as described in that subsection if 
they are doing so for the purpose of protecting the property of 
or legal rights of that carrier. The bill also defines 
``facilities-based carrier'' in order to make it clear that the 
exception to new subsection (a)(9) is only available to 
officers, employees, or agents of, or persons doing business 
with, companies that actually own communications transmission 
facilities, and persons under contract with those companies, 
because only those persons have a legitimate reason to use this 
property to test the operation of and perform maintenance on 
those facilities, or otherwise to protect the property or legal 
rights of the carrier.
    The bill also amends the definition of scanning receiver 
presently found in subsection (e)(8) of section 1029 to that 
definition to ensure that the term ``scanning receiver'' will 
be understood to also include devices which intercept 
electronic serial numbers, mobile identification numbers, or 
other identifiers of telecommunications service, equipment, or 
instruments. Finally, the bill provides direction to the United 
States Sentencing Commission to review and amend, if 
appropriate, its guidelines and policy statements so as to 
provide an appropriate penalty for offenses involving cloning 
of wireless telephones. The bill states eight factors which the 
Commission is to consider in reviewing existing guidelines and 
policy statements.
    On October 9, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and considered the bill, H.R. 2460, and ordered it reported 
favorably to the full Committee. On October 29, 1997, the full 
Committee considered the bill and ordered it reported favorably 
to the House. On February 24, 1998, the bill was reported to 
the House with a technical amendment (H. Rept. 105-418). H.R. 
2460 passed the House, with a floor amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, by a vote of 414 yeas to 1 nay, on February 26, 
1998. Immediately after the passage of H.R. 2460, the House 
considered S. 493, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 2460 
passing the Senate bill with an amendment, substituting the 
language of H.R. 2460 as passed by the House for the text of S. 
493. On April 1, 1997, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment. S. 493 was signed by the President on April 24, 1997 
(Public Law105-172).
Clone Pager Authorization Act of 1996
    On January 21, 997, Senator DeWine introduced S. 170, a 
bill to provide for a process to authorize the use of clone 
pagers, and for other purposes. On September 18, 1997, this 
bill was reported to the Senate by the Committee on the 
Judiciary with no written report. S. 170 passed the Senate on 
November 7, 1997. On November 18, 1997, the bill was referred 
to the House Committee on the Judiciary and ordered reported to 
the House Judiciary Committee by the Subcommittee on Crime on 
May 7, 1998. No hearings were held and no report was filed. No 
further action was taken on S. 170 in the 105th Congress.
Telemarketing Fraud Prevention
    In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives passed 
the ``Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act.'' The Senate failed 
to act on that legislation, and Representative Goodlatte 
introduced identical legislation, H.R. 1847, in the 105th 
Congress on June 10, 1997. The legislation directs the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for persons who 
commit telemarketing fraud. The bill also allows for forfeiture 
of any real or personal property used, constituting or derived 
from the commission of the fraudulent offense.
    On June 12, 1997, the Subcommittee held a markup and 
considered H.R. 1847, the ``Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act 
of 1997.'' The bill was ordered favorably reported to the full 
Committee. On June 18, 1997, the full Committee considered the 
bill and it was ordered favorably reported to the House. On 
June 26, 1997, the bill was reported to the House (H. Rept. 
105-158). H.R. 1847 passed the House on July 8, 1997.
    On November 9, 1997, H.R. 1847 passed the Senate, as 
amended, with additional floor amendments. The Senate amendment 
struck the specific penalty enhancements directed by the House 
to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Instead, the Senate bill 
directed the Commission to review the guidelines to ensure that 
penalties were appropriately severe. The House agreed to the 
Senate amendment on June 18, 1997, by a vote of 411 yeas and 1 
nay. On June 23, 1997, H.R. 1847, the ``Telemarketing Fraud 
Prevention Act of 1997'' was signed by the President (Public 
Law 105-184).
Identify Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act
    H.R. 4151, the ``Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence 
Act of 1998,'' introduced by Representative John Shadegg, 
amends the fraud chapter of title 18 of the United States Code 
to create a new crime prohibiting the unlawful use of personal 
identifying information--such as names, social security 
numbers, and credit card numbers. Identity fraud involves the 
misappropriation of another person's personal identifying 
information. Criminals use this information to establish credit 
in their name, run up debts on another person's account, or 
take over existing financial accounts. According to a 1998 GAO 
study, the consequences of this crime are enormous. One 
national credit union reported that two-thirds of the 500,000 
annual consumer inquiries it receives involve identity fraud. 
MasterCard has reported that its member banks lose almost $400 
million annually to identity theft. The Secret Service, which 
investigates only a small portion of identify theft cases under 
the existing wire and mail fraud statutes, reported that the 
cases it investigated in 1997 involved over $745 million in 
losses.
    Unfortunately, only a portion of identify fraud cases are 
investigated and prosecuted. At present, while the use of false 
identity documents is a crime, the gathering, use, and sale of 
personal identifying information is not. Because of this gap in 
the law, law enforcement agencies can only investigate the 
fraud that occurs after stolen identity information is used. 
And as many of these individual crimes involve relatively small 
amounts, they often are too small to justify the use of 
valuable investigative and prosecutorial resources.
    H.R. 4151 gives law enforcement agencies the authority to 
investigate these crimes. It amends section 1029 of title 18 to 
make it a crime to unlawfully transfer or use a means of 
personal identification. But only an unlawful use or transfer 
is prohibited. The statute will still allow banks, credit card 
companies, and credit bureaus to conduct their business as they 
always have. The bill also requires the United States 
Sentencing Commission to review and amend the Federal 
sentencing guidelines and the policy statements of the 
Commission, as appropriate, for each offense under section 1028 
of title 18, United States Code, as amended by the bill. 
Further, the bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to 
establish a centralized complaint center which will log and 
acknowledge the receipt of complaints by individuals who 
certify that they have a reasonable belief that one or more of 
their means of identification have been assumed, stolen, or 
otherwise unlawfully acquired in violation law.
    Finally, the bill was amended on the floor of the House to 
add a provision amending the ``Ethics in Government Act of 
1998.'' As amended by H.R. 4151, the Act will allow for the 
redaction of portions of the annual financial reports filed by 
Federal judges under the Act prior to their release to the 
public after a request is made for their release if a finding 
is made by the Judicial Conference of the United States, in 
consultation with United States Marshal Service, that revealing 
personal and sensitive information could endanger that 
individual.
    The House passed the bill under suspension of the rules on 
October 7, 1998. The Senate passed the bill on October 14, 
1998, by unanimous consent. The President signed the bill into 
law on October 30, 1998 (Public Law 105-318).

                           CARING FOR VICTIMS

Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act
    Research in foreign countries has found that persons with 
developmental disabilities are at a 4 to 10 times higher risk 
of becoming crime victims than those without disabilities. 
Studies in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain consistently 
show that crime victims with disabilities suffer repeated 
victimization, often because so few of the crimes against them 
are reported. We know little about the nature of crimes against 
individuals with disabilities in the United States. Nationally, 
data is not collected on crimes against such persons and no 
significant studies have been conducted on this issue in the 
United States.
    On July 13, 1998, the Senate passed the bill, S. 1976, the 
``Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act'' by unanimous 
consent. S. 1976 directs the Attorney General to conduct a 
study on crime victims with disabilities to learn the nature 
and extent of this problem. S. 1976 also directs the Attorney 
General to include crime victims with developmental 
disabilities in the National Crime Victims Survey in order to 
begin quantifying the number of crimes against such persons 
here in the United States.
    On September 11, 1998, the House Subcommittee on Crime met 
in open session and considered S. 1976. On September 14, 1998, 
the Subcommittee ordered the bill reported favorably to the 
full Committee. On October 7, 1998, the Committee on the 
Judiciary was discharged from further consideration and S. 1976 
passed the House under suspension of the rules. S. 1976 was 
signed by the President on October 27, 1998 (Public Law 105-
301).
Victims Rights Clarification Act
    In recent years, the public has come to demand that its 
elected leaders take a greater interest in the concerns of 
victims of crime. Congress has responded to this demand in a 
number of ways. In 1990, Congress passed a provision requiring 
federal government employees involved in the detection, 
investigation, and prosecution of crime to make their best 
efforts to see that victims of crime were accorded a number of 
rights, including the right to be treated with fairness and 
with respect for the victims' dignity and privacy, the right to 
be reasonably protected from the accused offender, the right to 
be notified of court proceedings, the right to confer with the 
attorney for the government in the case, and the right to 
information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment and 
release of the offender. See Public Law 101-647, codified at 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 10606. That Act also provided for two other 
important rights to be accorded victims: the right to 
restitution, and the right to be present at all public court 
proceedings related to the offense. Since 1990, Congress has 
enacted several measures to further this intent.
    In 1996, Congress enacted Public Law 104-132, the ``Anti-
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of l996.'' Title II 
of that Act made significant amendments to the restitution 
provisions of the United States Code to require, in large part, 
that federal courts order persons convicted of violent crimes, 
and specified other crimes, to make restitution to the victims 
of their crimes.
    In 1994, Congress amended the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure to provide that a victim would have the right to make 
a statement to the court in a non-capital case, at the time of 
sentencing, in order to better ensure that the interests of 
victims of crime would be known to sentencing judges. Also in 
that year, Congress authorized the government, after a guilty 
verdict is returned in a capital case, to call victims and 
victims' family members to testify during the post-verdict 
sentencing hearing. This testimony may be in connection with 
any aggravating factors that the government wishes to prove, or 
to rebut evidence of mitigating factors that the convicted 
defendant is attempting to prove. This so-called ``victim 
impact'' testimony often describes the effect of the crime on 
the victim or the victim's family. The Supreme Court has upheld 
the government's right to present victim impact testimony 
against constitutional challenge.
    In United States v. Timothy McVeigh, one of the criminal 
trials arising from the bombing of the Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City in 1995, the presiding judge ruled that some 
victims and victims'' family members would be precluded from 
attending the guilt-phase of a criminal trial because these 
persons intend to make victim impact statements during the 
sentencing phase of the trial. While Federal Rule of Evidence 
615 does authorize judges to exclude fact witnesses from trial, 
this rule was formulated primarily to guard against potential 
fact witnesses changing their testimony based on the testimony 
of other fact witnesses they might hear at trial. The situation 
in the McVeigh case did not involve the testimony of fact 
witnesses but rather statements and other testimony presented 
by victims as to the impact of the offenders' crimes on them 
personally. As such, the risk that their testimony might 
somehow be tainted by evidence presented during the guilt phase 
of a trial was minimal.
    To ensure that the ruling in the McVeigh case would not be 
relayed upon in other cases, Representative Bill McCollum 
introduced H.R. 924, the ``Victim Rights Clarification Act of 
1997,'' which provides that a victim may not be excluded from a 
criminal trial in federal court solely because of the fact that 
the victim may or will make a statement as to the impact of the 
crime on them or their family in accordance with existing law. 
The bill does not prevent judges from separating victims who 
will also be fact witnesses during the guilt phase of the trial 
if the court determines that their fact testimony would be 
materially affected by hearing other fact testimony at trial. 
See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 10606(b)(4). Nor does the bill affect a 
judge's authority to manage his or her courtroom in accordance 
with other statutes and court rules. As such the bill strikes a 
balance between the goal of ensuring that fact testimony is not 
tainted by other testimony at trial and the goal that, when 
appropriate, every opportunity is given to victims to witness 
first hand that our system is providing justice for them.
    On March 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session considered H.R. 924 and ordered it reported favorably 
to the full Committee. The full Committee considered the bill 
on March 12, 1997, and ordered it reported favorably to the 
House (H. Rept. 105-28). On March 18, 1997, the House 
considered the bill under suspension of the rules and passed 
the bill by a vote of 418 yeas to 9 nays. On March 19, 1997, 
the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. The President 
signed the bill into law on March 19, 1997 (Public Law 105-6).
Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1997
    H.R. 118, the ``Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1997,'' 
requires the Attorney General to conduct a study by acquiring 
data from law enforcement agencies regarding the 
characteristics of those stopped for alleged traffic violations 
and the rationale for any subsequent searches resulting from 
those violations. The Attorney General is directed to issue a 
report to Congress in 2 years which would set forth the 
findings of the study.
    This bill will discourage law enforcement officers from 
using race as the primary factor in making determinations as to 
whether to institute a car search and will provide statistical 
data as to the nature and extent of the problem of African-
Americans being targeted for traffic stops. H.R. 118, will also 
identify the benefits of traffic stops to fight crime by 
including information on the type of contraband seized, the 
quantity of drugs and the value of drug proceeds seized 
pursuant to a routine traffic stop.
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee on Crime was 
discharged from further consideration. On March 3, 1998, the 
Judiciary Committee held a markup. On March 4, 1998, H.R. 118 
was ordered reported to the House with an amendment that would 
include in the study statistics on the approximate quantity of 
drugs and the value of drug proceeds seized on an annual basis 
as a result of the traffic stops. On March 11, 1998, the bill 
was reported, as amended, to the House (H. Rept. 105-435). H.R. 
118, passed the House, as amended, and referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary on March 25, 1998. No further action 
was taken on H.R. 118 in the 105th Congress.
Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
    H.R. 804 is a bill to amend part Q of title I of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to ensure 
that Federal Funds made available to hire or rehire law 
enforcement officers are used in a manner that produces a net 
gain of the number of law enforcement officers who perform 
nonadministrative public safety services.
    On September 11, 1998, H.R. 804 was marked-up by the 
Subcommittee on Crime. On September 14, 1998, the bill was 
ordered reported to the Judiciary Committee. The Committee on 
the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration on 
October 7, 1998. H.R. 804 passed the House on October 7, 1998, 
and was received in the Senate on October 8, 1998.

                           INTERNET GAMBLING

    During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee held two 
hearings on the subject of Internet gambling. On February 4, 
1998, and June 24, 1998, the Subcommittee held hearings on H.R. 
2380, the ``Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997.'' On 
February 4, 1998, the Subcommittee heard testimony from Frank 
Fahrenkopf, Jr., President and CEO, American Gaming 
Association; Douglas Donn, Director, National Thoroughbred 
Racing Association; William S. Saum, Gambling and Agent 
Representative, National Collegiate Athletics Association; 
Frank Miller, Past President, North American Gaming Regulators 
Association; Sue Schneider, Chairperson, Interactive Gaming 
Council and Managing Editor, Rolling Good Times OnLine; Bernie 
Horn, Director of Political Affairs, National Coalition Against 
Legalized Gambling/National Coalition Against Gambling 
Expansion.
    On June 24, 1998, the Subcommittee heard testimony from 
Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal 
Division, U.S. Department of Justice; David Jemmet, President, 
WinStar GoodNet and Commercial Internet Exchange Association 
(CIX); Marianne McGettigan, Counsel, Major League Baseball 
Players Association; David Matheson, Chief Executive Officer of 
Gaming, Couer d'Alene Tribe.
    One month after the first hearing, on March 5, 1998, the 
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York 
indicted 14 owners and managers of six Internet sports betting 
companies headquartered in the Caribbean and Central America. 
The six companies were: Galaxy Sports in Curacao; Island Casino 
in Curacao; Real Casino in Costa Rica; SDB Global Casino in 
Costa Rica; Winner's Way in the Dominican Republic; and World 
Sports Exchange in Antigua. Significantly, all of the 
defendants are United States citizens who moved to a foreign 
location to operate their web sites.
    All defendants were charged with conspiracy to transmit 
bets and wagers on sporting events via the Internet and 
telephones. The six separate complaints charged the defendants 
with owning and/or operating sports betting businesses that 
illegally accept wagers on sporting events over the Internet 
and telephones. These complaints represented the first federal 
prosecutions of sports betting over the Internet.
    Although the gambling operations were legal in the 
countries where they were being operated, the relevant facts, 
according to United States Attorney Mary Jo White, were that 
all of the companies advertised and promoted their betting 
sites with the goal of obtaining wagers from U.S. customers via 
the Internet. They all used the U.S. mails; they advertised in 
U.S. publications and some maintained marketing offices on U.S. 
soil. United States Attorney General Janet Reno issued a 
statement saying, ``Federal law clearly prohibits anyone 
engaged in the business of betting or wagering from using 
interstate and international wire communications, including the 
Internet and telephones, in connection with betting on sports 
events. Criminals cannot avoid responsibility for federal 
crimes by seeking refuge in offshore locations.'' Lawyers for 
the defendants continue to argue that their clients have 
licenses to operate an on-line betting site by the countries 
where the businesses are located, and that the United States 
does not have jurisdiction to prosecute such companies.
    Three weeks later the Department of Justice charged an 
additional seven owners, managers and employees of five 
Caribbean-based sports betting companies with conspiracy. As 
with the initial charges, undercover federal agents opened 
accounts with the on-line betting sites and used the Internet 
and telephone lines to place bets. The cases were filed in 
federal court in New York, and the investigations are 
continuing. These activities by the Federal Government 
necessitated the second hearing.
    Additionally, there are several Indian tribes which operate 
casinos on tribal lands, and many of these casinos are 
extremely lucrative for the tribes. Some tribes have expressed 
interest in augmenting their gambling revenue by operating on-
line gambling web sites. Also, many news web sites also operate 
a rotisserie sports game on the Internet, which are also known 
as fantasy sports leagues. For example, CBS and ESPN both have 
web pages with several fantasy sports games--baseball, 
football, golf, etc. In order to play, one simply logs onto the 
web page and purchases a team for a set fee. The player 
provides a credit card number to enter the ``draft,'' and then 
picks a team from the names of the players in a particular 
league. The grand prize on the ESPN baseball site is an all-
expenses paid trip to spring training in Florida. Other prizes 
include jackets, hats, and plastic miniature baseball bats. 
These organizations dispute the contention that their games 
fall within the definition of gambling. They also argue that 
fantasy leagues involve skill, such as keeping track of a 
player's statistics and making player trades with other 
participants.
    On September 14, 1998, the Subcommittee on Crime considered 
H.R. 4427 and the bill was ordered reported favorably to the 
full Committee. No further action was taken on H.R. 4427 in the 
105th Congress.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Prisons of Industries
    On October 30, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
options for improving and expanding cooperation between Federal 
Prison Industries and the private sector. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from Steve Schwalb, Assistant Director, Federal 
Bureau of Prisons; Michael N. Harrell, General Manager of News 
Business Development, PRIDE Enterprises; Robert Sanders, 
Division of Industries, South Carolina Department of 
Corrections; Kenneth L. Mellem, President and CEO, Geonex 
Corporation, Morgan O. Reynolds, National Center for Policy 
Analysis; Ann F. Hoffman, Legislative Director, Union of 
Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees; V. James 
Adduci, II, American Apparel Manufacturers Association; Donald 
G. Heeringa, President, BIFMA International; Stephen M. Ryan, 
Quarters Furniture Manufacturers Association.
    On June 25, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
4100, the ``Free Market Prison Industries Reform Act of 1998'' 
and H.R. 2758, the ``Federal Prison Industries Competition in 
Contracting Act of 1997.'' The Subcommittee heard testimony 
from Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director, Bureau of Prisons; Steve 
Schwalb, Assistant Director, Bureau of Prisons; Morgan 
Reynolds, Professor of Economics, Texas A&M Michael J. 
Sullivan, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, State of 
Wisconsin; Knut Rostad, The Enterprise Prison Institute; Len 
Lorey, Kimball International; David A. Smith, Director of 
Public Policy, AFL-CIO; Larry Martin, President, American 
Apparel Manufacturers Association. Both of these bills address 
the operation of Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a 
correctional program operated by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
    Representative McCollum introduced H.R. 4100, the ``Free 
Market Prison Industries Reform Act'' on June 19, 1998. Under 
this legislation, the private sector will be encouraged to 
participate whole scale in federal prison industry programs. 
The bill requires the BOP to invite private companies to bid 
for the right to operate a federal prison industry program at 
all new federal prisons. Contracts will be awarded based on the 
benefit to the government in terms of revenue produced and 
number of inmate employed. From the amount that a private 
business pays to the government for the right to operate a 
prison industry will be made payments as wages to the inmates 
working in the industry. Amounts will be deducted from those 
wages to pay victim restitution, support to the inmates' 
families, and the cost of room and board.
    Under the bill, the BOP will also be required to begin 
offering existing prison industries to the private sector to be 
operated in the same way as the industries at new prison 
facilities. Until private companies can be found to run 
existing industries, however, FPI will be authorized to 
continue to operate the industry, but for the first time, will 
authorized to sell the goods made there on the open market, to 
other companies or directly to consumers. Regardless of whether 
the industry is operated by a private person or by the BOP, if 
the goods made there are sold on the open market, the bill will 
repeal the ``mandatory source preference'' that requires the 
federal government to purchase goods made in prison industries.
    The bill also lifts federal restrictions on the interstate 
transportation of goods made in state prison industry programs. 
As a result of these changes, states may also invite private 
companies to operate their prison industry programs, or may 
choose to operate the industries itself, and sell the goods 
made there in the open market. States wishing to take advantage 
of this provision, however, would be required to give up their 
reliance on any provision that requires state agencies in that 
state to buy goods from the state prison industry program.
    H.R. 2758, introduced by Representative Peter Hoekstra, 
would immediately eliminate the mandatory source preference 
currently used by FPI. In return, it would require all Federal 
agencies to solicit an offer from FPI when making a purchase of 
goods or services offered for sale by FPI. The bill would 
continue to limit FPI to selling goods or services only to the 
Federal government. The bill would also limit the authority of 
FPI to offer for sale a new product or to increase the quantity 
offered for sale of an existing product.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4100 and H.R. 2758 in 
the 105th Congress.
Prisoner Service Opportunity Act of 1997
    On March 5, 1997, Mr. McCollum introduced H.R. 926, the 
``Prisoner Service Opportunity Act of 1997.'' On March 6, 1997, 
H.R. 926 was ordered reported to the full Committee by the 
Subcommittee on Crime. No further action was taken on H.R. 926 
in the 105th Congress.
United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1997
    On March 5, 1997, Mr. McCollum introduced H.R. 927, the 
``United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1997.'' 
This bill will change the selection process of United States 
Marshals from that of appointment by the President with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, to appointment by the 
Attorney General. United States Marshals will be selected on a 
competitive basis from among the career managers within the 
Marshals Service.
    Incumbent U.S. Marshals, selected before enactment of H.R. 
927, will continue to perform the duties of their office until 
their terms expire and successors are appointed. Marshals 
selected between the enactment of this bill and December 31, 
1999, will still be appointed by the President, with the advice 
and consent of the Senate. They will serve a 4-year term, 
unless they resign or are removed by the President.
    On March 6, 1997, H.R. 927 was ordered reported to the 
Judiciary Committee by the Subcommittee on Crime. On March 17, 
1997, the bill was reported to the House (H. Rept. 105-27) and 
passed the House on March 18, 1997. On March 19, 1997, H.R. 927 
was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. On March 
26, 1998, the bill was reported favorably to the Senate with an 
amendment by Senator Hatch. No written report was filed in the 
Senate.
Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act of 1997
    H.R. 103, the ``Private Security Officer Quality Assurance 
Act of 1997,'' establishes a procedure for expediting 
background checks of private security officers. The bill 
requires the Attorney General to designate and associate the 
employers of private security officers to submit applicant 
fingerprints to the Attorney General for the purpose of 
background checks. The Attorney General is expected to 
designate responsibility for conducting the background checks 
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    H.R. 103 further requires the Attorney General to report to 
the House and Senate Judiciary Committee 2 years after 
enactment on the number of inquiries made by the association 
established under the bill and disposition of those inquiries. 
The legislation also expressed the sense of Congress that 
States should participate in the background check system.
    On January 7, 1997, H.R. 103 was introduced by Bob Barr and 
was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce; 
and the Committee on the Judiciary. On June 12, 1997, the bill 
was ordered reported to the Judiciary Committee by the 
Subcommittee on Crime. H.R. 103 was ordered reported to the 
House on June 26, 1997, by the Committee on the Judiciary (H. 
Rept. 105-161, part 1). The Committee on Education and the 
Workforce was discharged from further consideration on July 28, 
1997. The bill passed the House on July 28, 1997, and was 
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 
11, 1997. No hearings were held on H.R. 103. No further action 
was taken on H.R. 103 in the 105th Congress.
To Limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts with Respect to Prison 
        Release Orders
    On April 23, 1998, Mr. DeLay introduced H.R. 3718, a bill 
to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts with respect to 
prison release orders. H.R. 3718 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime on May 11, 1998. The Committee on the 
Judiciary was discharged from further consideration on May 19, 
1998, and the bill passed the House by a vote of 325 yeas to 53 
nays. H.R. 3718 was referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary on May 20, 1998. No further action was taken on H.R. 
3718 in the 105th Congress.

           GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND OTHER SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

FBI Oversight
    On February 12, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigation into the 
Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia and the foreign 
investigative activities of the FBI in general. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Robert Bryant, Assistant 
Director, National Security Division, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Department of Justice, accompanied by Allen 
Ringgold, Deputy Assistant Director.
    On May 13, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Part I. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Fredric Whitehurst, 
Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Daniel S. Alcorn, Counsel, National Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers; Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, 
Department of Justice; Donald Thompson, Acting Assistant 
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Maddock, 
Deputy General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Kevin 
Lothridge, President, American Society of Crime Laboratory 
Directors.
    On June 5, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Part II. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from Louis J. Freeh, Director, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    On July 30, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Part III. 
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Richard Jewell; Albert 
Alschuler, Professor of Law, University of Chicago; Michael 
Shaheen, Jr., Director, Office of Professional Responsibility, 
Department of Justice; Robert Bryant, Assistant Director, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation; Woody Johnson, Special Agent 
in Charge, Atlanta Regional Office, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
    On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation's implementation of a national 
instant-check system for screening prospective gun buyers. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from James E. Kessler, Jr., 
Section Chief, Operations Branch, Criminal Justice Information 
Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Dr. Jan M. 
Chaiken, Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director, 
National Rifle Association of America; Grover G. Norquist, 
President, Americans for Tax Reform; James J. Baker, Washington 
Representative, Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers 
Institute; Lt. Col. Cynthia Smith, Bureau Chief of Drug and 
Criminal Enforcement, Maryland State Police; Lt. Robert G. 
Kemmler, Assistant Records Management Officer, Virginia 
Firearms Transaction Program, Virginia Department of State 
Police.
Implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 
        of 1994
    On October 23, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) (Public Law 103-414). CALEA was 
signed into law by President Clinton on October 25, 1994 
(Public Law 103-414, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq.). 
The purpose of the Act is to ``preserve the government's 
ability, pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization, 
to intercept communications involving advanced technologies 
such as digital or wireless transmission modes, or features and 
services such as call forwarding, speed dialing, and conference 
calling, while protecting the privacy of communications and 
without impeding the introduction of new technologies, 
features, and services.''
    The Act places four requirements on telecommunications 
carriers. First, carriers are expected to expeditiously isolate 
and enable the government to intercept all wire and electronic 
communications within a carrier's service area. Second, 
carriers are required to expeditiously isolate and enable the 
government to access call identifying information that is 
reasonably available to the carrier both before, during, or 
immediately after the transmission of the communication. Third, 
carriers are required to provide intercepted communications and 
call identifying information to the government in a format that 
the government can use. Finally, the Act requires carriers to 
intercept the communication or access to the call identifying 
information unobtrusively, with a minimum of interference to 
any subscriber's service, and in a manner that protects the 
privacy and security of any communications and call identifying 
information not authorized to be intercepted.
    In addition to the requirements placed on 
telecommunications carriers, the Act specifies that law 
enforcement is not authorized to require any specific design of 
equipment, facilities, services, features, or system 
configurations nor can the government prohibit the adoption of 
any equipment, facilities, service, or feature by any provider 
or manufacturer.
    The purpose of the hearing was to determine if the extent 
of cooperation between the telecommunications industry and the 
government in implementing the Act, to determine when the Act 
might be fully implemented, and to ascertain whether further 
legislation is required to ensure that the intent of the 1994 
law was carried out. The Subcommittee heard testimony from 
Thomas E. Wheeler, President, Cellular Telecommunications 
Industry Association; Jay Kitchen, President, Personal 
Communications Industry Association; Matthew J. Flanigan, 
President, Telecommunications Industry Association; Roy M. 
Neel, President, United States Telephone Association; James X. 
Dempsey, Senior Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy and 
Technology; Edward L. Allen, Chief, Electronic Surveillance 
Technology Section, Information Resources Division, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation; H. Michael Warren, Chief, CALEA 
Implementation Section, Information Resources Division, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation.
Ecoterrorism
    On June 9, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
ecoterrorism committed by radical environmental organizations. 
The Subcommittee heard testimony from The Honorable Frank 
Riggs, First District of California, U.S. House of 
Representatives; Ron Arnold, author, Ecoterror: The Violent 
Agenda to Save Nature; Bruce Vincent, President, Alliance for 
America; Barry Clausen, author, Walking on the Edge: How I 
Infiltrated Earth First!; Julie Rodges, District Office 
Manager, The Honorable Frank Riggs, Eureka, California; Cathi 
Peterson, former Forest Service Employee, Northern California.
           SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

  GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman

JERROLD NADLER, New York             STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico \1\
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   ED BRYANT, Tennessee
                                     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 
                                     \2\

----------
    \1\ Steven Schiff, New Mexico, deceased March 25, 1998.
    \2\ Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina, assigned March 3, 1998, to 
fill the vacancy resulting from the illness of Steven Schiff, New 
Mexico.

Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................    78
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    16
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......................     8
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     0
Legislation reported to the House.................................    16
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................     9
Legislation pending in the House..................................     5
Legislation passed by the House...................................    22
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     9
Legislation vetoed by the President...............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     9
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another bill.......     2
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    25
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    15

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has 
legislative and oversight responsibility for the Independent 
Counsel statute, the Legal Services Corporation, the Office of 
Solicitor General, the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, the Executive 
Office for the U.S. Trustees of the Department of Justice, the 
Executive Office of United States Attorneys, and the 
Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of 
Justice. The Subcommittee's legislative responsibilities 
include administrative law (practice and procedure), regulatory 
flexibility, state taxation affecting interstate commerce, 
bankruptcy law, bankruptcy judgeships, legal services, federal 
debt collection, the Contract Disputes Act, the Federal 
Arbitration Act, and interstate compacts.

                         Legislative Activities

     ADMINISTRATIVE LAW/PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (REGULATORY REFORM)

H.R. 1544, the Federal Agency Compliance Act
    On May 22, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
1544, the ``Federal Agency Compliance Act,'' introduced by Mr. 
Gekas. The legislation would have generally prevented agencies 
from refusing to following controlling precedents of the United 
States courts of appeals in the course of program 
administration and litigation involving their programs. This 
practice by agencies, known as ``non-acquiescence,'' has been 
criticized for many years by courts and legal scholars, and has 
resulted in hardship to those appearing before agencies and 
continual relitigation of settled questions of law. The bill, 
based upon a recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States, addressed the two kinds of agency 
nonacquiescence: intracircuit nonacquiescence refusal to follow 
controlling appellate precedent within a specific federal 
judicial circuit; and intercircuit nonacquiescence--
relitigating in other judicial circuits issues on which 
precedents have already been established in multiple circuits.
    Regarding intracircuit non-acquiescences, the bill 
generally required an agency and all agency officials who 
administer statutes and regulations within a given judicial 
circuit to follow relevant existing courts of appeals precedent 
in that circuit. An agency would have been permitted to assert 
a position contrary to precedent in limited circumstances, for 
example, when intervening legal, factual, or public policy 
developments may have undermined or changed the rationale for 
the earlier decision. With respect to intercircuit 
nonacquiescence, the bill required the Department of Justice 
and other agency officials in such situations to consider the 
following factors, among others, when deciding whether to 
pursue litigation when three or more circuits had decided a 
question of law: (1) the effect of intervening changes in 
pertinent law or public policy or circumstances on which the 
other courts of appeals decisions were based; (2) subsequent 
decisions of the Supreme Court or the courts of appeals that 
previously decided the relevant question of law; (3) the extent 
to which that question of law was fully and adequately 
litigated in the earlier cases; and (4) the need to conserve 
the resources of the federal court and non-agency parties to 
the litigation. These provisions aimed at discouraging 
intercircuit nonacquiescence were not subject to judicial 
review or enforcement.
    Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: James F. 
Allsup, President, Allsup, Inc.; Stephen H. Anderson, U.S. 
Courts of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Salt Lake City, Utah, 
on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States; Dan 
T. Coenen, J. Alton Hosch Professor, University of Georgia 
School of Law; Peter J. Ferrara, General Counsel and Chief 
Economist, Americans for Tax Reform; Arthur J. Fried, General 
Counsel, Social Security Administration; John H. Pickering, 
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, on behalf of the American Bar 
Association; Stephen W. Preston, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Daniel J. 
Wiles, Deputy Associate Chief Counsel, (Domestic Field 
Service), Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.
    On July 24, 1997, the Subcommittee reported the bill 
favorably by a voice vote. On September 17, 1997, the Judiciary 
Committee reported the bill favorably by a voice vote (H. Rept. 
105-395). On February 25, 1998, the House passed H.R. 1544 by a 
vote of 241-176. A companion bill, S. 1166, was introduced in 
the Senate on September 11, 1997, and a hearing was held by the 
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts on June 
15, 1998.
    No further was action was taken by that body.
H.R. 2440, Technical Amendment in Section 10, Title 9, United States 
        Code
    On September 11, 1997, the Subcommittee by voice vote 
reported H.R. 2440, making technical corrections to section 10 
of title 9, United States Code. Title 9, which governs 
arbitration, contains in section 10 an obvious typographical 
error which was corrected by this legislation. The Judiciary 
Committee reported H.R. 2440 on September 17, 1997, by voice 
vote (H. Rept. 105-381) and it was passed by the House by voice 
vote on November 12, 1997. The Senate approved the bill with an 
amendment on October 21, 1998, but that House was unable to act 
before the adjournment sine die of the 105th Congress.
H.R. 4049, Regulatory Fair Warning Act of 1998
    Chairman Gekas introduced H.R. 4049, the Regulatory Fair 
Warning Act of 1998, on June 11, 1998, after announcing his 
intention to do so at the Subcommittee's May 7, 1998, hearing 
on Administrative Crimes and Quasi-Crimes. The bill is a 
revision of H.R. 3307, which Chairman Gekas introduced in the 
104th Congress.
    The Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the bill July 23, 
1998. Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: Joseph N. 
Onek, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Daniel E. Troy, Associate Scholar, 
American Enterprise Institute and Partner, Wiley, Rein & 
Fielding; James H. Schaum, President & CEO, Allen Memorial 
Hospital, Oberlin, Ohio; and David C. Vladeck, Director, Public 
Citizen Litigation Group.
    The Regulatory Fair Warning Act would prevent agencies from 
pursuing violations of regulations that are unclear, ambiguous, 
or unavailable to the general public. The bill would prohibit 
the imposition of administrative, civil, or criminal sanctions 
if: (a) rules and regulations are not available to the public 
or known to the regulated community; (b) rules and regulations 
do not give fair warning of what is prohibited or required; or 
(c) officials have misled people about what rules and 
regulations prohibit or require.
    No markup of H.R. 4049 was held.
H.R. 4096, Taxpayer's Defense Act
    Along with 53 original cosponsors, Chairman Gekas 
introduced the Taxpayer's Defense Act on June 19, 1998. The 
Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the bill July 23, 1998.
    Since before the founding of the United States, taxation 
has been regarded as a governmental function reserved to the 
legislative branch. The modern era of restricted federal 
budgets, however, threatens to erode the essential principle 
that taxes be levied only by Congress. Federal agencies are now 
regularly and increasingly empowered to impose user fees, an 
appropriate method of compensating the government for specific 
benefits it provides. Such fees may become taxes, however, when 
they go beyond covering the cost of services, or beyond the 
value provided to identifiable beneficiaries.
    The Subcommittee's February 26 hearing dealt with the 
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Universal Service 
Tax. Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave the 
FCC authority to define ``universal service'' and require 
contributions--taxes--from long-distance telecommunications 
providers for subsidizing universal service. The Taxpayer's 
Defense Act was intended to prevent federal agencies from 
establishing or increasing taxes through rules and regulations. 
The bill would have created an expedited congressional review 
procedure and would have required any agency promulgating a 
rule that would establish or increase a tax to submit the rule 
to Congress for its approval before such a rule can take 
effect.
    Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: William A. 
Niskanen, Chairman, CATO Institute; Thomas A. Schatz, 
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; and 
Christopher McLean, Deputy Administrator, Rural Utilities 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    No markup of H.R. 4096 was held.

                               Bankruptcy

H.R. 764, the Bankruptcy Amendments of 1997, and H.R. 120, the 
        Bankruptcy Law Technical Corrections Act of 1997
    H.R. 764, the Bankruptcy Amendments of 1997, was introduced 
on February 13, 1997, by Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, with 
Representatives George Gekas, Chairman of the Subcommittee, and 
Bill McCollum as original cosponsors. Prior thereto on January 
7, 1997, Representative John Conyers, Ranking Minority Member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, introduced H.R. 120, the 
Bankruptcy Law Technical Corrections Act of 1997, which was 
similar in many respects to H.R. 764. Both bills trace their 
origins to S. 1559, the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 
1996, which was introduced by Senator Charles Grassley in the 
104th Congress and passed, as amended, on unanimous consent by 
the Senate on August 2, 1996. H.R. 764 also reflects 
recommendations made by the National Bankruptcy Conference, a 
select, nonpartisan organization of bankruptcy experts.
    On April 30, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law conducted a hearing on H.R. 764 and H.R. 
120. Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: 
Representatives Vernon Ehlers and Joe Knollenberg; Kenneth 
Klee, National Bankruptcy Conference; Roger Whelan, American 
Bankruptcy Institute; Frederick Luper, Commercial Law League of 
America; Albert Sullivan, Director, Office of Asset Management 
and Disposition, United States Department of Housing and Urban 
Development; Donald Ennis, American Council of Life Insurance 
and the Mortgage Bankers Association; Joseph Bonita, American 
Land Title Association; Richard Gerken, Equipment Leasing 
Association; and Jill Sturtevant, American Bankers Association.
    While the principal thrust of H.R. 120 was to make 
technical and clarifying amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, it 
also contained several substantive provisions. These included, 
for example, an amendment to the definition of ``single asset 
real estate'' to clarify that it did not apply to a family 
farmer. Another provision authorized the trustee, subject to 
court approval and providing it was in the best interests of 
the estate, to render professional services, such as those 
performed by appraisers and auctioneers, and be compensated for 
such services. It also provided that a security interest in 
property created by a transfer to which Section 547(c)(3) 
applies was excepted from the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay 
provisions.
    H.R. 764, as introduced, had provisions that were in some 
instances identical and in other instances dissimilar to those 
in H.R. 120. For example, H.R. 764's amendment to the 
Bankruptcy Code's definition of ``single asset real estate'' 
with respect to its inapplicability to family farmers had a 
similar counterpart in H.R. 120, but H.R. 764--in contrast to 
H.R. 120--also eliminated the debt ceiling in the single asset 
real estate definition. Another example of a difference is that 
H.R. 764 did not include H.R. 120's provision concerning 
professional services rendered by a trustee.
    On June 25, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law met in open session and adopted by voice 
vote an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 764, 
which reconciled many of the differences between both bills. 
H.R. 764, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported by 
the Subcommittee by voice vote to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. On July 16, 1997, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported H.R. 764, as amended by the 
Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a 
voice vote. The Committee filed its report on H.R. 764, (H. 
Rept. 105-324), on October 21, 1997.
    As reported by the full Committee, H.R. 764 primarily made 
technical corrections to the Bankruptcy Code that were intended 
to clarify original legislative intent, correct drafting 
defects, and improve grammar and cross-references. In addition, 
the bill included substantive amendments to the Bankruptcy Code 
that were limited in scope and designed to rectify shortcomings 
in current law. These included a provision increasing the 
monetary limitation in the Bankruptcy Code's definition of 
single asset real estate from $4 million to $15 million to make 
expedited relief from the automatic stay available to creditors 
in a broader range of commercial property reorganizations. In 
addition, the bill added language clarifying the rights of 
parties to leasing arrangements and executory contracts with 
respect to nonmonetary defaults. H.R. 764 also made a 
perfecting amendment to the Bankruptcy Code's provisions 
concerning the avoidability of certain security interests given 
to a noninsider prior to a bankruptcy filing.
    On November 12, 1997, the House considered H.R. 764 in a 
revised form from the version reported by the Committee. One 
revision clarified the bill's amendment to Section 365(b) of 
the Bankruptcy Code to provide that when a trustee or debtor in 
possession is excused from curing a nonmonetary default under a 
real estate lease or executory contract as a condition to 
assumption of the lease or contract, the creditor remains 
entitled to compensation for actual pecuniary loss resulting 
from the default and to adequate assurance of future 
performance. The other revision amended Section 1124(2) of the 
Bankruptcy Code to clarify that a creditor remains entitled to 
compensation for actual pecuniary loss resulting from the 
default for purposes of determining impairment of such 
creditor's claim. The House, under suspension of the rules, 
passed H.R. 764, as amended, by voice vote.
    The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary on November 13, 1997. On 
October 13, 1998, the bill was referred to the Senate 
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. 
Although the Senate subsequently adjourned without taking 
further action on the bill, the Conference Report on H.R. 3150, 
the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, incorporated most of H.R. 
764 as it passed the House. Senator Grassley had relied heavily 
on H.R. 764 in crafting Title IV of S. 1301, the Consumer 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, as reported in the Senate. See 
subsequent discussion of H.R. 3150 (which includes reference to 
S. 1301).
H.R. 1596, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1997
    H.R. 1596, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1997, was 
introduced on May 14, 1997, by Representative George Gekas, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law, with the cosponsorship of Representatives Henry Hyde, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, John Conyers, 
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 
Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law.
    Bankruptcy judges serve as judicial officers of the United 
States District Courts. In contrast with Article III judges, 
who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate 
to lifetime positions, bankruptcy judges are selected by the 
regional United States Courts of Appeals and serve 14-year 
terms, with eligibility for reappointment.
    This bill was introduced in response to the unprecedented 
increase in bankruptcy case filings and the attendant need in 
certain areas in the nation for additional bankruptcy 
judgeships. Bankruptcy case filings in 1996, for example, 
exceeded one million for the first time. This represented a 
27.2 percent increase over bankruptcy case filings in the prior 
year.
    H.R. 1596 authorized the creation of seven permanent and 11 
temporary bankruptcy judgeships in 14 Federal judicial 
districts and extended an existing temporary judgeship. The 
legislation reflected Congressional policy favoring the 
creation of temporary as opposed to permanent judgeships in 
order to limit future costs wherever possible and appropriate.
    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 
conducted a hearing on H.R. 1596 on June 19, 1997. Witnesses 
who testified at the hearing were: Hon. David Thompson, United 
States Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit and 
Chairman of the Committee on the Administration of the 
Bankruptcy System of the Judicial Conference of United States 
Courts; Hon. Frank Koger, Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the 
Western District of Missouri, and President of the National 
Conference of Bankruptcy Judges; Hon. Tina Brozman, Chief 
Bankruptcy Judge, Southern District of New York; Richard Wynne 
of the Los Angeles law firm of Wynne Spiegel Itkin, on behalf 
of the Los Angeles County Bar Association; and Michael Richman 
of the New York law office of Mayer, Brown and Platt, on behalf 
of the American Bankruptcy Institute.
    On June 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law met in open session and ordered reported 
H.R. 1596 without amendment by voice vote. Thereafter, the 
Committee on the Judiciary met in open session on July 16, 
1997, and ordered favorably reported the bill without amendment 
by voice vote. The Committee filed its report on H.R. 1596, (H. 
Rept. 105-208), on July 28, 1997. On that same day, the bill 
was called up by the House under suspension of the rules and 
passed by voice vote. The following day, the bill was received 
by the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary. It was thereafter referred to the Senate 
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts on May 
15, 1998. Although the Senate took no further action on the 
bill, a modified version of H.R. 1596 was incorporated into 
Section 322 of S. 1301, the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 
1998, and subsequently included in the Conference Report on 
H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998. See subsequent 
discussion of H.R. 3150 (which includes reference to S. 1301).
H.R. 2592, the Private Trustee Reform Act of 1997, and Review of Post-
        Confirmation Fees in Chapter 11 Cases
    H.R. 2592, the Private Trustee Reform Act of 1997, was 
introduced on October 1, 1997, by Representative Bob Goodlatte, 
for himself, and Representatives Lamar Smith and Bob Barr.
    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 
conducted a combined hearing on H.R. 2592 in conjunction with a 
review of postconfirmation fees in Chapter 11 cases on October 
9, 1997. Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: 
Representative Bob Goodlatte; Ford Elsaesser, Vice President 
for Research, American Bankruptcy Institute; Henry Hildebrand, 
III, National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees; Hon. Frank 
Koger, Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of 
Missouri, and President, National Conference of Bankruptcy 
Judges; Professor Jeffrey Lubbers of the Washington College of 
Law, American University; W. Clarkson McDow, Jr., United States 
Trustee for Region 4; Laurence Morin, President, Association of 
Bankruptcy Professionals; Professor Jeffrey Morris, University 
of Dayton Law School, on behalf of the National Bankruptcy 
Conference; Kevyn Orr, Deputy Director, Executive Office for 
United States Trustees; Joseph Patchan, Director, Executive 
Office for United States Trustees; W. Steve Smith, President, 
National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees; and Ellen Vergos, 
United States Trustee for Region 8.
    As amended in the full Committee by an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, the bill created a procedural mechanism 
for administrative and judicial review of certain decisions 
made by United States trustees with regard to their supervision 
of bankruptcy trustees. Bankruptcy trustees are fiduciaries 
responsible for administering bankruptcy cases. For consumer 
bankruptcy cases, there are two types of trustees. One type 
consists of individuals appointed by the United States trustee 
to serve on a ``panel of private trustees'' who are responsible 
for administering cases filed under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy 
Code (a form of bankruptcy relief in which the debtor's non-
exempt assets are liquidated and distributed to the debtor's 
creditors). Qualifications for panel membership are specified 
by regulation. Upon appointment to a panel, a trustee is 
assigned Chapter 7 cases by the United States trustee to 
administer. Panel trustees are appointed for a 1-year term, 
subject to renewal. As of 1997, there were approximately 1,200 
panel trustees.
    Another type of trustee consists of individuals appointed 
to administer Chapter 13 (individual debt reorganization) and 
Chapter 12 (family farmer) cases. In addition to performing 
many of the same duties as private trustees, these individuals, 
known as ``standing trustees,'' are responsible for collecting 
payments due under the debtor's repayment plan and distributing 
these payments to the debtor's creditors. A standing trustee's 
compensation and expenses attributable to the trusteeship are 
fixed by the Attorney General. These expenses are not case-
specific, but relate to the operation of the trusteeship. As of 
1997, there were approximately 200 standing trustees.
    The United States trustee is responsible for supervising a 
trustee's performance. To this end, the United States Trustee 
Program has promulgated ``initiatives'' imposing stringent 
standards of accountability for these fiduciaries who, in turn, 
are entrusted with the responsibility to administer billions of 
dollars in bankruptcy estate assets. A trustee determined to be 
derelict in discharging his or her administrative or fiduciary 
duties may be suspended by the United States trustee from 
active case assignment until the problem is rectified. In 
addition, the United States trustee may decline to reappoint a 
panel trustee upon the expiration of his or her 1-year 
appointment. These actions, however, only relate to the 
assignment of future cases. In contrast, a trustee may be 
removed from pending bankruptcy cases in which he or she is 
serving only by the court ``for cause,'' after notice and 
hearing.
    The bill, as amended, permitted an individual whose 
appointment to the trustee panel or as a standing trustee is 
terminated by the United States trustee or who ceases to be 
assigned cases by the United States trustee to obtain 
administrative review of such action, including an 
administrative hearing on the record, and review by the 
district court of a final agency decision. It also would have 
allowed a standing trustee, after exhausting all available 
administrative remedies, to obtain district court review of a 
final agency action denying a claim of actual, necessary 
expenses by such trustee. In addition, H.R. 2592, as amended, 
specified the standard of judicial review and authorized a 
district court to refer these matters for a recommendation to a 
bankruptcy judge or a magistrate judge in districts with at 
least three bankruptcy judges or to a magistrate judge in 
districts with less than three bankruptcy judges. Further, the 
legislation, as amended, would have directed the Attorney 
General to promulgate rules implementing its provisions 
concerning the suspension and termination of panel and standing 
trustees as well as its provisions concerning the expenses of 
standing trustees.
    On April 30, 1998, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law met and ordered favorably reported the bill 
H.R. 2592, without amendment, by voice vote. Thereafter, the 
full Committee met on July 21, 1998, and ordered favorably 
reported the bill, with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, by voice vote. The Committee filed its report on 
H.R. 2592, (H. Rept. 105-663), on July 31, 1998. On August 3, 
1998, the House passed the bill, as amended, by voice vote 
under suspension of the rules. The principal revision pertained 
to the bill's provisions concerning judicial review. As 
revised, H.R. 2592 eliminated magistrate judges from the 
judicial review process and required the district court to 
determine whether to retain the matter or refer it a bankruptcy 
judge in the district.
    On August 31, 1998, the bill, as amended, was received in 
the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It 
was thereafter referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative 
Oversight and the Courts on October 13, 1998. Although the 
Senate adjourned without taking further action on the bill, a 
revised version of H.R. 2592 appeared in the Conference Report 
on H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998. The principal 
revisions concerned the bill's judicial review provisions. 
Specifically, it provided for judicial review in the United 
States district court of a final agency decision and required 
such decision to be affirmed unless unreasonable or without 
cause based upon the administrative record before the agency. 
See subsequent discussion of H.R. 3150.
H.R. 2604, the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act 
        of 1997, and H.R. 2611, the Religious Fairness in Bankruptcy 
        Act of 1997
    Representative Ron Packard introduced H.R. 2604, the 
Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 
1997, on October 2, 1997. As originally introduced, H.R. 2604 
was identical to S. 1244, the ``Religious Liberty and 
Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1997,'' which was 
introduced by Senator Charles Grassley, for himself, and 
Senators Jeff Sessions and Rod Grams on October 1, 1997. 
Following its introduction, H.R. 2604 gained the support of 127 
bipartisan cosponsors.
    A somewhat similar bill, H.R. 2611, the Religious Fairness 
in Bankruptcy Act of 1997, was introduced by Representatives 
Helen Chenoweth (for herself and Representative James 
Traficant) on October 6, 1997. It subsequently received support 
from 107 bipartisan cosponsors.
    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 
conducted a hearing on both bills on February 12, 1998. 
Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: Senator Charles 
Grassley; Representatives Helen Chenoweth and Ron Packard; 
Stephen Case, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, on behalf of the National 
Bankruptcy Conference; Michael Farris, President, Home School 
Legal Defense Association; Dr. Stephen Paul Goold, Crystal 
Evangelical Free Church; Ralph Hardy, Jr., President, 
Washington, D.C. Stake, The Church of Jesus Christ of the 
Latter-day Saints; Professor Douglas Laycock, University of 
Texas Law School; and Steven McFarland, Director, Center for 
Law and Religious Freedom.
    Some courts have held that a contribution made to a 
religious or charitable organization by a debtor before he or 
she filed for bankruptcy relief can be recovered by a 
bankruptcy trustee as a fraudulent transfer under section 548 
of the Bankruptcy Code on the basis that reasonably equivalent 
value was not received in exchange for the donation. Other 
courts have concluded that a debtor received reasonably 
equivalent value in exchange for his or her religious 
contributions. These courts consider, for example, whether the 
debtor received certain services from the religious entity, 
such as counseling, in exchange for his or her donation. This 
analysis, which essentially requires courts to value spiritual 
benefits and to determine whether they were conferred in 
exchange for the debtor's tithe, has led to disparate case law.
    H.R. 2604 protects certain charitable contributions made by 
an individual debtor to qualified religious or charitable 
entities, defined by reference to the Internal Revenue Code, 
within 1 year preceding the filing date of the debtor's 
bankruptcy petition from being avoided by a bankruptcy trustee 
under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bill reflects 
several important policy considerations that warrant treating 
religious and charitable contributions differently from other 
property transfers under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. 
One such policy consideration pertains to the inherent nature 
of these contributions and why they are made. Religious 
contributions are often given from a sense of duty. The 
practice of tithing, for example, is viewed by some religious 
organizations as a fundamental precept and doctrine based on 
divine commandment from God. Accordingly, the use of fraudulent 
transfer provisions to undo tithing arguably may infringe the 
First Amendment rights of both the donor and donee.
    Another policy consideration is that contributions are used 
by religious and charitable organizations to fund valuable 
services to society, which serve the common good. This 
principle is recognized in the Internal Revenue Code's 
provisions concerning the deductibility of certain charitable 
contributions. Furthermore, most religious and charitable 
organizations lack the means to defend against a recovery 
action filed by a bankruptcy trustee under section 548. As a 
result, they must either return the funds or divert other 
resources to pay for defending such recovery actions.
    In addition to providing this relief, H.R. 2604 protects 
the right of certain debtors to tithe or make charitable 
contributions after filing for bankruptcy relief. Some courts 
have dismissed a debtor's Chapter 7 case (a form of bankruptcy 
relief that discharges an individual debtor of most of his or 
her personal liability without any requirement for repayment) 
for substantial abuse under section 707(b) of the Bankruptcy 
Code based on the debtor's charitable contributions. The 
legislation prevents this. The bill also protects the right of 
debtors who file for Chapter 13 (a form of bankruptcy relief 
that requires a debtor to commit his or her future income to 
fund a plan of repayment) to tithe or make charitable 
contributions. Some courts have held that tithing is not a 
reasonably necessary expense or have attempted to fix a 
specific percentage as the maximum that a Chapter 13 debtor may 
include in his or her budget.
    H.R. 2611 would have deemed a donation to a religious group 
or entity made by a debtor out of a sense of religious 
obligation to have been made in exchange for reasonably 
equivalent value. This bill proposed to amend section 548(d) of 
the Bankruptcy Code by adding a new subsection creating an 
exemption for donations made based on religious obligation.
    On May 7, 1998, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law was discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 2604. Thereafter, the Committee on the Judiciary held a 
markup on May 14, 1998, and ordered favorably reported the bill 
without amendment by voice vote. The Committee filed its report 
on H.R. 2604, (H. Rept. 105-556), on June 3, 1998. A revised 
version of the bill, which included a provision preempting 
state law identical to a provision in its Senate counterpart, 
was considered on the House suspension calendar. After passing 
H.R. 2604, as amended, the House then, by unanimous consent, 
called up S. 1244, which was identical in content to H.R. 2604, 
and passed it by voice vote. On June 19, 1998, the President 
signed S. 1244 into law as Public Law Number 105-183.
H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, H.R. 2500, the 
        Responsible Borrower Protection Bankruptcy Act, and H.R. 3146, 
        the Consumer Lenders and Borrowers Bankruptcy Accountability 
        Act of 1998
    Representative George Gekas, Chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law, for himself and 
Representatives Bill McCollum, Rick Boucher, and James Moran, 
introduced H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, on 
February 3, 1998. That same day, Representative Jerrold Nadler, 
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law, introduced H.R. 3146, the Consumer Lenders 
and Borrowers Bankruptcy Accountability Act of 1998.
    As introduced, H.R. 3150 incorporated many of the consumer 
bankruptcy reform provisions of H.R. 2500, the Responsible 
Borrower Protection Bankruptcy Act, which was introduced by 
Representative Bill McCollum on September 18, 1997. Both bills 
attracted extensive bipartisan support. H.R. 2500 eventually 
obtained 185 cosponsors, while H.R. 3150 gained the support of 
75 cosponsors.
    H.R. 3150 presented a comprehensive package of reforms 
pertaining to consumer and business bankruptcy law and 
practice, and included provisions regarding the treatment of 
tax claims and enhanced data collection. H.R. 3150 also 
established a separate chapter under the Bankruptcy Code 
devoted to the special issues and concerns presented by 
international insolvencies.
    The consumer bankruptcy reforms of H.R. 3150, as 
introduced, were implemented through a self-evaluating income/
expense screening mechanism, the establishment of new 
eligibility standards for bankruptcy relief, the imposition of 
additional financial disclosure requirements for consumer 
debtors, and augmented responsibilities for those charged with 
administering consumer bankruptcy cases. In addition, H.R. 3150 
instituted a panoply of consumer bankruptcy reforms designed to 
increase the protections afforded to debtors and creditors.
    H.R. 3150 was introduced in response to several 
developments affecting bankruptcy law and practice. According 
to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts, more than 1.4 million Americans filed for 
bankruptcy relief in calendar year 1997. This record number of 
bankruptcy case filings was 19.1 percent more than the number 
of bankruptcy cases filed the previous year. The Administrative 
Office also reported that the rate of increase was part of a 
continuing trend. Paradoxically, however, this explosion in 
bankruptcy filing rates occurred during a period when the 
economy continued to be robust, with low unemployment and high 
consumer confidence.
    Coupled with this development was the release of a 
privately funded study that estimated financial losses in 1997, 
resulting from these bankruptcy filings exceeded $44 billion, a 
loss equal to more than $400 per household. This study 
projected that even if the growth rate in personal bankruptcies 
slowed to only 15 percent over the next 3 years, the American 
economy would have to absorb a cumulative cost of more than 
$220 billion. Another study concluded that a significant 
portion of debtors who file for bankruptcy relief can, in fact, 
repay a portion, if not all, of their debts.
    The consumer bankruptcy provisions of H.R. 3150 addressed 
the needs of creditors as well as debtors. With respect to 
creditors, H.R. 3150's principal provisions consisted of needs-
based bankruptcy relief, general protections for creditors, and 
protections for specific types of creditors. The bill's debtor 
protections included enhanced requirements for those 
professionals and others who assist consumer debtors in 
connection with their bankruptcy cases, expanded notice 
requirements for consumers with regard to alternatives to 
bankruptcy relief, required participation of consumer debtors 
in debt repayment programs, and the institution of a pilot 
program to study the effectiveness of consumer financial 
education for debtors.
    The heart of H.R. 3150's consumer bankruptcy reforms was 
the implementation of a mechanism to ensure that consumer 
debtors repay their creditors the maximum that they can afford. 
For Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (a form of bankruptcy 
relief where the debtor generally receives a discharge of his 
or her personal liability for most unsecured debts), H.R. 3150 
implemented mandatory eligibility standards for those 
individuals seeking this form of bankruptcy relief. The needs-
based formula under H.R. 3150, as introduced, articulated 
objective criteria so that debtors and their counsel could 
self-evaluate their eligibility for relief under Chapter 7 or 
Chapter 13. Certain expense allowances were localized and a 
debtor's extraordinary circumstances were recognized, including 
episodic losses of income. Parties in interest, such as 
creditors, were empowered under H.R. 3150 to move for dismissal 
of Chapter 7 cases where debtors were ineligible. These reforms 
were intended to have no impact on consumer debtors who lacked 
the ability to repay their debts and deserved a fresh start.
    With regard to business bankruptcy reform, H.R. 3150 
addressed the special problems that small business cases 
present by instituting a variety of time frames and enforcement 
mechanisms to identify and weed out small business debtors who 
were not likely to reorganize. It also required more active 
monitoring of these cases by United States Trustees and the 
bankruptcy courts. In addition, H.R. 3150 included provisions 
dealing with business bankruptcy cases in general and Chapter 
12 (family farmer bankruptcies). The small business and single 
asset real estate provisions of H.R. 3150 were largely derived 
from consensus recommendations of the National Bankruptcy 
Review Commission. These provisions also received broad support 
from those in the bankruptcy community, including various 
bankruptcy judges, creditor groups, and the Executive Office 
for United States Trustees.
    With regard to single asset real estate debtors, H.R. 3150 
eliminated the monetary cap from the Bankruptcy Code's 
definition applicable to these debtors and made them subject to 
the small business provisions of the bill. It also amended the 
automatic stay provisions by permitting a single asset real 
estate debtor to make requisite interest payments out of rents 
or other proceeds generated by the real property.
    H.R. 3150, in addition, contained several provisions having 
general impact with respect to bankruptcy law and practice. 
Under H.R. 3150, certain appeals from final bankruptcy court 
decisions were to be heard directly by the court of appeals for 
the appropriate circuit. Another general provision of H.R. 3150 
required the Executive Office for United States Trustees to 
compile various statistics regarding Chapter 7, 11 and 13 cases 
and to make these data available to the public and to report 
annually to Congress on the data collected. Other general 
provisions included a prohibition against the appointment of 
fee examiners and the allowance of shared compensation with 
bona fide public service attorney referral programs.
    The Committee on the Judiciary began its consideration of 
comprehensive bankruptcy reform early in the 105th Congress. On 
April 16, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law conducted a hearing on the operation of the 
bankruptcy system that was combined with a status report from 
the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. This was the first 
of nine hearings that the Subcommittee would conduct on 
bankruptcy reform over the ensuing year.
    With regard to H.R. 3150 alone, the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law held four hearings. Over the 
course of those hearings, more than 60 witnesses, representing 
a broad cross-section of interests and constituencies in the 
bankruptcy community, testified. Nearly every major 
organization having an interest in bankruptcy reform had an 
opportunity to participate in these hearings. Witnesses who 
testified at the March 10, 1998, hearing were: Representatives 
Bill McCollum, Rick Boucher and Jim Moran; Honorable Edith 
Hollan Jones, United States Court of Appeals Judge for the 
Fifth Circuit; Honorable Randall Newsome, United States 
Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of California; Lloyd 
Cutler, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, representing the Bankruptcy 
Issues Council; Honorable Heidi Heitkamp, Attorney General of 
the State of North Dakota, representing the National 
Association of Attorneys General; Karen Cosgrove, Vice 
President of Business Operations, Kemp Management, representing 
the National Multi-Housing Council and National Apartment 
Association; John Gleason, Vice President/Credit, Bon-Ton 
Department Stores, representing the National Retail Federation; 
Bruce Hammonds, Senior Vice Chairman, MBNA America Bank, N.A.; 
Janet Kubica, Chief Executive Officer, Postmark Credit Union, 
representing the Credit Union National Association; William 
Kosturko, Executive Vice President of People's Bank of 
Bridgeport, representing America's Community Bankers; Nicholl 
Russell, a former Chapter 7 debtor; James ``Ike'' Shulman, 
representing the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy 
Attorneys; Henry Sommer, Consumer Bankruptcy Assistance 
Project; Matthew Mason, Assistant Director, UAW-GM Legal 
Services Plan; Stuart Feldstein, President, SMR Research 
Corporation; Mark Lauritano, Senior Vice President, WEFA, Inc.; 
Professor Lawrence Ausubel, Department of Economics, University 
of Maryland; and Vern McKinley, regular policy contributor for 
Cato Institute.
    Witnesses who testified at the March 12, 1998, hearing 
were: Dr. Michael Staten, Credit Research Center, Georgetown 
University School of Business; Richard Stana, Associate 
Director, Administration of Justice Issues, U.S. General 
Accounting Office; Dr. Thomas Neubig, National Director, Policy 
Economics & Quantitative Analysis, Ernst & Young; Dr. Fritz 
Scheuren, Associate National Technical Director, Statistical 
Sampling, Ernst & Young; George Wallace, Eckert Seamons Cherin 
& Mellott, representing the American Financial Services 
Association; Robert Mitsch, Mitsch & Crutchfield, representing 
the National Retail Federation; Robert Waldschmidt, Howell & 
Fisher, representing the National Association of Bankruptcy 
Trustees; Norma Hammes, Gold & Hammes, representing National 
Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys; Professor Karen 
Gross, New York Law School; Lewis Mandell, Dean, Marquette 
University; Marion Olson, Jr., Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, 
Western District of Texas--San Antonio Division; and William 
Brewer, Jr., National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy 
Attorneys.
    Witnesses who testified at the March 18, 1998, hearing 
were: Judith Starr, Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel, 
Enforcement Division, Securities and Exchange Commission; 
Donald Banks, Director of Legal Services, Hudson Corporation, 
representing the National Retail Federation; Brian McDonnell, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Navy Federal Credit 
Union, representing the National Association of Federal Credit 
Unions; Judith Greenstone Miller, representing the Commercial 
Law League of America; Honorable Bernice Donald, United States 
District Court Judge for the Western District of Tennessee; 
Thomas Boone, Managing Director of Portfolio Services, 
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Jeffrey Tassey, Senior Vice 
President of Government & Legal Affairs, American Financial 
Services Association; Mallory Duncan, Vice President and 
General Counsel, National Retail Federation; Michael McEneney, 
Partner, Morrison & Foerster, representing the Bankruptcy 
Issues Council; Honorable Eugene Wedoff, United States 
Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Illinois, representing 
the American Bankruptcy Institute; Professor Jeffrey Morris, 
University of Dayton School of Law, representing the National 
Bankruptcy Conference; Michael Kane, Deputy Secretary for 
Enforcement, Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; James Shepard, 
former member of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission; 
Professor Grant William Newton, Pepperdine University; and Paul 
Asofsky, former member of the Tax Advisory Committee of the 
National Bankruptcy Review Commission.
    Witnesses who testified at the fourth and final hearing on 
March 19, 1998, were: Stephen Case of Davis, Polk & Wardwell, 
former Senior Advisor to the National Bankruptcy Review 
Commission; John Gose of Preston, Gates & Ellis, former member 
of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission; Patricia Staiano, 
United States Trustee for Region 3; Christopher Graham of 
Thacher Proffit & Wood, representing the American Bankruptcy 
Institute; Professor Alan Resnick, Hofstra University School of 
Law, representing the National Bankruptcy Conference; Honorable 
Robert Hershner, Jr., Chief Bankruptcy Judge, Middle District 
of Georgia, and President of the National Conference of 
Bankruptcy Judges; Norman Kranzdorf, President, Kranzco Realty 
Trust, representing the International Council of Shopping 
Centers; James Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
Union State Bank and Trust of Clinton, representing the 
American Bankers Association; Charles Tatelbaum of Johnson, 
Blakely, Pope, Bakar & Ruppel, representing National 
Association of Credit Managers; Leon Forman of Blank Rome 
Comisky & McCauley, representing American College of 
Bankruptcy; William Perlstein of Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, 
representing American Bar Association-Business Section; Harold 
Bordwin, Keen Realty Consultants Inc.; Kevyn Orr, Deputy 
Director, Executive Office for United States Trustees; 
Honorable Michael Kaplan, Chief Bankruptcy Judge, Western 
District of New York, Judicial Conference of the United States; 
and Professor Lynn LoPucki, Cornell Law School, former Senior 
Advisor/Data Study Project for the National Bankruptcy Review 
Commission.
    During the course of these hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law heard testimony that if H.R. 
3150's needs-based and other consumer bankruptcy reforms were 
implemented, the rate of repayment to creditors would increase 
while the number of bankruptcy filings would decrease as more 
debtors were channeled into Chapter 13 as opposed to Chapter 7.
    On April 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law met in open session and ordered reported the 
bill H.R. 3150, by voice vote with a single amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. Thereafter, the Committee on the 
Judiciary met on May 12, 13, and 14, 1998, in open session. Of 
43 amendments offered, 18 were adopted. Among the amendments 
agreed to were two offered by Chairman Hyde. One amendment 
moderated the bill's needs-based formula and the other 
amendment subordinated priority claims incurred to pay 
nondischargeable debts to existing priority claims, such as 
obligations for alimony, maintenance or child support. 
Representative Rick Boucher offered four amendments that were 
agreed to concerning the treatment of domestic support 
obligations and related matters. Representative Steve Chabot 
offered an amendment relating to aircraft equipment and vessels 
that was agreed to by voice vote. Also agreed to was an 
amendment by Representative Bob Goodlatte exempting certain 
Chapter 11 debtors from the requirement to pay quarterly fees 
to the United States Trustee Program.
    The Committee ordered reported favorably H.R. 3150, as 
amended, by a recorded vote of 18 to 10. On May 18, 1998, the 
Committee filed its report on H.R. 3150 (H. Rept. 105-540).
    The House, under a rule making certain amendments in order, 
thereafter passed H.R. 3150, as amended, with a vote of 306 to 
118 on June 10, 1998. Among the principal changes to the bill 
that occurred as the result of floor action was the inclusion 
of a provision according first priority to domestic support 
obligations under section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code. In 
addition, the bill's $100,000 homestead exemption cap was 
replaced with a provision concerning the conversion of 
nonexempt property into exempt property with intent to hinder, 
delay, or defraud a creditor. Provisions regarding the conduct 
of studies on small businesses and the impact of the extension 
of credit to dependent students were also added to the bill.
    The following day, the bill was received in the Senate. On 
September 23, 1998, H.R. 3150 was laid before the Senate by 
unanimous consent. The Senate struck all of H.R. 3150's 
language after its enacting clause and substituted the language 
of S. 1301, as amended. H.R. 3150, as amended, was then passed 
by the Senate in lieu of S. 1301 by a recorded vote of 97 to 1.
    On September 28, 1998, the House agreed without objection 
to the request of the Senate for a conference on the House bill 
and Senate amendment to H.R. 3150. On that same day, the House 
also passed a motion to instruct conferees with respect to 
Section 405 of H.R. 3150, as amended by the Senate, which would 
have amended the Truth in Lending Act with respect to certain 
lending practices of creditors in connection with an extension 
of credit. Representatives Henry Hyde, Chairman, Committee on 
the Judiciary; John Conyers, Ranking Minority Member, Committee 
on the Judiciary, George Gekas, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law; Jerrold Nadler, Ranking 
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law; Ed Bryant; Steve Chabot; Bob Goodlatte; Bill McCollum; 
Rick Boucher; and Sheila Jackson Lee were appointed as House 
conferees. Senators Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Committee on the 
Judiciary; Patrick Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 
the Judiciary; Charles Grassley, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Administrative Oversight and the Courts; Richard Durbin, 
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Administrative 
Oversight and the Courts; and Jeff Sessions were appointed as 
Senate conferees.
    The Conference Report (H. Rept. 105-794) was filed on 
October 7, 1998. The Conference Report differed from the House 
passed version of H.R. 3150 in various respects. For example, 
the Conference Report modified the House-passed version's 
needs-based consumer bankruptcy formula and its application. 
Whereas the House version utilized a pre-filing formula 
designed to channel consumer debtors with repayment capacity 
into Chapter 13, the Conference Report adopted the procedural 
approach of S. 1301 and preserved the right of a debtor to have 
a judge review his or her individual case and repayment 
capacity. The Conference Report, however, retained the House 
version's formula with regard to expense allowances and the 
deductibility of certain debts to determine repayment capacity. 
In addition to revising several of the House version's 
nondischargeability provisions, the Conference Report included 
a provision expanding the House version's prohibition against 
cramdown of certain secured obligations. Under the Conference 
Report, the cramdown of debts securing the purchase of personal 
property acquired by an individual debtor within 5 years of 
filing for bankruptcy relief was prohibited. The Conference 
Report also expanded the House version's 1-year domicile 
requirement for claiming exemptions to 2 years. In addition, 
the Conference Report included provisions intended to protect 
savings earmarked for the education of a debtor's child. 
Further, it added provisions concerning the treatment of 
financial contracts and asset-backed securitizations.
    A motion in the House to recommit the Report with 
instructions to the Conference Committee failed by a vote of 
157 to 266 on October 9, 1998. The House then agreed to the 
Conference Report by a recorded vote of 300 to 125. On that 
same day, the Senate agreed to a motion to proceed on the 
Conference Report by a recorded vote of 94 to 2. While further 
action by the Senate with respect to the Conference Report did 
not occur prior to the Senate's adjournment on October 21, 
1998, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 included a provision 
reenacting and extending Chapter 12, a form of bankruptcy 
relief for family farmers, until April 1, 1999.
H.R. 4239 and H.R. 4393, the Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act 
        of 1998
    Representative Jim Leach, Chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services, introduced H.R. 4239, the 
Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act of 1998, on July 16, 
1998. In addition to the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, H.R. 4239 was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the Commerce Committee.
    This legislation, in its initial form, codified a series of 
recommendations proposed by a Presidential interagency working 
group whose members included the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve Bank 
of New York, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System. The purpose of this legislation was to reduce systemic 
risk in the financial market presented by a market member's 
bankruptcy. The legislation sought to effectuate this goal by 
amending the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
(``FDIA''), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
Improvement Act of 1991 (``FDICIA''), and the Securities 
Investor Protection Act of 1971 (``SIPA'').
    A revised version of the bill, H.R. 4393, was later 
introduced by Representative Leach on August 4, 1998, which 
included revisions espoused by the Bond Market Association (a 
group representing securities firms and banks that underwrite, 
trade and sell debt securities) and the International Swaps and 
Derivatives Association (an international financial trade 
association whose membership is comprised of commercial, 
merchant and investment banks that engage in swaps and other 
privately negotiated derivatives transactions). Among the 
substantive provisions in H.R. 4393 affecting bankruptcy law 
that were not included in H.R. 4239 was a provision that 
treated certain asset-backed securitizations as valid 
transfers. In addition, the superseding version of this bill 
broadened the scope of certain definitions to include 
additional types of transactions and a new definition for 
``financial participant.'' It also included a provision 
limiting the authority of a court or administrative agency to 
stay the effect of certain exceptions from the Bankruptcy 
Code's automatic stay.
    Among H.R. 4393's substantive amendments to the Bankruptcy 
Code were provisions revising the Bankruptcy Code's automatic 
stay and setoff provisions to allow certain transactions to be 
offset against each other notwithstanding the intervention of 
bankruptcy. It permitted cross-product netting of certain 
obligations and protected them from being set aside pursuant to 
the Code's transfer avoidance provisions, absent actual fraud. 
Third, the bill excepted certain asset-backed securitizations 
from the types of property interests qualifying as ``property 
of the estate'' under the Bankruptcy Code. H.R. 4393 treated 
these transactions as valid transfers that could not be set 
aside absent actual fraud.
    In the Senate, legislation similar to H.R. 4393 was 
included in S. 1914, the ``Business Bankruptcy Reform Act of 
1998,'' sponsored by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA). As 
introduced, the Senate version, unlike its House counterpart, 
primarily amended the Bankruptcy Code.
    On August 5, 1998, the Banking Committee passed H.R. 4393 
by voice vote without amendment and ordered the bill reported. 
It thereafter filed its report on the bill (H. Rept. 105-688) 
on August 21, 1998. That same day, the Committee on Commerce 
was discharged. Pursuant to an agreement with the Banking 
Committee, the Judiciary Committee exercised jurisdiction over 
the bill until September 25, 1998.
    Although neither the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law nor the Judiciary Committee marked up H.R. 
4393, a version of this bill was subsequently included in the 
Conference Report on H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 
1998. See prior discussion of H.R. 3150 (which includes 
reference to S. 1301).
H.R. 4831, Temporary Reenactment of Chapter 12, Bankruptcy Relief for 
        Family Farmers
    On October 14, 1998, Representative Nick Smith introduced 
H.R. 4831, a bill to reenact temporarily Chapter 12, a form of 
bankruptcy relief for family farmers that expired on September 
30, 1998. The bill reenacted Chapter 12 for the period 
beginning on October 1, 1998, through April 1, 1999. The 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the 
Judiciary Committee did not report the bill. On October 15, 
1998, the full Committee was subsequently discharged from 
further consideration and the House passed H.R. 4831, as 
amended, by voice vote under suspension of the rules. The bill 
was received in the Senate on October 20, 1998, and was 
included in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, which was signed into 
law as Public Law 105-277 on October 21, 1998.

                             STATE TAXATION

H.R. 865 and H.R. 874, State Taxation of Employees at Certain Federal 
        Facilities
    On April 17, 1997, Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on H.R. 865 and H.R. 874, 
bills that restricted state taxation of federal workers at 
certain federal facilities. H.R. 865 (Bryant) limited the 
authority of Kentucky to tax federal employees for services at 
Fort Campbell, Kentucky to those who were residents of 
Kentucky, while H.R. 874 (Doc Hastings) exempted Washington 
residents from taxation by Oregon for services as a federal 
employee at federal hydroelectric facilities located on the 
Columbia River. Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: 
Senator Fred Thompson; Representative Ed Bryant, Representative 
Doc Hastings; Representative Linda Smith; Dwight Campbell, U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers; James D. Cunningham, National 
President, National Federation of Federal Employees; Harley T. 
Duncan, Executive Director, Federation of Tax Administrators; 
Roger Hays, Chairman, Tax Equity Committee, United Power Trades 
Organization; Worth Lovett, Federal employee at Fort Campbell; 
James Charles Smith, Professor of Law, University of Georgia; 
Joy E. Wilen, Joy E.Wilen Associates, Vancouver, Washington; 
and Edwin Wilson, federal employee at Fort Campbell.
    The facilities located on the Columbia River straddle the 
state boundaries between Washington and Oregon. Residents of 
Washington, which does not have a state income tax, access the 
facilities from the Washington side of the river and only cross 
the boundary incidental to their work. Fort Campbell sits 
astride Kentucky, which has an income tax, and Tennessee, which 
does not, but it is located primarily within the borders of the 
latter. Tennessee residents enter the base on its Tennessee 
side and do not utilize any services of Kentucky even if their 
duty station is on the Kentucky side of the base.
    Subsequently, Mr. Gekas introduced H.R. 1953, which 
addressed the matters that were the subject of the hearing, 
together with a similar situation existing at a federal 
hydroelectric facility located on the Missouri River between 
South Dakota and Nebraska. On June 19, 1997, the Subcommittee 
reported the bill by voice vote and on July 16, 1997, the 
Judiciary Committee reported the bill favorably without 
amendment by voice vote (H. Rept. 105-203). On July 28, 1997, 
the House agreed to H.R. 1953 by a voice vote.
    The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held a hearing 
on H.R. 1953 on October 24, 1997, but took no further action on 
the bill. However, the bill was added to H.R. 3616 authorizing 
appropriations for the Department of Defense, which was signed 
into law by the President on October 17, 1998, as Public Law 
105-261.
H.R. 1054, Internet Tax Freedom Act
    On July 17, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on H.R. 1054, the Internet 
Tax Freedom Act (Cox), legislation providing for a moratorium 
on state taxation of the Internet. The bill had been referred 
primarily to the Committee on Commerce (which had conducted a 
hearing on July 11, 1997) and secondarily to the Committee on 
the Judiciary. Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: 
Senator Ron Wyden; Representative Christopher Cox; Stanley R. 
Arnold, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Revenue 
Administration, and President, Federation of Tax 
Administrators; Howard P. Foley, President, Massachusetts High 
Technology Council; Professor Walter Hellerstein, University of 
Georgia, School of Law; Robert Holleyman, President, Business 
Software Alliance; Kendall L. Houghton, General Counsel, 
Committee on State Taxation; Andrea L. Ireland, Associate 
General Counsel, Netscape Communications Corp.; Brian O'Neill, 
Council Member; City of Philadelphia, PA, and First Vice 
President, National League of Cities; and Jack Valenti, 
President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America.
    H.R. 1054 sought to encourage the development of a 
consistent and coherent national tax policy with respect to the 
Internet.\1\ Sponsors argued that a moratorium on state 
taxation was necessary to avoid stifling the potential for an 
innovative form of technology to provide information, goods and 
services quickly and cheaply throughout the world. The current 
subfederal tax system, they argued, was developed in a time and 
for a form of commerce that makes it inappropriate for 
application to the ``electronic commerce'' which the Internet 
represents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Internet is a global matrix of interconnected computer 
networks communicating through the Transmission Control Protocol/
Internet Protocol, which specifies how data is subdivided in packets 
and assigned to different addresses to be transferred over the 
Internet. The term has been used to encompass all such data networks as 
well as applications such as the World Wide Web and e-mail running on 
those networks despite the fact some of these commerce activities occur 
on proprietary or other networks that are not technically part of the 
Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 9, 1997, the Subcommittee reported an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1054 as a committee 
print. Subsequently, the sponsor of the legislation, 
Representative Cox, continued negotiations aimed at gaining the 
support of the National Governors' Association, resulting in 
the introduction on March 23, 1998, of H.R. 3529 (Chabot), 
which was referred primarily to the Judiciary Committee. 
However, that legislation failed to resolve some issues in 
controversy and negotiations continued resulting in yet another 
measure, H.R. 3849 (Cox), this time referred primarily to the 
Commerce Committee which reported it on May 14, 1998. In 
reporting H.R. 3849, the Commerce Committee did not consider 
portions of the bill that were clearly within the jurisdiction 
of the Judiciary Committee.
    Negotiations continued and ultimately resulted in the 
approval by the Judiciary Committee on June 17, 1998, of H.R. 
3529 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by voice 
vote (H. Rept. 105-808, Part I). As amended, H.R. 3529 would 
have imposed a 3-year moratorium on certain state and local 
taxation of online services and electronic commerce. In 
addition, it established an Advisory Commission on Electronic 
Commerce to examine issues related to the taxation of 
electronic commerce. H.R. 3529 and H.R. 3849 were reconciled by 
negotiations between the Commerce and Judiciary Committees into 
H.R. 4105, which was approved by the House by voice on June 23, 
1997. The Senate approved a companion bill (S. 442) on October 
8, 1998, by a vote of 96-2. The Senate language was 
subsequently included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill which 
was signed into law by the President on October 21, 1998, as 
Public Law 105-277.
H.R. 4572, a Bill Clarifying that the Limitation on State Income 
        Taxation of Governmental Pension Income Applies to Possessions 
        of the United States
    Representative George Gekas, Chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law, introduced H.R. 4572, 
together with cosponsors Representatives Bill McCollum and John 
Mica, on September 15, 1998. This bill would have simple 
amended section 114(b)(1)(G) of title 4 of the United States 
Code to correct a technical error concerning its applicability 
to possessions of the United States, such as the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico. H.R. 4572 clarified that the prohibition 
against a State taxing governmental pension income of its 
former citizens applied to possessions of the United States. 
Specifically, it provided that governmental plans of 
possessions of the United States were to be treated as if they 
were State governmental plans within the meaning of Section 
414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. While the clear 
legislative intent of Section 114 was to have it apply to 
Puerto Rico as demonstrated by its reference to ``possessions 
of the United States,'' the provision's incorporation of the 
Internal Revenue Code's definition of ``governmental plan'' 
(which does not include Puerto Rico) created a legislative 
glitch that H.R. 4572 corrected.
    Following its introduction by Mr. Gekas, the bill was 
passed by the Subcommittee without amendment by voice vote on 
September 25, 1998. On October 15, 1998, H.R. 4572 was called 
up by the House under suspension of the rules and was passed by 
voice vote without amendment. The bill was received in the 
Senate on October 20, 1998. The Senate took no further action 
on the bill prior to its adjournment on October 21, 1998.

                          INTERSTATE COMPACTS

    The Subcommittee considered a number of interstate compacts 
which under the Constitution the Congress must approve.
H.J. Res. 91--The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact 
        (ACF)
    On October 23, 1997, held a hearing on and favorably 
reported H.J. Res. 91, granting consent of the Congress to a 
compact between the states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia with 
the United States concerning the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint River Basin located within these states. Witnesses who 
testified at the hearing were: Representative Bob Barr and 
Representative Allen Boyd.
    The three states had for some time been negotiating over 
allocation of the waters of the ACF Basin and had initiated 
litigation in federal court to prevent the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers from reallocating storage in Federal reservoirs 
without completing adequate environmental assessments. 
Thereafter, the three states and the Corps of Engineers, 
seeking to negotiate and resolve the issue, agreed that a 
comprehensive study needed to be conducted by a partnership of 
the three states and the federal government. In 1992, the three 
states adopted a Memorandum of Agreement concerning the ACF 
Basin which resulted ultimately in a compact adopted by each of 
the states in 1997.
    On October 29, 1997, the Judiciary committee reported H.J. 
Res. 91 by voice vote (H. Rept. 105-369). The House adopted 
H.J. Res. 91 on November 4, 1997. The Senate passed the joint 
resolution on November 7, 1997, and the President signed it 
into law as Public Law 105-104 on November 20, 1997.
H.J. Res. 92--The Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact (ACT).
    On October 23, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on and 
reported H.J. Res. 92, granting the consent of the Congress to 
the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact between the 
states of Alabama and Georgia. Witnesses who testified at the 
hearing were: Peter D. Coppelman, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General, Environment & Natural Resources Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice; G. Robert Kerr, Director, Pollution 
Prevention Assistance Division, Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources, State of Georgia, accompanied by Harold Reheis, 
Director, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department 
of Natural Resources, State of Georgia; Walter B. Stevenson, 
Director, Office of Water Resources, State of Alabama; and 
Douglas E. Barr, Executive Director, Northwest Florida Water 
Management District, State of Florida.
    The circumstances that led to the development of the ACT 
River Basin Compact were similar to those that brought about 
the ACF River Basin Compact except that the former river basin 
was located within Georgia and Alabama. The two states adopted 
the ACT Compact during their 1997 legislative sessions.
    On October 29, 1997, the Judiciary Committee reported H.J. 
Res. 92 favorably by voice vote (H. Rept. 105-370). The House 
approved the joint resolution on November 4, 1997, and the 
Senate concurred on November 7, 1997. The President signed the 
joint resolution into law as Public Law 105-105.
H.J. Res. 95--The Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact
    On October 23, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on and 
reported H.J. Res. 95 favorably by voice vote. Witnesses who 
testified at the hearing were: Representative Ed Bryant, 
Representative Roger F. Wicker and Michael Thornton, Project 
Director, Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact.
    H.J. Res. 95 granted the consent of Congress to the 
Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact entered into 
between the states of Tennessee and Mississippi. The compact 
sought to promote economic development in a rural area near 
Memphis, Tennessee that includes portions of Fayette County, 
Tennessee and Marshall County, Mississippi. It created an 
Authority whose task it will be to conduct studies and surveys 
of the problems, benefits, and other matters associated with 
the development of the area described in the compact, and to 
report thereon. It is anticipated that, upon a favorable report 
by the authority, the States would negotiate a new compact to 
provide for establishment of a 4,000 to 5,000 acre industrial 
park.
    On October 29, 1997, the Judiciary Committee reported H.J. 
Res. 95 by voice vote (H. Rept. 105-389). The House approved 
the joint resolution by voice vote on November 12, 1997, and 
the Senate concurred on November 13, 1997. The President signed 
the measure into law as Public Law 105-145 on December 15, 
1997.
H.J. Res. 96--Amendments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
        Regulation Compact
    On October 23, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on and 
reported by voice vote H.J. Res. 96, granting the consent of 
Congress to amendments to the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Regulation Compact. Witnesses who testified at the 
hearing were: Representative Thomas M. Davis and Jack Evans, 
Chairman & Board of Directors, Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority, accompanied by Chief Barry J. McDevitt, 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
    The compact was adopted by Maryland, Virginia and the 
District of Columbia in 1967. It established the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to plan, finance, 
construct and operate a comprehensive public transit system for 
metropolitan Washington. In addition to a subway system 
connecting the three jurisdictions, WMATA administers an 
extensive surface transportation system throughout the area. 
Since its inception, the compact had been amended five times. 
Authorization to create the Metro Transit Police Department was 
signed into law in 1976 by President Ford.
    The amendments contained in H.J. Res. 96 included: changes 
to requirements concerning public hearings consistent with 
federal regulations governing other transit agencies; 
permitting off-duty transit police to carry Authority-issued 
weapons subject to restrictions imposed on police officers by 
each jurisdiction; and clarification of the process by which 
certain WMATA regulations are adopted.
    On October 29, 1997, the Judiciary Committee reported H.J. 
Res. 96 by voice vote (H. Rept. 105-396). On November 12, 1997, 
the House approved the joint resolution and the Senate 
concurred on November 13, 1997. The President signed it into 
law as Public Law 105-151 on December 16, 1997.
S. 1134--Interstate Forest Fire Protection Compact
    On October 15, 1998, the House discharged the Judiciary 
Committee from further consideration of, and passed, S. 1134 
(Murray) under suspension of the rules. The bill granted the 
consent of Congress to a compact to be entered into by Oregon, 
Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, the Yukon Territory, the 
provinces of British Columbia and Alberta implementing the 
Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement. The agreement is 
intended to promote effective prevention, suppression and 
control of forest fires in the Northwestern United States and 
adjacent areas of Canada by the development of mutual aid among 
the signatories. The bill was passed by the Senate on July 30, 
1998, unanimously and was referred the Subcommittee on August 
7, 1998. It was taken to the House floor directly without 
subcommittee or committee action. The President signed the bill 
into law as Public Law 105-377 on November 12, 1998.
S.J. Res. 35--The Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement
    On October 15, 1998, the House discharged the Judiciary 
Committee from further consideration of, and passed, S.J. Res. 
35 (Craig) under suspension of the rules. The joint resolution 
granted the consent of Congress to the Pacific Northwest 
Emergency Management Arrangement entered into between Alaska, 
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the province of 
British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. The agreement seeks 
to encourage collective assistance among the signatories by 
providing for emergency planning management. The bill passed 
the Senate unanimously on July 31, 1998, and was referred to 
the Subcommittee on August 7, 1998. It was taken to the House 
directly without subcommittee or committee action. The 
President signed the joint resolution into law as Public Law 
105-381 on November 12, 1998.
S.J. Res. 51--The Potomac Highlands Airport Authority Compact
    On September 25, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
and reported by voice vote S.J. Res. 51, granting the consent 
of the Congress to the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority 
Compact entered into by Maryland and West Virginia. Witnesses 
who testified at the hearing were: Senator Paul S. Sarbanes and 
Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, accompanied by James G. 
Stahl, Chairman, Potomac Highlands Airport Authority, 
Cumberland Regional Airport, Wiley Ford, West Virginia.
    The PHAA compact governs the operation, use, management and 
development of the Greater Cumberland Regional Airport located 
in Mineral County, West Virginia. The airport was established 
in 1944 when the city of Cumberland, Maryland purchased 
property in Wiley Ford, West Virginia, three miles to its 
south, and constructed aviation facilities. This was an unusual 
situation--a commercial service airport located in one state 
but owned by a local unit of government in another state. With 
two states, two counties, and two municipalities having 
jurisdiction over various aspect of the airport, the General 
Assemblies of Maryland and West Virginia enacted a bi-state 
compact in 1976 authorizing creation of the Potomac Highlands 
Airport Authority to govern and operate the airport. 
Congressional approval of the compact was not sought at that 
time and no action was taken to implement the compact until 
1990 when the various interested governmental units signed an 
agreement to transfer airport management and control to the 
Authority.
    Since 1990, the PHAA has operated the airport and has been 
attempting to implement a 20-year, $10 million modernization 
and expansion program to help service a three-state region that 
includes, in addition to Maryland and West Virginia, an area of 
Pennsylvania. In the process of seeking investment capital, 
loans and airport development grants, the PHAA had confronted 
questions from the Federal Aviation Administration, USDA Rural 
Development and other about its eligibility to function as the 
legal sponsor for the airport and borrow money and give 
security absent Congressional consent to the compact which 
established the authority.
    The Senate had approved S.J. Res. 51 unanimously on August 
3, 1998. The House concurred on October 9, 1998. The President 
signed the joint resolution into law as Public Law 105-348 on 
November 2, 1998.

                             MISCELLANEOUS

H.R. 872, Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998
    Chairman Gekas introduced the Biomaterials Access Assurance 
Act with 27 original co-sponsors on February 27, 1997. A 
companion bill (S. 364) was introduced in the Senate by Senator 
Lieberman. Nearly identical legislation (Title II of S. 648) 
was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce Committee on May 
1, 1997. H.R. 872 was jointly referred to the Judiciary 
Committee and the Commerce Committee.
    Biomaterials are the substances and component parts that go 
into medical implants and devices, which are used by millions 
of Americans. Many biomaterials suppliers have ceased supplying 
raw materials and component parts for use in medical devices 
and implants because the costs associated with litigation 
exceed the benefits of sales to the medical market.
    The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act creates a limited 
protection from liability for products provided by entities 
falling within the definition of ``biomaterials supplier.'' 
Three major exceptions to this protection cause the Act's 
protections to follow the contours of the common law in most 
states. A biomaterials supplier loses the protection of the Act 
if (a) it is the manufacturer of a medical device, (b) it is 
the seller of a medical device, or (c) the biomaterials 
supplier failed to meet contractual and other specifications.
    In addition to its limited protection from liability, the 
Biomaterials Access Assurance Act creates expedited court 
procedures for determining whether a biomaterials supplier 
defendant is protected by the Act. A defendant asserting such 
protection may file a motion to dismiss alleging that it is a 
biomaterials supplier not subject to any exception. The motion 
to dismiss in most cases is decided on affidavits and discovery 
is limited during pendency of the motion.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill on June 12, 
1997. Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: Neil 
Kahanovitz, M.D., founder, Center for Patient Advocacy; Rita 
Bergmann, patient, Clarksburg, Maryland; Randy Markey, patient, 
Newton, Massachusetts; Stephen D. Kaiser, patient, Baltimore, 
Maryland; Donald P. Doty, patient, Minnetonka, Minnesota; 
Kenneth M. Kent, M.D., Director, Washington Cardiology Center, 
Washington, D.C.; Ronald J. Greene, Esq.; Wilmer, Cutler & 
Pickering, representing the Health Implant Manufacturers 
Association, Washington, D.C.; James E. Brown, Vice President, 
Biopharmaceutical and Implant R&D, ALZA Corporation, Palo Alto, 
California; Dane A. Miller, Ph.D., President and CEO, BioMet, 
Inc., Warsaw, Indiana; Dr. Jorge Ramirez, Hoechst-Celanese, 
League City, Texas; and Professor Mark McLaughlin Hager, 
Washington College of the Law, American University, Washington, 
D.C.
    On September 11, 1997, the Subcommittee adopted an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Chairman 
Gekas and reported the amended bill favorably by voice vote to 
the full Committee. On April 1, 1998, the full Committee 
ordered H.R. 872 favorably reported with two en bloc amendments 
offered by Chairman Gekas (H. Rept. 105-549). The bill was 
passed by both the House and Senate on the same day, July 30, 
1998, and was signed into law, (Public Law 105-230), on August 
13, 1998.
H.R. 1494, Apprehension of Tainted Money Act
    H.R. 1494, the Apprehension of Tainted Money Act, was 
introduced by Chairman Gekas on April 30, 1997. The 
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill on May 14, 1997. 
Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: Robert S. Litt, 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice; 
Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel, Federal Election 
Commission; William B. Canfield III, Esq., Williams & Jensen; 
Kenneth A. Gross, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; 
and Larry Klayman, Esq., Chairman, Judicial Watch, Inc.
    The bill was introduced in response to allegations of 
illegality in federal campaign fund-raising and giving during 
the 1996 election cycle. Numerous illegal and ``improper'' 
contributions were returned, and additional return of 
contributions was pledged, to the parties making the illegal or 
suspect contributions. This created concern that individuals 
who tried illegally to influence federal elections may be 
unjustly rewarded with return of the money they illegally used. 
This is a particular concern in cases where an election has 
intervened between the giving of the contribution and its 
return.
    The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 
prohibits certain types of contributions, including 
contributions by foreign nationals and contributions given in 
the name of another. Political committees must examine 
contributions for evidence of illegality and conformity to 
contribution limitations. Under current law and regulation, 
illegal contributions are returned to the individuals who made 
them. Contributions that a political committee discovers to be 
illegal based on evidence not available at the time of receipt 
must be returned (within 30 days of discovery) to the 
contributor.
    H.R. 1494 would have tied up illegal and so-called 
``improper'' campaign contributions that a political committee 
returns after the ordinary time for returning contributions. If 
a political committee belatedly returned a large campaign 
contribution, it would have to transfer the money to the 
Federal Election Commission. The Commission would hold the 
money, notify the Attorney General, and investigate whether the 
contribution was from a foreign source, was made in the name of 
another, or was otherwise illegal. The Commission or the 
Attorney General could require this tainted money to be 
forfeited or applied to fines and penalties against illegal 
contributors. The Commission would have to return a 
contribution if it planned not to use the money, if there was 
money left over after fines and penalties, or if there was no 
public investigation for more than 120 days.
    H.R. 1494 was not marked up in the Subcommittee. A version 
of it was attached as an amendment to H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act of 1998 (Shays/Meehan), which passed the 
House on August 6, 1998. That legislation was not considered in 
the Senate.
H.R. 3032, Construction Subcontractors Payment Protection Enhancement 
        Act of 1998
    On September 11, 1998, the Subcommittee conducted a joint 
legislative hearing with the Government Reform and Oversight 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology on H.R. 3032, the Construction Subcontractors 
Payment Protection Enhancement Act of 1998. Witnesses who 
testified at the hearing were: Deidre A. Lee, Administrator, 
Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget; 
Fred Levinson, President, Levinson & Santoro Electric 
Corporation; Robert E. Lee, President, Lee Masonry, 
representing the American Subcontractors Association; Andrew 
Stephenson, Contracts Partner, Holland & Knight, representing 
the Associated General Contractors; and Lynn M. Schubert, 
President, Surety Association of America, also representing the 
American Insurance Association and the National Association of 
Surety Bond Producers.
    H.R. 3032 was introduced by Representative Carolyn B. 
Maloney on November 12, 1997, and referred to the Committees on 
the Judiciary and Government Reform and Oversight. The bill 
makes a number of amendments to the Miller Act, which requires 
the submission of performance and payment bonds by prime 
contractors on federal construction projects. The Act also 
specifies the manner in which claims can be brought under such 
bonds in the U.S. District Courts.
    H.R. 3032 would have amended the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy Act relating to federal contract payment 
policies and the Miller Act to provide broader payment 
protections for subcontractors and suppliers furnishing labor 
and materials in performance of a federal construction 
contract. As characterized by the bill's proponents, H.R. 3032 
would have made explicit the responsibility of the 
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to (a) establish 
government-wide policies assuring timely payment of federal 
contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers, and (b) assure that 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation implements the various 
statutes providing for timely payment; required the amount of 
the payment bond equal to the performance bond; extended the 
Miller Act's protections to progress payments (periodic 
payments made by the government to prime contractors during the 
term of performance), which flow down to subcontractors and 
suppliers for work performed; extended the Miller Act's payment 
protections to subcontractors and suppliers at all tiers; 
established standards relating to waivers of Miller Act payment 
bond protection by subcontractors or suppliers; allowed notice 
of payment bond suits by means other than registered mail, 
including future electronic means; accelerated the resolution 
of claims for non-payment by permitting subcontractors and 
suppliers to bring suit under the payment bond any time after a 
payment claim has been denied (rather than having to wait 90 
days after last supplying labor or materials as currently 
required by the Act); and authorized U.S. District Courts to 
award attorneys fees, court costs, and interest to a prevailing 
payment bond claimant to (a) discourage raising of groundless 
defenses, and (b) restore the Act's payment protection for 
meritorious small claims (under $100,000 in dispute), which 
would otherwise be foreclosed simply by the cost of litigation.
    No markup of H.R. 3032 was held.
H.R. 4243 and H.R. 4857, Government Waste, Fraud, and Error Reduction 
        Act of 1998
    As introduced by Representative Steve Horn on July 16, 
1998, H.R. 4243 was intended to reduce waste, fraud, and error 
in Government programs by making improvements with respect to 
Federal management and debt collection practices, Federal 
payment systems, and Federal benefit programs. In addition to 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, it was 
referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
    The Government Reform and Oversight Committee ordered H.R. 
4243 reported as amended. On August 26, 1998, it was referred 
to Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. No markup 
of H.R. 4243 was held by either the Subcommittee or the 
Judiciary Committee. On October 14, 1998, the bill was passed 
as amended by voice vote in the House under suspension of the 
rules and the Judiciary Committee was discharged. The bill was 
received in the Senate on the following day.
    On October 20, 1998, Representative Horn introduced a 
modified version of the bill as H.R. 4857, which did not 
include certain provisions of H.R. 4243 pertaining to the 
integrity of federal benefit verification. It was referred to 
the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the 
Judiciary Committee on that same day. No markup of H.R. 4857 
was held by either the Subcommittee or the Judiciary Committee. 
After the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged by 
unanimous consent, H.R. 4857, as amended, passed the House by 
voice vote. The bill was received in the Senate on the 
following day and no further action was taken.

                          Oversight Activities

              ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES

Administrative Crimes and Quasi-Crimes
    On May 7, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Administrative Crimes and Quasi-Crimes.'' Witnesses who 
testified at the hearing were: Robert W. ``Bobby'' Unser, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico; George O. Krizek, M.D. and Blanka 
Krizek, Washington, D.C.; Steven A. Goodman, JSG Trading Corp., 
Tinton Falls, New Jersey; Jane M. Orient, M.D., Association of 
American Physicians and Surgeons, Tucson, Arizona; James V. 
DeLong, Regulatory Policy Center, and Adjunct Scholar, 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.; Roger J. 
Marzulla (former United States Assistant Attorney General for 
Environment and Lands), Marzulla & Marzulla, Washington, D.C.; 
and Professor Jonathan Turley, The George Washington University 
Law School, Washington, D.C.
    ``Administrative crimes or quasi-crimes'' are a range of 
activities for which agencies or federal law enforcers seek 
punitive sanctions against citizens based on their violation of 
a regulation. Whether explicitly denominated ``civil'' or 
``criminal,'' such an enforcement action was called an 
``administrative crime'' for purposes of the hearing if the 
remedy sought goes beyond that of compensating the government 
or the public for wrongs allegedly done. The witnesses and 
their cases were intended to illustrate important questions 
about the nature and scope of criminal regulations, the effect 
of civil punishment on regulated entities and individuals, and 
how administrative actions affect regulated entities and 
individuals.
    The hearing led Chairman Gekas to introduce H.R. 4049, the 
Regulatory Fair Warning Act.
Administrative Taxation: The FCC's Universal Service Tax
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
titled ``Administrative Taxation: the FCC's Universal Service 
Tax.'' Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: James 
Glassman, DeWitt-Wallace-Readers Digest Fellow in 
Communications, American Enterprise Institute; Julia Johnson, 
Esq., Chairman, Florida Public Service Commission; Grover G. 
Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; James Miller 
III, Counselor, Citizens for a Sound Economy; Dr. John E. 
Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union; and Christopher 
A. McLean, Deputy Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, 
Department of Agriculture.
    The clearest example of administrative taxation is the 
Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Tax. 
``Universal service'' is the idea that everyone should have 
access to affordable telecommunications services. It originated 
at the beginning of the century when the nation was still being 
strung with telephone wires. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 
included provisions that allowed the FCC to extend universal 
service, ensuring that telecommunications are available to all 
areas of the country and to institutions that benefit the 
community, like schools, libraries, and rural health care 
facilities.
    Notably, the Telecommunications Act gave the FCC the power 
to decide the level of ``contributions''--taxes--that long-
distance providers would have to pay to support universal 
service. The FCC now determines how much can be collected in 
taxes to subsidize a variety of ``universal service'' programs. 
It charges long-distance providers, who pass the costs on to 
consumers in the form of higher telephone bills. The amount 
collectible to support schools and libraries began at $2.25 
billion per year and the amount for health care providers was 
$400 million per year. Currently, the level of tax collections 
is $1.4 billion dollars per year. The FCC's order implementing 
the universal service provisions raised a variety of other 
legal and policy questions.
    The hearing led to the introduction of H.R. 4096, the 
Taxpayer's Defense Act, by Chairman Gekas.
Congressional Review Act
    On March 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held an oversight hearing on the operation 
of the Congressional Review Act. That Act, signed into law on 
March 29, 1996, was contained in Subtitle E of Title II of the 
Contract With America Advancement Act (Public Law 104-121) and 
provided that agencies must submit new rules to Congress prior 
to their going into effect, together with timetables for both 
Houses of the Congress to consider resolutions of disapproval 
for such rules.
    The Congressional Review Act resulted from a desire for a 
more active Congressional role in the oversight and control of 
a rapidly growing body of administrative rules.\2\ Congress has 
historically employed various means to assert its authority 
over agencies. A popular method, particularly from the early 
1970's through 1983 was the ``legislative veto'' under which an 
enabling statute sometimes provided that rules promulgate under 
it were subject to reversal if one or both of the Houses passed 
a resolution repealing the Executive Branch's action. In 1983, 
however, the Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto in 
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, on the grounds that when Congress 
acted ``legislatively,'' it had to conform to the dictates of 
the bicameral requirement and the Presentment Clause. (Article 
1, section 7, clause 2 of the United States Constitution). 
Because the legislative veto was a legislative act that did not 
adhere to these provisions, it violated the Constitutional 
design for the separation of powers. In recognition of Chadha, 
the Congressional Review Act requires that rules be disapproved 
by a joint resolution of both Houses, which is then presented 
to the President. It thus follows the approach taken in the 
Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. 2072 et seq.), under which the 
Supreme Court has for many years promulgated rules of practice 
and procedure and rules of evidence for the federal courts 
which are subject to disapproval by the Congress following the 
ordinary legislative process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Between 1987 and 1990, agencies promulgated 160 final major 
rules. During the next 4 years, that number had increased to 241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After enactment of the Congressional Review Act, 2,120 
rules had been filed and noted in the Congressional Record 
pursuant to the Act's requirement in the 104th Congress, while 
1,318 rules had been filed as of February 28, 1997, in the 
105th Congress. Of these, 11 had been designated as major rules 
in the 104th Congress and 22 in the 105th Congress.
    The hearing sought to explore the rationale behind the Act, 
to determine how it is understood and applied by the officers 
of the House of Representatives and to establish to what extent 
to its provisions were being adhered to by the agencies.
    Witness who testified at the hearing were: Robert P. 
Murphy, General Counsel, General Accounting Office; Sally 
Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; Jonathan Z. Cannon, 
General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Nancy E. 
McFadden, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation; 
C. Boyden Gray, Esquire, former White House Counsel, partner, 
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Peter L. Strauss, Betts Professor 
of Law, Columbia University; Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. 
Alverson Research Professor of Law, George Washington 
University; Charles W. Johnson, III, Parliamentarian, U.S. 
House of Representatives; Thorne Auchter, Executive Director, 
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness; and Angela Antonelli, 
Deputy Director of Economic Policy Studies, Heritage 
Foundation.
EPA's Rulemakings on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
        Particulate Matter and Ozone
    On July 18, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency 
published final rules setting national ambient air quality 
standards for particulate matter and ozone. The process 
undertaken to develop the rules, and the rules themselves, 
engendered significant debate.
    The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to promulgate national 
air quality standards and review them every 5 years. Under a 
court-ordered, accelerated review of the standard for 
particulate matter, the EPA decided to revise the standards for 
particulate matter and ozone. In promulgating the new 
standards, the EPA found itself not subject to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, though it 
did comply with President Clinton's Regulatory Executive Order. 
The EPA's findings as to the administrative procedures found in 
these laws, and the interplay between those procedures and the 
Clean Air Act, were the focus of the hearing.
    The Subcommittee held the hearing on July 29, 1997. 
Witnesses who testified were: Representative Fred Upton; 
Representative Rick Boucher; Fred Hansen, Deputy Administrator, 
Environmental Protection Agency; Brian Flaherty, Connecticut 
State Representative, National Conference of State 
Legislatures; Allen Schaeffer, Vice President, Environmental 
Affairs, American Trucking Associations; Richard L. Russman, 
Esq., New Hampshire State Senate; Ron Klink; George Wolff, 
Ph.D., Principal Scientist, Corporate Affairs Staff, General 
Motors Corporation; Randy Johnson, Hennepin County (MN) 
Commissioner, President, National Association of Counties; 
George D. Thurston, Sc.D., Associate Professor, New York 
University School of Medicine, Institute of Environmental 
Medicine.
Oversight of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the 
        Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of 
        Justice, and the Executive Office for United States Trustees.
    On February 25, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
three offices within the Department of Justice over which it 
has oversight jurisdiction: the Executive Office for United 
States Attorneys, the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, and the Executive Office for United States Trustees. 
Witnesses who testified at the hearing were: Donna A. Bucella, 
Director, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Department 
of Justice; Karen F. Schreier, U.S. Attorney for the District 
of South Dakota, Vice Chairman, Attorney General's Advisory 
Committee for U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice; Lois 
Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Environment & Natural 
Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice; and Joseph 
Patchan, Director, Executive Office for the U.S. Trustees, U.S. 
Department of Justice.
    The hearing gave an opportunity for the Department of 
Justice representatives to describe the workings of their 
respective offices, the plans each had for the future and the 
progress they had made towards achieving their goals. Each, 
moreover had the opportunity to share with the Subcommittee the 
amounts and justification for their authorization requests.
Role of Congress in Monitoring Administrative Rulemaking
    On September 25, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the role of Congress in monitoring administrative rulemaking. 
Though an oversight hearing, it was framed around two bills: 
the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 (H.R. 1036; 
Hayworth) and the Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis 
Creation Act (H.R. 1704; Kelly). Witnesses who testified at the 
hearing included the bills sponsors, Senator Sam Brownback; 
Representative J.D. Hayworth; and Representative Sue W. Kelly, 
as well as Professor Marci A. Hamilton, Benjamin N. Cardozo 
School of Law; Craig Brightup, Director of Government 
Relations, National Roofing Contractors Association; and Todd 
Robbins, Staff Attorney, U.S. Public Interest Research Group 
(U.S. PIRG).
    The role of Congress in monitoring administrative 
rulemaking flows from its constitutional power to organize the 
executive branch and to make all laws for carrying into 
execution the powers of the United States government. Congress 
writes both the organic and procedural laws that guide agencies 
and it possesses inherent power to oversee all their 
activities.
    To retain direct control of the regulatory process, 
Congress used the legislative veto for most of this century. 
The legislative veto allowed one or both Houses of Congress to 
negate an agency action by passing a simple resolution which 
did not require the President's signature. When overturned by 
the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 
there were as many as 295 legislative veto-type procedures 
written into federal law.
    Improving the regulatory process and asserting 
Congressional authority over it continued to be interests of 
members in the 105th Congress. Senators Levin and Thompson 
introduced the Regulatory Improvement Act (S. 981), which was 
aimed at improving the regulatory process. Two bills within the 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction focused on asserting Congressional 
authority: H.R. 1036, the ``Congressional Responsibility Act'' 
(Hayworth); and H.R. 1704, the ``Congressional Office of 
Regulatory Analysis Creation Act'' (Kelly).
    On February 25, 1998, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported H.R. 1704 in the form of an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. On March 3 and 4, 1998, the full Committee 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1704 in the form of an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute (H. Rept. 105-441, Part 
I). The bill was not considered by the full House.

                               BANKRUPTCY

Status Report from the National Bankruptcy Review Commission and 
        Operation of the Bankruptcy System
    On April 16, 1997, the Subcommittee held a combined 
oversight hearing on the National Bankruptcy Review Commission 
and the operation of the bankruptcy system. The hearing 
provided a forum where representatives from the National 
Bankruptcy Review Commission and the bankruptcy community could 
provide an update on the Commission's work and an overview of 
the bankruptcy system.
    The portion of the hearing concerning the Commission served 
to provide the Subcommittee with an interim indication of the 
issues it would need to consider upon completion of the 
Commission's work. In connection with this portion of the 
hearing, the Subcommittee heard from Brady Williamson, 
Commission Chairman; Stephen Case, a partner with Davis, Polk 
Wardwell, a law firm; and Leonard Rosen, a partner with 
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, a law firm.
    The National Bankruptcy Review Commission was an 
independent commission established pursuant to the Bankruptcy 
Reform Act of 1994, Public Law 103-394, 108 Stat. 4106. The 
Commission was created to: (1) investigate and study issues 
relating to the Bankruptcy Code; (2) solicit divergent views of 
parties concerned with the operation of the bankruptcy system; 
(3) evaluate the advisability of proposals with respect to such 
issues; and (4) prepare a report to be submitted to the 
President, Congress and the Chief Justice not later than 2 
years from October 20, 1995, the date of the Commission's first 
meeting. The report was required to contain a detailed 
statement of the Commission's findings and conclusions together 
with recommendations for legislative or administrative action. 
The House Report accompanying the legislation establishing the 
Commission stated that Congress was ``generally satisfied with 
the basic framework established in the current Bankruptcy 
Code'' and advised the Commission to focus on ``reviewing, 
improving, and updating the Code in ways which do not disturb 
the fundamental tenets of current law.''
    The nine-member Commission was authorized to conduct public 
meetings and empowered to obtain official data from any federal 
agency, department or court necessary to the implementation of 
its duties. Among the topics that the Commission considered 
were case administration, consumer bankruptcy, environmental 
matters, business bankruptcy, issues relating to tax, banking, 
insurance, mass torts and future claims, municipal 
bankruptcies, and international insolvencies.
    The second portion of the hearing was devoted to a general 
overview of the bankruptcy system. Witnesses who testified 
during this part of the hearing included Charles Tatelbaum, 
Vice President for Research, American Bankruptcy Institute; and 
Honorable George Paine, Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the Middle 
District of Tennessee, on behalf of the National Conference of 
Bankruptcy Judges. Issues discussed included the need for 
consumer and business bankruptcy reform, abuse in the current 
bankruptcy system, potential causes of increased bankruptcy 
filings, and the treatment of exempt property, among other 
matters.
National Bankruptcy Review Commission Report
    On November 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law conducted an oversight hearing on the Report 
of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. Witnesses who 
testified at this hearing included Brady Williamson, Commission 
Chairman; Babette Ceccotti, Commission Member; Honorable Edith 
Hollan Jones, United States Court of Appeals Judge from the 
Fifth Circuit and Commission Member.
    As noted above, the National Bankruptcy Review Commission 
was charged pursuant to its enabling statute to prepare a 
detailed report of its findings and conclusions together with 
recommendations for legislative or administrative reform 
regarding bankruptcy law and practice. The Commission's Report, 
filed on October 20, 1997, contained 172 recommendations.
    Subcommittee Chairman Gekas, in his opening statement, 
observed that the Commission's report would be central to any 
bankruptcy legislation would follow. He noted that the use of 
credit had become an addiction for many consumers and that the 
current bankruptcy system failed to require individuals to take 
sufficient personal responsibility. Mr. Gekas explained that 
the ease by which consumers can have their debts forgiven under 
the bankruptcy laws led to higher prices and interest rates 
that had to be paid by those who were fiscally responsible. He 
described his intention to introduce comprehensive legislation 
that would reestablish the balance between creditor and debtor 
interests and encourage greater personal responsibility among 
consumers.
            Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property

  HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, 
             Chairman

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          Wisconsin
HOWARD BERMAN, California            ELTON GALLEGLY, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
ZOE LOFGREN, California              SONNY BONO, California \1\
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
                                     CHRIS CANNON, Utah
                                     BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
                                     CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
                                     JAMES E. ROGAN, California\2\
                                     MARY BONO, California\3\

----------
    \1\ Sonny Bono, California, deceased January 5, 1998.
    \2\ James E. Rogan, California, assigned March 3, 1998, to fill the 
vacancy resulting from the death of Sonny Bono, California.
    \3\ Mary Bono, California, assigned June 17, 1998.

Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the Subcommittee

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................   101
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    21
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....     2
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................     1
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     1
Legislation reported to the House.................................    24
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................     6
Legislation pending in the House..................................     5
Legislation passed by the House...................................    26
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     6
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden)..............     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................    11
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another measure....    20
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    23
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    36
Private legislation referred to the Subcommittee..................     2
Private legislation pending in the Subcommittee...................     2

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee has legislative and oversight 
responsibility for (1) the intellectual property laws of the 
United States (including authorizing jurisdiction over the 
Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of Commerce and 
the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress); and (2) 
Article III Federal courts (including authorizing jurisdiction 
over the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the 
Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Federal 
Judicial Center); the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil and 
Appellate Procedure; and judicial discipline and misconduct.

                         Legislative Activities

                                 COURTS

The Judicial Reform Act of 1997, H.R. 1252
    Introduced by Chairman Hyde, Mr. Coble, Mr. Canady of 
Florida, Mr. Bono, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. 
Riggs, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, H.R. 1252 constitutes a 
restrained legislative response to specific examples of unfair 
practices and procedures, many of which violate the separation-
of-powers doctrine, that exist in the federal court system.
    The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1252 on 
May 14, 1997, and an oversight hearing on the related issue of 
judicial misconduct on May 15, 1997. Testimony at the May 14 
hearing was received regarding H.R. 1252 from the following 
witnesses: Chairman Henry Hyde, U.S. Representative, 6th 
District of Illinois; The Honorable Ed Bryant, U.S. 
Representative, 7th District of Tennessee; The Honorable Donald 
A. Manzullo, U.S. Representative, 8th District of Illinois; The 
Honorable Melvin Watt, U.S. Representative, 12th District of 
North Carolina; The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Delegate 
to Congress, The District of Columbia; The Honorable Henry A. 
Politz, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit; The Honorable Anne Williams, District Judge, 
United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Illinois; Steve Burbank, Professor, University of Pennsylvania 
School of Law; The Honorable Frederick B. Lacey, LeBoeuf, Lamb 
Greene and MacRae; The Honorable Dan Lungren, Attorney General, 
State of California; The Honorable Richard Mountjoy, State 
Senator, California; Bob Destro, Professor, Catholic University 
School of Law; and Arthur Hellman, Professor, University of 
Pittsburgh School of Law.
    On May 15, 1997, the Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: The Honorable Bob Barr, U.S. 
Representative, 7th District of Georgia; The Honorable Tom 
DeLay, U.S. Representative, 22nd District of Texas; The 
Honorable John N. Hostettler, U.S. Representative, 8th District 
of Indiana; The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, U.S. Representative, 
18th District of New York; Thomas Jipping, Director of the 
Center for Law & Democracy, Judicial Selection Monitoring 
Project, Free Congress Foundation; Charlotte Stout, Greenfield, 
Tennessee; Bruce Fein, McLean, Virginia; Lino Graglia, 
Professor, University of Texas School of Law; Roger Pilon, 
Director for the Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato 
Institute; and Wade Henderson, Executive Director, Leadership 
Conference, Washington, D.C.
    On June 10, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1252, amended, by a 
recorded vote of 8 yeas and 7 nays, a quorum being present. On 
March 24, 1998, the full Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1252, as amended with 
additional full Committee amendments, by recorded vote, a 
quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-478). H.R. 1252 was passed 
by the House on April 23, 1998. It was not taken up by the 
Senate.
To amend the Webb-Kenyon Act to allow any State, territory, or 
        possession of the United States to bring an action in Federal 
        Court to enjoin violations of that Act or to enforce the laws 
        of such State, territory, or possession with respect to such 
        violations, H.R. 1063
    Introduced by Representative Robert Ehrlich, Mr. Kleczka, 
Mr. Holden, Mr. Ney, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Barcia, 
Mr. Baker, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Barrett, 
Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Christian-Green, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Canady, 
Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Pickett, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
Diaz-Balart, Mr. Deutsch, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Goode, Ms. Pryce of 
Ohio, Mr. Neumann, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Moran of 
Virginia, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. Foley, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Davis of 
Virginia, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Collins, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. 
Hutchinson, Mr. Clement, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. 
Mica, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Franks 
of New Jersey, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Bliley, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. 
DeLauro, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Wamp, Ms. Dunn 
of Washington, Mr. Hall, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pease, 
Mr. Roemer, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
Talent, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts, Mr. Turner, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Bonior, 
Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Cook, and Ms. Stabenow, H.R. 1063 responds to 
recent problems with direct shipment of alcohol in violation of 
state liquor laws by amending the Webb-Kenyon Act to allow 
States to bring an action in federal court to enjoin illegal 
activity or to enforce state liquor laws.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1063 on September 
25, 1997. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: 
The Honorable Frank Riggs, U.S. Representative, 1st District of 
California; The Honorable Robert Ehrlich, Jr., U.S. 
Representative, 2nd District of Maryland; Jim Simpson, 
Chairman, Government Affairs Committee, National Licensed 
Beverage Association; Jerry Douglas, Vice President, Marketing, 
Biltmore Estate Wine Company, on behalf of the American 
Vintners Association; James Goldberg, Esq., on behalf of the 
Joint Committee of States; and Louis M. Foppiano, Vice 
President, L. Foppiano Wine Co., Inc., on behalf of the Wine 
Institute. No further action was taken on H.R. 1063.
Private Property Rights Implementation Act, H.R. 1534
    Introduced by Representative Elton Gallegly, for himself, 
Mr. Goode, Mr. Royce, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hill, Mr. 
Pickett, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Neumann, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. 
Combest, Mr. Holden, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Weller, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. 
English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Barcia of Michigan, Mr. Herger, 
Mr. Cunningham, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Turner, Mr. Canady of Florida, 
Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Dooley of California, Mr. Frost, Mr. 
Hastings of Washington, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Riley, Mr. Bob 
Schaffer, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Brady, Mr. Collins, Mr. Traficant, Mr. 
Bliley, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Goodlatte, 
Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Condit, 
Mr. Dreier, Mr. Fazio of California, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
Shimkus, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. 
Cox of California, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Hall of Texas, 
Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Bunning of Kentucky, Mr. Kim, Mr. Hilliard, 
Mr. Hayworth, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. 
Christensen, Mr. Packard, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Gekas, Mr. McHugh, 
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Salmon, 
Mr. Rogan, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Inglis of 
South Carolina, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
Schiff, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Parker, Mr. 
Foley, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Upton, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Smith of New 
Jersey, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Jones, Mr. 
Callahan, Mr. Kingston, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Cook, 
Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Spencer, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Regula, Ms. 
Granger, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Knollenberg, 
Mr. Dickey, Mr. Coble, Mr. Bono, Mr. Pombo, Mr. McCrery, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Burton of Indiana, 
Mr. Baker, Mr. Stump, Mrs. Linda Smith of Washington, Mr. 
Livingston, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Latham, Mr. Graham, Mr. Radanovich, 
Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, 
Mr. Edwards, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Danner, 
Mr. Duncan, Mr. Baesler, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Talent, Ms. Pryce 
of Ohio, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Smith of 
Michigan, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. 
Nethercutt, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Aderhold, Mrs. Myrick, Ms. Dunn of 
Washington, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Berry, Mr. Camp, Mr. 
Everett, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Souder, Mr. 
Hoekstra, Mr. Ryun, Mr. White, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. McDade, 
Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Rogers, Mr. 
Bilirakis, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Petri, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. 
Mica, Mr. Armey, Mr. Scarborough, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Buyer, Mr. 
Manzullo, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Ney, Mr. John, 
Mr. Horn, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado, Mr. Lucas of 
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Barton of 
Texas, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. 
Archer, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Linder, Mr. Paul, Mr. Blunt, 
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Hoyer, 
Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Gilman, Mr. 
Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Green, Mr. Sununu, 
Mr. Oxley, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Istook, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. 
Leach, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Porter, Mr. Largent, 
Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Crane, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Sanford, 
Mr. Gordon, Mr. Snowbarger, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. 
Shaw, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, 
Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Rothman, 
and Mr. Hulshof, H.R. 1534 provides private property owners 
claiming a violation of the Fifth Amendment's taking clause 
some certainty as to when they may file the claim in federal 
court by addressing the procedural hurdles of the ripeness and 
abstention doctrines which currently prevent them from having 
fair and equal access to federal court. H.R. 1534 defines when 
a final agency decision has occurred for purposes of meeting 
the ripeness requirement and prohibits a federal judge from 
abstaining from or relinquishing its jurisdiction when the case 
does not allege any violation of a state law, right, or 
privilege as a means of overcoming judicial reluctance to 
review takings claims based on the abstention doctrines.
    On September 25, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 1534. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: John Dwyer, Esq., Acting Associate 
Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Don 
Betsworth, President, North Carolina Home Builders Association, 
on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders; Carl 
Goldberg, Partner, Roseland Property Company, on behalf of the 
New Jersey Home Builders Association; Elizabeth M. Osenbaugh, 
Solicitor General, Iowa Attorney General's Office; and Daniel 
R. Mandelker, Howard A. Stamper Professor of Law, Washington 
University School of Law.
    On September 30, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1534, amended, a 
quorum being present. On October 7, 1997, the full Committee 
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill 
H.R. 1534, as amended, by a recorded vote of 18 yeas and 10 
nays, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-323). The House 
passed H.R. 1534 by recorded vote of 248 in favor and 178 
opposed on October 22, 1997. H.R. 1534 was reported to the 
Senate by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 26, 
1998. H.R. 1534 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar 
but was not taken up for a vote.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, H.R. 3528
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, H.R. 3528 is 
designed to address the problem of the high caseloads burdening 
the federal courts. This legislation will provide a quicker, 
more efficient method by which to resolve some federal cases 
when the parties or the courts so choose. H.R. 3528 directs 
each federal trial court to establish some form of alternative 
dispute resolution (``ADR''), which could include arbitration, 
mediation, mini trials, or early neutral evaluation or some 
combination of those for certain civil cases. The bill also 
provides for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute 
resolution process and prohibits the disclosure of such 
confidential communications. It also directs the courts to 
establish standards for the neutrals and arbitrators to follow, 
and authorizes the Judicial Conference and the Administrative 
Office of the United States Courts to assist courts with their 
programs. It would provide the federal courts with the tools 
necessary to present quality alternatives to expensive federal 
litigation.
    On October 9, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
2603, the ``Alternative Dispute Resolution and Settlement 
Encouragement Act'' which contained many of the provisions 
included in H.R. 3528. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: The Honorable Brock Hornby, Chief 
Judge, United States District Court for the District of Maine; 
Peter R. Steenland, Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute 
Resolution, U.S. Department of Justice; L. Allan Lind, Ph.D., 
Fuqua School of Business, Duke University; and Mitchell F. 
Dolin, Esq., on behalf of the American Bar Association.
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session 
to markup a Committee print which represented a different 
version of H.R. 2603. The Committee print was ordered favorably 
reported by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On March 23, 
1998, the Committee print was then introduced as an original 
bill, H.R. 3528. On March 24, 1998, the full Committee met in 
open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3528, 
amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-
487). H.R. 3528 was passed by the House under suspension of the 
rules by a recorded vote of 405 yeas and 2 nays on April 21, 
1998. It was subsequently amended by the Senate. Those 
amendments were accepted by the House on October 7, 1998, sent 
to the President and H.R. 3528 was signed into law on October 
30, 1998. It is Public Law 105-315.
Federal Courts Improvement Act, H.R. 2294
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, by request, H.R. 
2294 contains several provisions that are needed to improve the 
Federal Court System. It is designed to improve administration 
and procedures, eliminate operational inefficiencies, and, to 
the extent prudent, reduce operating expenses.
    The bill affects a wide range of judicial branch programs 
and operations. Provisions affecting the Judiciary Information 
Technology Fund and the disposition of miscellaneous fees are 
included. Provisions altering the composition of judicial 
districts are included. The bill also contains provisions 
regarding territorial judges and several other personnel 
matters.
    On October 10, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2294. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Brock Hornby, Chief Judge, 
United States District Court for the District of Maine; The 
Honorable Philip M. Pro, District Judge, United States District 
Court for the District of Nevada, Chairman, Judicial Conference 
Committee on Judges; The Honorable Elizabeth Kovachevich, Chief 
Judge, United States District Court for the Middle District of 
Florida; and The Honorable Julia Smith Gibbons, Chief Judge, 
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, 
Chair, Committee on Judicial Resources.
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2294, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On March 3, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 2294, as amended with additional full Committee 
amendments, by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 
105-437). H.R. 2294 was passed by the House under suspension of 
the rules on March 18, 1998. It was not taken up by the Senate.
To amend title 28 of the United States Code regarding enforcement of 
        child custody orders, H.R. 4164
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble and Mr. Andrews, 
H.R. 4164 amends the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, 
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738A, to clarify that the Act was intended to 
include grandparents as persons who may claim rights to custody 
or visitation of a child and that orders granting such rights 
should be enforced in any subsequent state where the children 
may be moved.
    On April 23, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
1690, a bill ``To amend title 28 of the United States Code 
regarding enforcement of child custody orders,'' which 
contained almost all of the provisions in H.R. 4164. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the following witnesses: 
The Honorable Robert E. Andrews, U.S. Representative, 1st 
District of New Jersey; Josephine D' Antonio, President, 
Grandparents Count; and Anne M. Haralambie, Esq., Anne 
Nicholson Haralambie, Attorneys, P.C., on behalf of the 
American Bar Association.
    On April 30, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session to 
mark up the bill H.R. 1690. The Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 1690, amended, a quorum being present. 
On May 6, 1998, the full Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1690, as amended, by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-546). On June 
25, 1998, Mr. Coble introduced H.R. 4164, which contained all 
of the provisions of H.R. 1690 as it passed the full Committee 
as well as technical amendments. On July 14, 1998, the full 
Committee discharged its option to conduct a markup of H.R. 
4164. H.R. 4164 passed the House under suspension of the rules 
on July 14, 1998. It was subsequently amended by the Senate. 
Those amendments were accepted by the House on October 21, 
1998. It is Public Law 105-374.
Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1998, H.R. 3789
    Introduced by Chairman Hyde, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Smith of 
Texas, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Pease, Mr. Moran 
of Virginia, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Inglis of South 
Carolina, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Rogan, H.R. 3789 responds 
to a flaw in the Judicial Code recently highlighted by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: Although ``national 
(interstate) class actions are [arguably] the paradigm for 
federal diversity jurisdiction because, in a constitutional 
sense, they implicate interstate commerce, [invite] 
discrimination by a local state, and tend to [attract] bias 
against [business] enterprise[s],'' most such ``class actions 
[are] beyond the reach of the federal courts . . . under the 
current jurisdictional statutes.'' Frequently, these interstate 
class actions are heard by state courts that are not applying 
rigorous standards necessary to avoid abuses, that are ill-
equipped to address laws and claimants from outside their home 
states, and that are powerless to consolidate overlapping, 
``competing'' class-action proceedings filed in different 
jurisdictions.
    H.R. 3789 addresses these problems by expanding the 
original jurisdiction of U.S. District courts over most class 
actions in which minimal diversity exists among the parties. 
Federal removal statutes are also amended pursuant to the bill 
in furtherance of this goal.
    On March 5, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the subject of mass torts and class actions. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the following witnesses: 
The Honorable James P. Moran, U.S. Representative, 8th District 
of Virginia; Richard L. Thornburgh, Esq., Kirkpatrick & 
Lockhart, LLP; The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica, United States 
Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit; John 
P. Frank, Esq., Lewis & Roca; Professor Susan P. Koniak, Boston 
University School of Law; Ralf G. Wellington, Esq., Schnader, 
Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP; Jack W. Martin, Vice President-
General Counsel, Ford Motor Company; John L. McGoldrick, Senior 
Vice President for Law and Strategic Planning and General 
Counsel, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company; Elizabeth J. Cabraser, 
Attorney at Law, Lief, Cabraser, Heinmann & Bernstein, LLP; and 
Dr. John B. Hendricks, President, Alabama Cryogenic 
Engineering, Inc.
    On June 18, 1998, the Subcommittee held a legislative 
hearing on H.R. 3789. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: The Honorable James P. Moran, U.S. 
Representative, 8th District of Virginia; Richard H. Middleton, 
Esq., Middleton, Mixson, Adams & Tate, on behalf of the 
American Trial Lawyers Association; John H. Beisner, Esq., 
O'Melveny & Meyers, LLP; Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq., Skadden, 
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP; Brian Wolfman, Esq., Public 
Citizen Litigation Group; and Stanely M. Grossman, Esq., 
Pomerantz, Haudek, Block & Grossman, on behalf of the National 
Association of Securities and Commercial Law Lawyers.
    On June 24, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3789, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On August 5, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 3789 as amended with additional full Committee 
amendment by a recorded vote of 17 yeas and 12 nays, a quorum 
being present (H. Rept. 105-702). H.R. 3789 was placed on the 
House Union calendar but not considered.
To provide that a person closely related to a judge of a court 
        exercising judicial power under Article III of the United 
        States Constitution (other than the Supreme Court) may not be 
        appointed as a judge of the same court, H.R. 3926 (S. 1892)
    Introduced by Representative Jennifer Dunn, H.R. 3926 was 
incorporated into S. 1892, the Senate companion bill. S. 1892 
passed the Senate on October 6, 1998. S. 1892 passed the House 
under suspension of the rules on October 7, 1998. The President 
signed H.R. 1892 and it is Public Law 105-300.
Protecting American Small Business Trade Act of 1998, H.R. 3578
    Introduced by Representative Robert Menendez, Mr. Pallone, 
Mr. Payne, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
Franks of New Jersey, and Mr. Traficant, H.R. 3578 would allow 
any person or corporation who has signed a contract or other 
agreement containing an arbitration clause with a foreign 
entity before July 1, 1985, to bring an action for relief 
before the appropriate U.S. Court or federal agency to resolve 
any controversy arising under the contract or agreement. In 
effect, the bill would allow U.S. citizens or corporations to 
disregard any arbitration clause in any contract to which they 
were signatories along with a foreign entity before July 1, 
1985.
    On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee held a legislative 
hearing on H.R. 3578. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: The Honorable Robert Menendez, U.S. 
Representative, 13th District of New Jersey; Salvatore J. 
Monte, Owner, Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc; and Peter A. Kalat, 
Esq., Curtis, Mallet-Prevost & Mosle. No further action was 
taken on H.R. 3578.
Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997, H.R. 240
    H.R. 240 was introduced by Representative John L. Mica, Mr. 
Solomon, Mr. Stump, Mr. Everett, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Davis 
of Virginia, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Filner, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Holden, 
Mr. Evans, Mr. Buyer, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Klug, Mr. Coyne, Mr. 
Rahall, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. 
Schiff, Mr. Camp, Mr. Borski, Mr. Luther, Mr. Fazio of 
California, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. English of 
Pennsylvania.
    On March 20, 1997, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 240, amended 
(H. Rept. 105-40, part 1). The Committee on the Judiciary did 
not conduct a markup of H.R. 240, but in a letter from Chairman 
Hyde to Chairman Burton, it did not waive its jurisdictional 
prerogative in this area. The Committee on the Judiciary was 
discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 240. On 
April 9, 1997, H.R. 240 passed the House under suspension of 
the rules. The Senate companion bill, S. 1021, the ``Veterans 
Employment Opportunities Act of 1997,'' passed the Senate, 
amended, on October 5, 1998. S. 1021 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on October 8, 1998. S. 1021 was signed 
by the President on October 31, 1998. It is Public Law 105-339.
Peremptory Challenge Act of 1997, H.R. 520 (H.R. 1252)
    Introduced by Representative Charles Canady of Florida, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Bono, Mr. 
Rohrabacher and Mr. Riggs, H.R. 520 was incorporated into H.R. 
1252, the ``Judicial Reform Act of 1997.''
To establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal 
        Courts of Appeals, H.R. 908 (H.R. 2267)
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble and Mr. Berman, 
H.R. 908 would establish a Commission on Structural 
Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. The Commission 
would: (1) study the present division of the United States into 
several judicial circuits; (2) review the structure and 
alignment of the Federal Courts of Appeals system, with 
particular reference to the Ninth Circuit; and (3) report to 
the President and Congress its recommendations for such changes 
in circuit boundaries or structure as may be appropriate for 
the expeditious and effective caseload of the Federal Courts of 
Appeals, consistent with fundamental concepts of fairness and 
due process.
    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 908, a quorum being 
present. On March 12, 1997, the full Committee met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 908 by 
voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-26). The House 
passed H.R. 908, as amended, under suspension of the rules on 
June 3, 1997, by voice vote. A compromise version of H.R. 908, 
negotiated between the staffs of the House and Senate 
Committees on the Judiciary, was incorporated into H.R. 2267, 
the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,'' as 
section 305. The House passed H.R. 2267, by unanimous consent, 
on November 13, 1997. The President signed H.R. 2267 into law 
on November 26, 1998. It is Public Law 105-119.
To amend title 28 of the United States Code to allow an interlocutory 
        appeal from a court order determining whether an action may be 
        maintained as a class action, H.R. 660 (H.R. 1252)
    Introduced by Representative Charles Canady of Florida, 
H.R. 660 was incorporated into H.R. 1252, the ``Judicial Reform 
Act of 1997.''
Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Act of 1997, H.R. 702 (H.R. 1252)
    Introduced by Representative Ed Bryant, Mr. Barr of 
Georgia, Mr. Bono, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. 
Hostettler, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. 
Smith of Texas, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Gekas, a version of H.R. 
702 was incorporated into H.R. 1252, the ``Judicial Reform Act 
of 1997.''
To adjust, and provide a procedure for the future adjustment of, the 
        salaries of Federal judges, H.R. 875 (H.R. 1252)
    Introduced by Chairman Hyde, for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Shays, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Berman, Mr. 
Hastings of Florida, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. McDade, 
Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Pickett, Ms. Brown of 
Florida, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. King of New York, Mr. 
Ganske, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Manton, Mr. Dixon, 
Mr. Coyne, Mr. Filner, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Frost, 
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
Wamp, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. 
Koble, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. 
Hilliard, Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Maloney of 
Connecticut. Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. 
Gonzales, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. 
McCollum, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Turner, Mr. 
Cannon, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hefner, Mr. Davis of 
Florida, Mr. Allen, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Torres, Mr. 
Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Watt of North 
Carolina, Mr. Spence, Mr. Gekas, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. 
Abercrombie, Mr. Bliley, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Ackerman, Mrs. 
Kennelly of Connecticut, Ms. Waters, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
Wicker, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Rodriguez, 
Mr. Graham, Mr. Nethercutt, Ms. Furse, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Wexler, 
Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Dooley of California, 
Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. LaHood, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. 
Greenwood, Ms. Carson, and Mr. Bilirakis, portions of H.R. 875 
were incorporated into H.R. 1252, the Judicial Reform Act of 
1997.''
To amend chapter 3 of title 28 of the United States Code to provide for 
        the appointment in each United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
        of at least one resident of each state in such circuit, H.R. 
        932 (H.R. 2267)
    Introduced by Representative Neil Abercrombie and Mrs. Mink 
of Hawaii, H.R. 932 was incorporated into H.R. 2267 as section 
307. The House passed H.R. 2267, the ``Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act,'' by unanimous consent on November 13, 
1997. The President signed H.R. 2267 into law on November 26, 
1998. It is Public Law 105-119.
To provide for the conversion of existing temporary United States 
        district judgeships to permanent status, H.R. 977 (S. 996)
    Introduced by Chairman Hyde, for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
LaHood, Mr. Dooley of California, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Barrett of 
Nebraska, Mr. Fazio of California, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. 
Radanovich, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Regula, Mr. Pombo, 
Mr. Pickett, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lewis 
of California, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Mink 
of Hawaii, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Ms. 
Kaptur, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Scott, Mr. 
Bereuter, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Goode, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Poshard, Mrs. 
Emerson, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Boehlert, 
Mr. Costello, and Mr. Solomon, H.R. 977 was incorporated into 
S. 996, a bill ``To provide for the authorization of 
appropriations in each fiscal year for arbitration in the 
United States district courts.'' S. 996 passed the Senate on 
July 31, 1997. An amended S. 996 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules by a recorded vote of 421 yeas and 0 
nays on September 23, 1997. On September 30, 1997, the Senate 
agreed to the House amendments and sent the bill S. 996 to the 
President. The President signed S. 996 on October 6, 1997. It 
is Public Law 105-53.
State Initiative Fairness Act, H.R. 1170 (H.R. 1252)
    Introduced by Representative Sonny Bono, for himself, Mr. 
Hyde, Mr. Coble, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Gekas, Mr. McCollum, 
Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. 
Goodlatte, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Schiff, Mr. 
Chabot, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Rohrabacher, 
Mr. Horn, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Riggs, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Royce, Mr. 
Herger, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Kim, Mr. 
Ehrlich, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
Hostettler, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. 
Packard, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Foley, 
Mr. Largent, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Gibbons, and Mr. Salmon, H.R. 
1170 was incorporated into H.R. 1252, the ``Judicial Reform Act 
of 1997.''
Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, H.R. 1280 (H.R. 1252)
    Introduced by Representative Steve Chabot, for himself, Mr. 
Schumer, Mr. Coble, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Gekas, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Portman, Mr. 
Delahunt, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. 
Dixon, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. English 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Jones, Mr. Paxon, 
Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Scarborough, a version of H.R. 
1280 was incorporated into H.R. 1252, the ``Judicial Reform Act 
of 1997.'' The amended version permits proceedings in federal 
courts to be televised under certain conditions.
To reauthorize the program established under chapter 44 of title 28 of 
        the United States Code relating to arbitration, H.R. 1581 (S. 
        996)
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, H.R. 1581 
reauthorizes twenty arbitration programs currently operating in 
Federal district courts throughout the country. The arbitration 
programs were first authorized over 20 years ago and have been 
continuously reauthorized since. The success of these programs 
is unquestioned.
    Following are those Federal District Courts authorized to 
use arbitration pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 28 U.S.C. 
658(1): the Northern District of California, the Middle 
District of Florida, the Western District of Michigan, the 
Western District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, the 
Eastern District of New York, the Middle District of North 
Carolina, the Western District of Oklahoma, the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania, and the Western District of Texas. 
The following are those Federal District Courts approved for 
the use of arbitration voluntarily by the Judicial Conference 
pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 28 U.S.C 658(2): the District 
of Arizona, the Middle District of Georgia, the District of 
Nevada, the Northern District of New York, the Western District 
of New York, the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Northern 
District of Ohio, the District of Utah, the Western District of 
Washington, and the Middle District of Tennessee.
    On June 10, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1518, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On June 18, 1997, the full Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
1518, by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-143). 
On June 23, 1997, the House passed the bill H.R. 1518 by voice 
vote, under suspension of the rules. The provisions of H.R. 
1518 were included in S. 996, a bill ``To provide for the 
authorization of appropriations in each fiscal year for 
arbitration in the United States district courts.'' S. 996 
passed the Senate on July 31, 1997. An amended S. 996 passed 
the House under suspension of the rules by a recorded vote of 
421 yeas and 0 nays on September 23, 1997. On September 30, 
1997, the Senate agreed to the House amendments and sent the 
bill S. 996 to the President. The President signed S. 996 on 
October 6, 1997. It is Public Law 105-53.
To amend title 28 of the United States Code to create two divisions in 
        the Eastern Judicial District of Louisiana, H.R. 1790
    Introduced by Representative W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, the 
provisions in H.R. 1790 were incorporated into H.R. 2294, the 
``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1997.''
Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1997, H.R. 1857 (H.R. 1252)
    Introduced by Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, H.R. 1857 
was incorporated into H.R. 1252, the ``Judicial Reform Act of 
1997.''
To amend title 28 of the United States Code to transfer Schuylkill 
        County, Pennsylvania, from the Eastern Judicial District of 
        Pennsylvania to the Middle Judicial District of Pennsylvania, 
        H.R. 2123 (H.R. 2294)
    Introduced by Representative Tim Holden, H.R. 2123 was 
incorporated into H.R. 2294, the ``Federal Courts Improvement 
Act of 1997.''
Judicial Conduct Reform Act of 1997, H.R. 2739 (H.R. 4328)
    Introduced by Representative Joseph M. McDade and Mr. 
DeLay, H.R. 2739 was incorporated into H.R. 4328, the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill, as section 801, Ethical Standards for 
Federal Prosecutors. It subjects government attorneys to State 
laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing 
attorneys in each State where a government attorney engages in 
that attorney's duties, to the same extent and in the same 
manner as other attorneys in that State. This will repeal 
77.2(a) of part 77 of title 28 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Section 801 takes effect 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of H.R. 4328. H.R. 4328 is Public Law 105-277.
Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1998, H.R. 3154 (H.R. 2294)
    Introduced by Representative Charles Canady of Florida, Mr. 
McCollum, Mr. Goss, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Davis of Florida, 
and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 3154 was incorporated into H.R. 2294, the 
``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1997.''
Alternative Dispute Resolution and Settlement Encouragement Act, H.R. 
        903 (H.R. 3528)
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble and Mr. 
Goodlatte, the provisions of H.R. 903 were incorporated into 
H.R. 3528, the ``Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998.''

                         Intellectual Property

                               Copyrights

WIPO Treaties Implementation Act, H.R. 2281
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Bono, Mr. McCollum, 
Mr. Berman, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Paxon, and Mr. Pickering, H.R. 2281 
contains five titles which address several copyright issues. 
Title I implements two treaties which ensure adequate 
protection for American works in countries around the world at 
a time when the Internet allows users to send and retrieve 
perfect copies of copyrighted material over the Internet. In 
compliance with the treaties, H.R. 2281 makes it unlawful to 
defeat technological measures used by copyright owners to 
protect their works on the Internet, including preventing 
unlawful access and targeting devices made to circumvent 
encrypted copyrighted material. It also makes it unlawful to 
deliberately alter or delete information provided by a 
copyright owner which identifies a work, its owner, and its 
permissible use.
    Title II, the ``On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability 
Limitation Act'' was introduced to address concerns raised by a 
number of on-line service and Internet access providers 
regarding their potential liability for copyright infringement 
when infringing material is transmitted on-line through their 
services. Title II of this bill codifies a liability system 
based on the core of current case law dealing with the 
liability of on-line service providers.
    Title III ensures that independent computer maintenance 
servicers do not inadvertently become liable for copyright 
infringement merely because they have turned on a machine in 
order to service its hardware components. When a computer is 
turned on, certain software or parts thereof (generally the 
machine's operating system software) is automatically copied 
into the machine's random access memory, or ``RAM.'' During the 
course of activating the computer, different parts of the 
operating system may reside in the RAM at different times 
because the operating system is sometimes larger than the 
capacity of the RAM. Because such copying has been held to 
constitute a ``reproduction'' under Sec. 106 of the Copyright 
Act, a person who activated the machine without the 
authorization of the copyright owner of that software could be 
liable for copyright infringement. This title has the narrow 
and specific intent of relieving independent service providers, 
persons unaffiliated with either the owner or lessee of the 
machine, from liability under the Copyright Act when, solely by 
virtue of activating the machine in which a computer program 
resides, they inadvertently cause an unauthorized copy of that 
program to be made.
    Title IV contains several miscellaneous provisions:
    It directs the Register of Copyrights to consult with 
representatives of copyright owners, nonprofit educational 
institutions, and nonprofit libraries and archives and to 
submit recommendations to the Congress no later than 6 months 
after the date of enactment of the bill on how to promote 
distance education through digital technologies, including 
interactive digital networks, while maintaining an appropriate 
balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of 
users.
    It updates section 108 to allow libraries and archives to 
take advantage of digital technologies when engaging in 
specified preservation activities. Section 108 of the Copyright 
Act permits these entities of the type described in that 
section to make and, in some cases, distribute a limited number 
of copies of certain types of copyrighted works, without the 
permission of the copyright holder, for specified purposes 
relating to these entities' functions as repositories of such 
works for public reference.
    It contains amendments to sections 112 and 114 of the 
Copyright Act that are intended to achieve two purposes: first, 
to further a stated objective of Congress when it passed the 
Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 to 
ensure that recording artists and record companies will be 
protected as new technologies affect the ways in which their 
creative works are used; and second, to create fair and 
efficient licensing mechanisms that address the complex issues 
facing copyright owners and copyright users as a result of the 
rapid growth of digital audio services. This amendment 
accomplishes both of these objectives by creating two statutory 
licenses for certain performances and reproductions of sound 
recordings in the digital environment.
    The purpose of title V, the ``Vessel Hull Design Protection 
Act,'' is to offer limited protection for original designs of 
vessel hulls which are usually misappropriated by persons who 
indulge in a marine industry practice known as ``hull 
splashing.''
    On September 16 and 17, 1997, the Subcommittee held 
hearings on H.R. 2281. On September 16, the Subcommittee 
received testimony from the following witnesses: The Honorable 
Bruce Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner 
of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and Trademark Office, United 
States Department of Commerce; The Honorable Marybeth Peters, 
Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States, 
Library of Congress; Roy Neel, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, United States Telephone Association; Jack Valenti, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Motion Picture 
Association of America; Robert Holleyman, President, Business 
Software Alliance; M.R.C. Greenwood, Chancellor, University of 
California, Santa Cruz, on behalf of the Association of 
American Universities and the National Association of State 
Universities and Land Grant Colleges; Tushar Patel, Vice 
President and Managing Director, USWeb; Lawrence Kenswil, 
Executive Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs, Universal 
Music Group; Marc Jacobson, General Counsel, Prodigy Services, 
Inc.; Ken Wasch, President, Software Publishers Association; 
Ronald G. Dunn, President, Information Industry Association; 
John Bettis, Songwriter, on behalf of the American Society of 
Composers Authors and Publishers; Allee Willis, Songwriter, on 
behalf of Broadcast Music, Inc.; and Robert L. Oakley, 
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center and 
Director, Georgetown Law Library, on behalf of a Coalition of 
Library and Educational Organizations.
    On September 17, the Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: Johnny Cash, Vocal Artist, with 
Hillary Rosen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Recording 
Industry Association of America; Allan Adler, Vice President, 
Legal and Governmental Affairs, Association of American 
Publishers; Gail Markels, General Counsel and Senior Vice 
President, Interactive Digital Software Association; Mike Kirk, 
Executive Director, American Intellectual Property Law 
Association; Thomas Ryan, President, SciTech Software, Inc.; 
Mark Belinsky, Vice President, Copy Protection Group, 
Macrovision, Inc.; Douglas Bennett, President, Earlham College, 
Vice President, American Council of Learned Societies, on 
behalf of the Digital Future Coalition; Edward J. Black, 
President, Computer and Communications Industry Association; 
Christopher Byrne, Director of Intellectual Property, Silicon 
Graphics, Inc., on behalf of the Information Technology 
Industry Council; and Gary Shapiro, President, Consumer 
Electronics Manufacturer's Association (a sector of the 
Electronic Industries Association), and Chairman, Home 
Recording Rights Coalition.
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2281, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On April 1, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 2281, as amended with additional full Committee 
amendments, by voice vote, a quorum being present. The 
Committee on Commerce requested and received a sequential 
referral on H.R. 2281. The Committee on Commerce reported on 
H.R. 2281 on July 22, 1998 (H. Rept. 105-551, part 2). The 
House passed under suspension of the rules H.R. 2281 on August 
4, 1998. It was subsequently amended by the Senate. The Senate 
insisted on its amendments and requested a conference on H.R. 
2281. On October 8, 1998, Subcommittee Chairman Coble filed the 
Conference Report (H. Rept. 105-796). The Conference Report on 
H.R. 2281 was passed by the Senate on October 8, 1998, and the 
House passed it under suspension of the rules, by voice vote, 
on October 12, 1998. The President signed H.R. 2281 on October 
28, 1998. It is Public Law 105-304.
Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act of 1997, H.R. 72 (H.R. 
        2281)
    Introduced by Representative Knollenberg, H.R. 72 was 
incorporated into H.R. 2281, the ``Digital Millenium Copyright 
Act.''
Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act, H.R. 2180 (H.R. 2281)
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble and Chairman 
Hyde, the provisions contained in H.R. 2180 were incorporated 
into H.R. 3209, the ``On-line Copyright Infringement Liability 
Limitation Act,'' and ultimately in H.R. 2281, the ``Digital 
Millenium Copyright Act.''
    On February 16 and 17, 1997, the Subcommittee held hearings 
on the bills H.R. 2180 and H.R. 2281. The Subcommittee received 
testimony regarding H.R. 2180 from the same witnesses that 
testified regarding H.R. 2281.
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3209, by voice 
vote, a quorum being present. On April 1, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and amended H.R. 2281, the 
``Digital Millenium Copyright Act'' by adding H.R. 3209 to it. 
H.R. 2281 was signed by the President on October 28, 1998, and 
is Public Law 105-304.
No Electronic Theft Act, H.R. 2265
    Introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, Mr. Coble, Mr. 
Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Gallegly, 
and Mr. Clement, H.R. 2265 reverses the practical consequences 
of United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 
1994), which held, inter alia, that electronic piracy of 
copyrighted works may not be prosecuted under the federal wire 
fraud statute; and that criminal sanctions available under 
titles 17 and 18 of the U.S. Code for copyright infringement do 
not apply in instances in which a defendant does not realize a 
``commercial advantage or private financial gain.''
    On September 11, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2265. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of 
Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States, The Library 
of Congress; Kevin Di Gregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General (Criminal Division), Department of Justice; Greg Wrenn, 
Corporate Counsel, Adobe Software; Brad Smith, Associate 
General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation; Sandra A. Sellers, Vice 
President (Enforcement and Education), Software Publishers 
Association; Cary Sherman, Senior Executive Vice President and 
General Counsel, Recording Industry Association of America; 
Fritz Attaway, Senior Vice President, Motion Picture 
Association of America; and David Nimmer, Private Attorney on 
behalf of the United States Telephone Association.
    On September 30, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2265, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On October 7, 1997, the 
full Committee met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 2265, as amended with additional full 
Committee amendments, by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. 
Rept. 105-339). On November 4, 1997, the House passed under 
suspension of the rules H.R. 2265 as amended. On November 13, 
1997, the Senate passed H.R. 2265. On December 16, 1997, the 
President signed into law H.R. 2265. It is Public Law 105-147.
Copyright Term Extension Act, H.R. 2589 (S. 505)
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. 
Bono, Mr. Cannon, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. 
Berman, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Lofgren, and Mr. Delahunt, H.R. 2589 
will extend the term of copyright protection in all copyrighted 
works that have not fallen into the public domain by 20 years.
    On June 27, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the issue of copyright term extension. The 
Subcommittee received testimony regarding copyright term 
extension from the following witnesses: Fritz Attaway, General 
Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America; George David 
Weiss, Songwriter, Songwriters Guild of America; Frances 
Preston, President, Broadcast Music Incorporated; Julius 
Epstein, Author of ``Casablanca,'' Writers Guild of America, 
West; and Professor Jerome Reichman, Vanderbilt Law School.
    On September 30, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session 
to mark up a Committee print which contained many provisions 
contained in H.R. 604, the ``Copyright Term Extension Act of 
1997.'' The Committee print was ordered favorably reported by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On October 2, 1997, the 
Committee print was then introduced by Subcommittee Chairman 
Coble as a clean bill, H.R. 2589. On March 3, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 2589, by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. 
Rept. 105-452). The House passed H.R. 2589, amended by 
amendment regarding music licensing offered by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, by voice vote on March 25, 1998. The Senate 
companion bill, S. 505, was amended to contain the copyright 
term extension provisions in H.R. 2589 and a negotiated 
agreement on music licensing. The Senate passed S. 505 on 
October 7, 1998. The House passed under suspension of the rules 
S. 505 on October 7, 1998. The President signed S. 505 into law 
on October 27, 1998. It is Public Law 105-298.
Fairness in Music Licensing Act, H.R. 789 (S. 505)
    Introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, for 
himself, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. 
Gillmor, Mr. Norwood, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Ensign, Mr. 
Mascara, Mr. Herger, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Burton of 
Indiana, Mr. Petri, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Parker, Mr. 
McDermott (withdrew on March 18, 1997), Mr. Thornberry, Mr. 
Christensen, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Davis of 
Virginia, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. 
Hoekstra, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, 
Mr. LoBiondo, Mrs. Linda Smith of Washington, Mr. Holden, Mr. 
Schiff, Mr. Stump, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Barton of Texas, 
Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Baesler, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Wolf, Mr. 
Doyle, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Skeen, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. 
Porter, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Collins, Mr. Pickett, Mr. 
Duncan, Mr. Upton, Mr. Weller, Mr. Poshard, Mr. Crane, Mr. 
Metcalf, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Salmon, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Young 
of Alaska, Mr. McHale, Mr. Horn, Mr. Klug, Mr. Latham, Mr. 
Talent, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Barcia of Michigan, Mr. 
Chambliss, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Oberstar, 
Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Packard, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Kolbe, 
Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. 
Combest, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
Gilchrest, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hobson, 
Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. 
McIntosh, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Ms. Dunn of Washington, Mr. 
Hayworth, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. 
Snowbarger, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Souder, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. 
Rush, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Ney, Mr. Neumann, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. 
Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. 
Chabot, Mr. Berry, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Camp, Mr. Condit, Mr. 
Ramstad, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Spence, Mr. Taylor of North 
Carolina, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Hill, Mr. Gallegly, 
Mrs. Northup, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Ms. 
Carson, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Pallone, 
Mr. White, Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
Whitfield, Mr. Turner, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Graham, Ms. Danner, Mr. 
Istook, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Bunning 
of Kentucky, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Hefley, Mr. 
Blagojevich, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Minge, Mr. Bob Schaffer, Mr. 
Pomeroy, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, 
Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Paxon, and Mr. Hastings of 
Washington, H.R. 789 contained certain provisions which were 
incorporated into S. 505, the ``Sonny Bono Copyright Term 
Extension Act.''
    On June 27, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the issue of per program licenses, which are dealt 
with in H.R. 789. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: Bob Sterling, President, Coalition to Save 
America's Gospel Music Heritage; Ed Atsinger, President, Salem 
Communications Corporation; and Dirk Hallemeier, Radio Station 
Owner, St. Louis Mid-American Gospel.
    On July 17, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on 
the issue of music licensing in restaurants and retail and 
other establishments. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: The Honorably Marybeth Peters, 
Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States, 
The Library of Congress; Robert Stoll, Administrator, Office of 
Legislative Affairs, United States Department of Commerce, 
Patent and Trademark Office; Wayland Holyfield, President, 
Nashville Songwriters' Association International, on behalf of 
the American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers; Mac 
Davis, Songwriter, on behalf of Broadcast Music Incorporated; 
Pat Collins, Senior Vice-President, Licensing, SESAC, Inc.; 
Debra Leach, Executive Director, National Licensed Beverage 
Association; Peter Kilgore, General Counsel, National 
Restaurant Association; Pete Madland, President, Wisconsin 
Tavern League, Owner of ``Pete's Landing''; Thelma Showman, 
Owner, Thelma Showman's School of Dance''; and Gary Shapiro, 
President, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association.
    The provisions contained in H.R. 789 regarding music 
licensing in restaurants and retail and other establishments 
were negotiated and the resulting agreement was incorporated 
into S. 505.
To make technical amendments to certain provisions of title 17 of the 
        United States Code, H.R. 672
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, H.R. 672 
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. None of 
the amendments contained in H.R. 672 change substantive 
copyright law. All of the amendments are non-controversial and 
technical or clarifying in nature.
    The Subcommittee held no hearings on H.R. 672 because it 
viewed the bill as technical and noncontroversial, and it 
received broad bipartisan support.
    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 672, amended, by voice 
vote, a quorum being present. On March 12, 1997, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 672, as amended, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 
105-25). H.R. 672 was passed by the House under suspension of 
the rules on March 18, 1997, by a recorded vote of 424 yeas and 
2 nays. It was subsequently amended by the Senate. Those 
amendments were accepted by the House on November 4, 1997, sent 
to the President and H.R. 672 was signed into law on November 
13, 1997. It is Public Law 105-80.
To amend title 17 of the United States Code to provide that the 
        distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not 
        for any purpose constitute a publication of the musical work 
        embodied therein, H.R. 1967 (H.R. 672)
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, for himself, Mr. 
Hilleary, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr. Bryant, H.R. 1967 
resolves problems created by recent judicial interpretations of 
provisions of the 1909 Copyright Act. It makes clear that the 
distribution of a musical record, disc or tape before 1978 did 
not constitute a publication of the musical composition(s) 
embodied in that disc or tape.
    On June 27, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the issues contained in H.R. 1967. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from the following witnesses: Paul Williams, 
Songwriter, on behalf of the American Society of Composers, 
Authors and Publishers; and Ed Murphy, President, National 
Music Publishers Association.
    On September 30, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1967, by voice 
vote, a quorum being present. On October 7, 1997, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 1967, by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. 
Rept. 105-325). On October 30, 1997, the Senate amended H.R. 
672 to include the provisions contained in H.R. 1967. H.R. 672 
is now Public Law 105-80.
Multichannel Video Competition and Consumer Protection Act, H.R. 2921
    Introduced by Representative W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, for 
himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Shimkus, 
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Stearns, Mr. 
Hill, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Packard, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. 
John, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. 
Deal of Georgia, Mr. Sessions, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Rahall, Mr. 
Walsh, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Barcia of Michigan, Mrs. 
Cubin, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Smith of 
Oregon, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Hamilton, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Spratt, 
Mr. Bishop, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Boswell, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Petri, 
Mr. Nussle, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Latham, Mr. Jones, Mr. 
Thornberry, Ms. Danner, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Largent, Mr. Clyburn, 
Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Camp, Mr. Coburn, 
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado, Mr. 
Poshard, Mr. Klink, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Berry, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. 
Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Tanner, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Solomon, Mr. 
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Stump, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Boyd, Mr. 
Goss, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Rogan, Mr. 
Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Upton, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. 
Combest, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Wise, Mr. Hutchinson, 
Mrs. Morella, Mr. Horn, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Myrick, Ms. Eshoo, 
Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Clement, Mr. Cook, 
Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. 
Traficant, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, 
Mr. Wolf, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. 
Pickering, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Ms. Stabenow, 
Mr. Minge, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Shays, Mr. Murtha, Mr. 
Kennedy of Massachusetts, Mr. Goodling, Mrs. Linda Smith of 
Washington, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Weldon 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hefner, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Collins, 
Mr. Lantos, Mr. Etheridge, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Turner, Mr. 
Sandlin, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Ney, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. 
Bateman, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Rivers, Mr. 
Aderholt, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
Ensign, Mr. Olver, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Pickett, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. 
Strickland, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Neal of 
Massachusetts, Mr. Miller of California, Mr. Gilman, Mr. 
Thompson, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Klug, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. 
Blunt, Mr. Engel, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. 
Lampson, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Pomeroy, Ms. Slaughter, 
Mr. Deutsch, and Mr. Evans, H.R. 2921 is intended provide 
relief to consumers regarding an increase in the copyright fees 
satellite carriers must pay in order to obtain programming. The 
moratorium will provide Congress the necessary time to evaluate 
what effect an increase in satellite fees would have on 
satellite carriers' ability to compete with cable television. 
This parity will lead to increased exposure of copyrighted 
programming to consumers, resulting in lower prices for cable 
and satellite services because such services will have to 
compete with each other to deliver desired programming directly 
to American homes.
    On August 4, 1998, the full Committee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2921, as amended, 
by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-661, part 
2). A scaled down version of H.R. 2921 was passed by the House 
under suspension of the rules on October 7, 1998. It was not 
taken up by the Senate.
Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act, H.R. 3210
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, H.R. 3210 is 
intended to improve the current copyright compulsory license 
applied to satellite carriers of copyrighted programming 
contained on television broadcast signals, and to provide for a 
new copyright compulsory license that will allow satellite 
carriers to retransmit a local broadcast signal into the same 
local market from which it originated for no copyright fee. 
This will essentially provide to satellite carriers the same 
opportunities as their cable competitors while also applying 
many of the same obligations. This parity will lead to 
increased exposure of copyrighted programming to consumers, 
resulting in lower prices for cable and satellite services 
because such services will have to compete with each other to 
deliver desired programming directly to American homes.
    The Subcommittee held two oversight hearings on H.R. 3210. 
On October 30, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on copyright licensing regimes covering retransmission of 
broadcast signals. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register, 
U.S. Copyright Office, The Library of Congress; Chuck Hewitt, 
President, Satellite Broadcasting and Communications 
Association; William (Rik) Hawkins, Owner, Starpath of Hardin 
County, Elizabethtown, Kentucky; Steven J. Cox, Senior Vice 
President, New Ventures, DirecTV, Incorporated, El Segundo, 
California; James F. Goodmon, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Incorporated, Raleigh, 
North Carolina; Tom Howe, Director and General Manager of North 
Carolina University Center for Public Television, Public 
Broadcasting Service (PBS)/National Public Radio (NPR); Thomas 
J. Ostertag, General Counsel, Major League Baseball, Office of 
the Commissioner; Fritz E. Attaway, Senior Vice President, 
Motion Picture Association of America; Decker Anstrom, 
President, National Cable Television Association; and Wade 
Hargrove, Networks Affiliated Stations Alliance, Raleigh, North 
Carolina.
    On February 4, 1998, the Subcommittee conducted another 
oversight hearing on copyright licensing regimes covering 
retransmission of broadcast signals. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from the following witnesses: Charles W. Ergen, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of Echostar 
Communications Corporation; Peter C. Boylan, III, President and 
Chief Executive Officer of United Video Satellite Group; H. 
Thomas Casey, Chief Executive Officer and President of 
Primetime 24; Matthew M. Polka, President of the Small Cable 
Business Association; William Sullivan, Board of Directors of 
the National Association of Broadcasters; James J. Popham, Vice 
President and General Counsel of the Association of Local 
Television Stations; Bob Phillips, Chief Executive Officer of 
the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative; and Marsha 
E. Kessler, Vice President, Copyright Royalty Distribution on 
behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America.
    On March 18, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3210, as amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. No further action was 
taken.

                                Patents

21st Century Patent System Improvement Act, H.R. 400
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, for himself, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Cannon, Mr. 
Condit, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Berman, Mr. Horn, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Towns, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. 
LaHood, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. 
Wexler, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Farr of California, Mrs. Meek of 
Florida, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Furse, Mr. Frost, Mr. 
Chambliss, Mr. Dellums, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Dicks, 
Mr. Vento, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Gutknecht, and Mr. Brown of 
California, H.R. 400 contains several titles addressing and 
solving major problems threatening our patent system. With the 
exception of the title containing miscellaneous provisions, 
each title consists of an independent bill that was the subject 
of comprehensive hearings in the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property over the last two Congresses. Each of 
these titles also reflects changes that were made in response 
to valuable comments submitted by expert witnesses, Members, 
independent inventors, small businesses, large corporations, 
universities and research institutions, industry organizations, 
patent law associations, and the Patent and Trademark Office.
    On February 26, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 400. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Sue W. Kelly, U.S. 
Representative, 19th District of New York; The Honorable Duncan 
Hunter, U.S. Representative, 52nd District of California; The 
Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, U.S. Representative, 45th District 
of California; The Honorable Tom Campbell, 15th District of 
California; The Honorable Stephen Horn, U.S. Representative, 
38th District of California; The Honorable Bruce Lehman, 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and 
Trademarks, Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; John R. Kirk, Chair, Section of Intellectual Property 
Law, American Bar Association; Michael K. Kirk, Executive 
Director, American Intellectual Property Law Association; Chuck 
Ludlam, Vice President for Government Relations, Biotechnology 
Industry Organization; Erwin ``Bud'' Berrier, President, 
Intellectual Property Owners; Mary Ann Alford, President, 
International Trademark Association; Alan F. Holmer, President, 
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; David L. 
Hill, Chairman, Advisory Board, Alliance for American 
Innovation; Harold C. Wegner, Professor, The George Washington 
University National Law Center; Stephen H. Barram, Chief 
Executive Officer, Integrated Services, Inc. and Delegate, 
White House Conference on Small Business; Maureen Gilman, 
Director of Legislation, National Treasury Employees Union; and 
Ronald J. Stern, President, Patent Office Professional 
Association.
    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 400, amended, a quorum 
being present. On March 12, 1997, the full Committee met in 
open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 400, 
as amended, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-39). The House 
considered the bill H.R. 400 on April 17, 1997, and on April 
23, 1997, agreed to an amendment by Ms. Kaptur that exempted 
small business, independent investors and universities from 
publication of patent application information until the patent 
is granted; specifying that patent information can be published 
before the patent is granted if the data has been made public 
in foreign countries, the application has been filed with the 
Patent and Trademark Office for 5 years or longer and the PTO 
determines that the public interest would be served by 
publication, or the inventor deliberately delays publication of 
the patent. By a recorded vote of 220 in favor and 193 opposed, 
H.R. 400 passed the House on April 23, 1997. H.R. 400 was 
reported to the Senate by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
on May 23, 1998. H.R. 400 was placed on the Senate Legislative 
Calendar but was not taken up for a vote.
Patent and Trademark Office Surcharge Extension Act of 1997, H.R. 673 
        (H.R. 400)
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. 
Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr. Delahunt, H.R. 673 responds to 
an aspect of the budget proposed by the Administration on 
February 6, 1997, and to Congressional Appropriations actions 
for the past 6 years. The Administration's budget proposal 
would divert $92 million in fiscal year 1998 from the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, which is 100% user-fee 
funded and receives no tax revenue, to subsidize other areas of 
the government which are currently funded by tax dollars. In 
fiscal year 1999, the Administration proposed that $116 million 
be diverted. In fiscal year 1997, Congressional appropriators 
diverted $54 million; this was a significant increase over 
previous years. This legislation would correct this serious and 
growing problem without harming the budget, so that the PTO can 
use the all of the funds paid by applicants to process their 
applications.
    On February 26, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 673, H.R. 811 and H.R. 400. The Subcommittee received 
testimony regarding all three bills from all of the witnesses. 
The witnesses are listed under H.R. 400.
    The provisions of H.R. 673 were incorporated into H.R. 400.
Patent Term Restoration Act, H.R. 811
    Introduced by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, for himself, 
Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Forbes, Mr. 
Abercrombie, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Barr of Georgia (withdrew on 
March 6, 1997), Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Burton of 
Indiana, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Condit, Mr. Cox of 
California, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Dellums, 
Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Foley, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Graham, 
Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Largent, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Ney, 
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Paul, Mr. Royce, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Schiff, Mr. 
Smith of Michigan, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Traficant, Mr. 
Walsh, Mr. Wamp, Ms. Waters, Mr. Bonior, Mr. McDade, Mr. 
Ballenger, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Danner, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. LaTourette, 
Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Talent, Mr. Young 
of Alaska, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Dan 
Schaefer of Colorado, Mr. Stump, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Barcia of 
Michigan, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Snowbarger, Mr. Smith of 
New Jersey, and Mr. Kucinich, H.R. 811 would alter the current 
patent law in such a way that the term of a patent would end on 
the later of (a) 17 years from the date of grant of the patent 
or (b) 20 years from the date on which the application for the 
patent was filed in the United States, except if the 
application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed 
application or applications, from the date on which the 
earliest of such non-provisional U.S. application was filed. It 
also contains a patent disclosure provision that states that in 
the event that a continuing patent application is filed that 
claims the benefit of the filing date of a prior application 
that was filed more than 60 months earlier, notices of the 
original patent application and the continuing patent 
application will be published and the public would be permitted 
to inspect and copy the original patent application and the 
continuing patent application.
    On February 26, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 811, H.R. 673, and H.R. 400. The Subcommittee received 
testimony regarding all three bills from all of the witnesses. 
The witnesses are listed under H.R. 400.
    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee ordered H.R. 811 tabled.
Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act, H.R. 3723
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, H.R. 3723 
authorizes necessary appropriations for the Patent and 
Trademark Office (PTO) by adjusting the patent fee structure 
set forth in 35 U.S.C. Sec. 41, and to prevent the diversion of 
agency revenues for activities unrelated to PTO operations. The 
bill lowers patent and trademark application fees for the first 
time in history.
    On April 30, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3723, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 6, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 3723, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present (H. Rept. 105-528). H.R. 3723 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote on May 12, 1998. The 
Senate passed H.R. 3723 on October 14, 1998.
    The President signed H.R. 3723 on November 10, 1998. It is 
Public Law 105-358.
Plant Patents Amendments Act, H.R. 1197
    Introduced by Representative Robert F. Smith of Oregon, for 
himself, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Farr of 
California, H.R. 1197 extends the same protection to plant 
parts as exists for plants under the Patent Act; and authorizes 
the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to implement a statewide 
computer network program, thereby enabling small inventors to 
have greater access to information in PTO depository libraries.
    H.R. 1197 passed the House under suspension of the rules on 
October 9, 1998. It was subsequently amended by the Senate. The 
amendment was accepted by the House on October 16, 1998. H.R. 
1197 was sent to the President and was signed into law on 
October 27, 1998. It is Public Law 105-289.
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1997, H.R. 2544/To improve 
        the ability of federal agencies to license federally owned 
        inventions, H.R. 4859
    H.R. 2544 was introduced by Representatives Constance A. 
Morella, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. Barcia 
of Michigan, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. Cook. The Committee on the 
Judiciary did not conduct a markup of H.R. 2544, but in a 
letter from Chairman Hyde to Chairman Sensenbrenner, it did not 
waive its jurisdictional prerogative in this area. The 
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill H.R. 2544. On July 14, 1998, H.R. 
2544 passed the House under suspension of the rules.
    H.R. 4859 was introduced by Representatives Constance A. 
Morella, and Mr. Brown of California. The Committee on the 
Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of the bill 
H.R. 4859. On October 20, 1998, H.R. 4859 passed the House.
To provide for the enactment of user fees proposed by the President in 
        his budget submission under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
        States Code, for fiscal year 1999, H.R. 3989
    H.R. 3989 was introduced by Representative Gerald Solomon. 
The Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill H.R. 3989 on June 5, 1998. H.R. 3989 
failed passage by the House on June 5, 1998.

                               Trademarks

Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, H.R. 567
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, H.R. 567 
implements the Madrid Protocol Agreement (``Protocol'') which 
provides for an international registration system for 
trademarks.
    On May 22, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
567. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, Commissioner and 
Assistant Secretary, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 
United States Department of Commerce; Shaun Donnelly, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Trade Policy and Programs, United States 
Department of State, Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs; 
Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual 
Property Law Association; and David C. Stimpson, President, 
International Trademark Association.
    On June 10, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 567 by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On June 18, 1997, the full Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
567 by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 105-199). 
H.R. 567 passed the House under suspension of the rules by 
voice vote on May 5, 1998.
Trade Dress Protection Act, H.R. 3163
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, H.R. 3163 
reasserts that trade dress provides protection for the 
appearance or configuration of a product. In a consumer 
society, much attention is paid to the appearance of those 
articles placed for sale to the public at large. Companies 
invest tremendous resources in designing the configuration and 
packaging so that the average consumer can locate and identify 
the goods or services as the product of a company they know and 
favor. The product's appearance, or trade dress, therefore 
plays a significant role in identifying the source of the 
product to the consumer. Trade dress is defined as the total 
image and overall appearance of a product, together with all 
the elements making up the overall image that serves to 
identify the product as presented to the consumer.
    Traditionally, trade dress referred to product packaging or 
labeling, but has expanded to encompass the configuration or 
design of the product itself, as well as settings or styles of 
doing business. Prior to 1992, the Circuit Courts were split 
over whether trade dress could be protected if it was 
inherently distinctive, or if secondary meaning also had to be 
established to make it eligible for protection.
    In 1992, the Supreme Court held that trade dress is 
protectible if it is inherently distinctive or if it has 
acquired secondary meaning. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, 
Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). However, the Court did not 
specifically address the standard to be applied in determining 
whether a particular trade dress is inherently distinctive. In 
the years succeeding Two Pesos, courts throughout the country 
have struggled to settle on a standard for determining inherent 
distinctiveness for trade dress. H.R. 3163 addresses that 
issue.
    On February 12, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 3163. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: Jeffrey M. Samuels, Esq., Office of 
Jeffrey M. Samuels, P.C.; Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, 
American Intellectual Property Law Association; David C. 
Stimson, President, International Trademark Association; and 
Theodore H. Davis, Jr., Partner, Kilpatrick, Stockton, LLP, on 
behalf of the American Bar Association. No further action was 
taken on H.R. 3163.
Trademark Anticounterfeiting Act of 1998, H.R. 3891
    Introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, H.R. 3891 
safeguards the ability of manufacturers to exert better control 
over the use of their products with which valuable marks are 
associated by protecting the integrity of corresponding product 
identification codes contained in product packaging.
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
3891. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American 
Intellectual Property Law Association; Fred Mostert, President-
Elect, International Trademark Association; John S. Bliss, 
President, International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition; Jeffrey 
M. Samuels, Esq., Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Samuels, P.C.; Garo 
A. Partoyan, General Counsel for Marketing and Technology, 
Mars, Inc., on behalf of the Intellectual Property Owners.
    On June 4, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3891, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On July 16, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 3891, as amended with additional full Committee 
amendments (H. Rept. 105-650). On September 28, 1998, H.R. 3891 
did not pass the House under suspension of the rules, a two-
thirds affirmative vote required, by a recorded vote of 245 in 
support and 167 in opposition.
Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act, H.R. 1661 (S. 2193)
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, H.R. 1661 
contains changes which are necessary to bring U.S. law in 
compliance with The Trademark Law Treaty (``TLT'') so 
ratification can occur. TLT harmonizes procedures of national 
trademark offices by establishing maximum requirements a 
``contracting party'' (member state or intergovernmental 
organization) can impose for trademark applications or for 
granting filing dates. The treaty also eliminates many formal 
requirements governing renewals, recordation of assignments, 
changes of names or addresses, powers of attorney, drawings, 
signatures, and the like. A key feature of the TLT is the 
elimination of the legalization of signatures on documents, 
except in the case of a surrender of registration. Other 
important TLT provisions improve the treatment of multi-class 
and ``divisional'' applications.
    For the most part, H.R. 1661 does not change U.S. domestic 
substantive law. Rather, under the treaty, and like the United 
States, other countries must provide for 10-year periods of 
protection and renewal (no more, and no less) in international 
applications. This reform is consistent with a trend in the 
international trademark community. In addition, countries must 
provide for service mark registration. Again, this obligation 
dovetails with an ongoing trend, and is otherwise imposed on 
all members of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
    On May 22, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
1661. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable Bruce Lehman, Commissioner and 
Assistant Secretary, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 
United States Department of Commerce; Shaun Donnelly, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Trade Policy and Programs, United States 
Department of State, Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs; 
Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual 
Property Law Association; and David C. Stimson, President, 
International Trademark Association.
    On June 10, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1661, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On June 18, 1997, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 1661, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present (H. Rept. 105-194). H.R. 1661 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules by a recorded vote of 425 in favor and 
0 in opposition. The Senate companion bill, S. 2193, passed the 
Senate on September 17, 1998. S. 2193 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote on October 9, 1998. S. 
2193 was signed into law on October 30, 1998, and is Public Law 
105-330.
To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 with respect to the dilution of 
        famous marks, H.R. 3119
    Introduced by Representative Roy Blunt, H.R. 3119 would bar 
an owner of a famous mark from bringing an action based on 
dilution more than 1 year after the date of registration of a 
third party's otherwise infringing mark or its use in commerce, 
whichever is later.
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
3119. The Subcommittee received testimony regarding H.R. 3119 
from the following witnesses: The Honorable Roy Blunt, U.S. 
Representative, 7th District of Missouri, accompanied by 
Michael Ingram, President, Ingram Enterprises, Inc.; Michael K. 
Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual Property Law 
Association; Fred Mostert, President-Elect, International 
Trademark Association; and Garo A. Partoyan, General Counsel 
for Marketing and Technology, Mars, Inc., on behalf of the 
Intellectual Property Owners. No further action was taken on 
H.R. 3119.
Registration of Insignia of American Indian Tribes, S. 2193 and H.R. 
        4328
    Introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch, S. 2193 consists of 
changes to public law that will enable the United States to 
implement the Trademark Law Treaty. It also empowers the 
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to conduct a study of 
the official insignia of federally- and state-recognized native 
American tribes. S. 2193, passed the Senate on September 17, 
1998. S. 2193 passed the House under suspension of the rules by 
voice vote on October 9, 1998. S. 2193 was signed into law on 
October 30, 1998, and is Public Law 105-330.
    Introduced by Representative Frank R. Wolf, H.R. 4328, the 
Omnibus Appropriations Bill, contained a provision, section 
210, prohibiting the Patent and Trademark Office from using any 
funds to process or register any application submitted with the 
Patent and Trademark Office for any mark identical to the 
official tribal insignia of any federally recognized Indian 
tribe for a period of 1 year from the date of enactment of H.R. 
4328. H.R. 4328 is Public Law 105-277.
International Expropriation of Registered Marks, H.R. 4328
    Introduced by Representative Frank R. Wolf, H.R. 4328, the 
Omnibus Appropriations bill, contained a provision, section 
211, which states that no transaction or payment shall be 
authorized or approved pursuant to section 515.527 of title 31, 
Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to a mark, trade 
name, or commercial name that is the same as or substantially 
similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that is was 
used in connection with a business or assets that were 
confiscated unless the original owner of the mark, trade name, 
or commercial name, or the bona fide successor-in-interest has 
expressly consented. This provision prohibits any U.S. court 
from recognizing, enforcing or otherwise validating any 
assertion of rights by a designated national based on common 
law rights or registration obtained under section 515.527 of a 
confiscated mark, trade name, or commercial name. It also 
prohibits any U.S. court from recognizing, enforcing or 
otherwise validating any assertion of treaty rights by a 
designated national or its successor-in-interest under the 
Trademark Act of 1946 for a mark, trade name, or commercial 
name that is the same as or substantially similar to a mark, 
trade name, or commercial name that was used in connection with 
a business or assets that were confiscated unless the original 
owner of the mark or the bona fide successor-in-interest has 
expressly consented.
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on the issue of international expropriation of registered 
marks. This issue was brought to the attention of the Congress 
by the Bacardi Corporation. It acquired a Cuban rum company 
along with its trademark, ``Havana Club'' from Cuban owners who 
fled the country. The trademark was expropriated by a Cuban 
state enterprise. Litigation as to who owns the trademark is 
still pending. Barcardi wanted Congress to amend the Lanham Act 
by specifying that the PTO could not refuse registration to an 
otherwise valid trademark if the applicant demonstrates that 
he/she or a predecessor in interest owned the mark after 
January 1, 1959; that the mark, or a business property 
associated with the mark, was expropriated without 
compensation; and that the owner or his/her predecessor in 
interest has not authorized another party to make exclusive use 
of the mark. The Bacardi proposal would also compel the PTO to 
deny registration, recordation, or recognition to a mark if an 
opposer (the rightful owner) demonstrates these same 
conditions.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American 
Intellectual Property Law Association; Fred Mostert, President-
Elect, International Trademark Association; Garo A. Partoyan, 
General Counsel for Marketing and Technology, Mars, Inc., and 
Ignacio E. Sanchez, Kelly, Drye & Warren, LLP.
Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, H.R. 3332 (S. 1609)
    Introduced by Senator Frist, S. 1609 contained an amendment 
offered by Senator Leahy which created a study by the National 
Research Council, in cooperation with the Patent and Trademark 
Office, the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, and other Department of Commerce entities, on 
short-term and long-term effects on trademark rights of adding 
new generic top-level domains and related dispute resolution 
procedures.
    On June 6, 1998, the Senate passed S. 1609 and it was 
referred to the House Committee on Science. The Committee on 
Science included the Leahy amendment to S. 1609 in H.R. 3332, 
the ``Next Generation Research Act of 1998.'' H.R. 3332 was 
passed in the House under suspension of the rules on September 
14, 1998. H.R. 3332 passed in the Senate on October 8, 1998. 
The President signed H.R. 3332 into law on October 28, 1998. It 
is Public Law 105-305.

                   Other Intellectual Property Rights

Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act, H.R. 695
    Introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, for himself, 
Ms. Lofgren, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Coble, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Bono, Mr. Pease, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Conyers, 
Mr. Boucher, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Inglis of South 
Carolina, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Ms. 
Jackson Lee of Texas, Ms. Waters, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Baker, Mr. 
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. 
Cunningham, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Doolittle, 
Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Everett (withdrew on July 
30, 1997), Mr. Ewing, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Gejdenson, 
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Goode, Ms. Norton, Mr. Horn, Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson of Texas (withdrew on May 13, 1997), Mr. Sam Johnson of 
Texas, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. 
Matsui, Mr. Mica, Mr. Minge, Mr. Moakley, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. 
Packard, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Upton, Mr. White, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. 
Hastings of Washington, Mr. Cook, Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania, Mrs. 
Morella, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Solomon (withdrew on April 29, 1997), 
Mrs. Myrick, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Franks of New 
Jersey, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Shays, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Rothman 
(withdrew on July 24, 1997), Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Faleomavaega, 
Mrs. Linda Smith of Washington, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Weldon of 
Florida, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Rivers, Mr. 
Snowbarger, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
Cooksey, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Camp, Mr. 
Wexler, Mr. Weller, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Calvert, Mr. 
Capps, Mr. Linder, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Graham, Mr. Thomas, Ms. 
McKinney, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Istook, Mr. Pickering, 
Mr. Dooley of California, Mr. Latham, Mr. Cox of California, 
Mr. Roemer, Mr. Fazio of California, Mr. Adam Smith of 
Washington, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Ney, Mr. 
Salmon, Mr. Houghton, Mr. McHugh, Ms. Furse, Mr. Hastings of 
Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. King of New York, Ms. Slaughter, 
Mr. Frost, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Ms. Dunn of Washington, Ms. 
Christian-Green, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Lampson, Mr. 
Brady, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Coburn, 
Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Jones (withdrew on September 8, 1997), Mr. Bob 
Schaffer, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Largent, Mr. Clement, Mr. 
Hilliard, Mr. Luther, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Andrews, Mr. 
Bonilla, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. 
Bunning of Kentucky (withdrew on July 30, 1997), Mr. Sununu, 
Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Neumann, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Norwood, Ms. 
Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Archer, 
Mr. Hansen, Mr. Herger, Mr. Riley, Mr. Hill, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. 
Moran of Kansas, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Blumenauer, 
Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Miller of California, 
Mr. Duncan, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Quinn, Mr. 
Kennedy of Massachusetts, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Markey, 
Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Christensen, Mr. 
Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Souder, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. 
Tiahrt, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Parker, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Barrett of 
Nebraska, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Kim, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, 
Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. 
Knollenberg, Mr. Talent, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Klug, Mr. Jenkins, 
Mr. Condit, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Crane, Mr. Wamp, 
Mr. Castle, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Serrano, 
Mr. Holden, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thune, 
Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Collins, 
Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado, Mr. Thornberry (withdrew on 
September 4, 1997), Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Livingston, Mr. 
Hoekstra, Mr. Wise, Mr. Filner, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Sanchez, 
Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Pastor, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Lewis of 
Georgia, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. 
Cummings, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Ford, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, 
Mr. Fattah, Mr. Barcia of Michigan, Ms. Holley of Oregon, Mrs. 
Northup, Mr. Vento, Mr. Bonior, Mrs. Clayton, Mrs. Kennelly of 
Connecticut, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Olver, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. 
DeLauro, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stearns, Mr. 
Hefley (withdrew on July 30, 1997), Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Taylor 
of North Carolina, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Davis of 
Illinois, and Mr. Rush, H.R. 695 makes a series of changes to 
U.S. encryption policy which will facilitate the use of 
encryption. Current policy does not restrict the domestic use, 
sale, or import of encryption. Section 2 of H.R. 695 generally 
codifies that policy by affirmatively prohibiting restrictions 
on the domestic use and sale of encryption. It also prohibits 
any mandatory key escrow system, allowing voluntary systems to 
develop in the marketplace, and provides criminal penalties for 
the knowing and willful use of encryption to avoid detection of 
other federal felonies.
    At the same time, however, the export of strong encryption 
products is tightly restricted under the export control laws. 
Section 3 of H.R. 695 significantly relaxes those export 
controls. In addition, section 4 requires that the Attorney 
General compile statistics on instances in which these new 
policies may interfere with the enforcement of federal criminal 
laws.
    On March 20, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
695. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable William Reinsch, Under Secretary, 
Bureau of Export Administration, Department of Commerce; The 
Honorable William Crowell, Deputy Director, National Security 
Agency; The Honorable Robert Litt, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General, Criminal Division, United States Department of 
Justice; Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum; Ira 
Rubenstein, Senior Corporate Attorney, Microsoft Corporation, 
on behalf of the Business Software Alliance; Roberta Katz, 
Senior Vice-President, General Counsel, and Secretary, Netscape 
Communications Corporation, on behalf of the Information 
Technology Association of America and the Software Publishers 
Association; Jonathan Seybold, Chairman of the Executive 
Committee and Director, Pretty Good Privacy, Inc.; Thomas 
Morehouse, President and Chief Executive Officer, SourceFile, 
Inc.; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; 
Philip Karn, Staff Engineer, Qualcomm, Inc.; Marc Rotenberg, 
Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center; and Jerry 
Berman, Executive Director, Center for Democracy and 
Technology.
    On April 30, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 695, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On May 14, 1997, the full Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
695, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present (H. Rept. 
105-108, part 1). On July 25, 1997, the Committee on 
International Relations ordered favorably reported the bill 
H.R. 695, amended, to the House (H. Rept. 105-108, part 2). On 
September 12, 1997, the Committee on National Security ordered 
favorably reported the bill H.R. 695, amended, to the House (H. 
Rept. 105-108, part 3). On September 16, 1997, the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence ordered favorably reported the 
bill H.R. 695, amended, to the House (H. Rept. 105-108, part 
4). On September 29, 1997, the Committee on Commerce ordered 
favorably reported the bill H.R. 695, amended, to the House (H. 
Rept. 105-108, part 5). H.R. 695 was placed on the Union 
Calendar but it was not considered.
Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, H.R. 2696
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble and Mr. Shaw, 
H.R. 2696 offers limited protection for original designs of 
vessel hulls which are often misappropriated by persons who 
indulge in a marine industry practice known as ``hull 
splashing.''
    On October 23, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2696. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register, 
Copyright Office of the United States; William T. Fryer, III, 
Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law; Mick 
Blackistone, Vice President, Government Relations, National 
Marine Manufacturers Association; Don Cramer, Corporate 
Counsel, Bayliner Marine Corporation; and J.J. Marie, 
President, Zodiak of North America, Inc.
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2696, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On March 3, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 2696, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present (H. Rept. 105-436). H.R. 2696 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on March 18, 1998. During the 
conference on H.R. 2281, the ``Digital Millenium Copyright 
Act,'' the provisions of H.R. 2696 were incorporated into the 
conference report on H.R. 2281, along with other additions. 
H.R. 2281 was signed by the President on October 28, 1998, and 
is Public Law 105-304.
Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, H.R. 2652
    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, Mr. Hall of 
Ohio, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Vento, Mr. LaHood, and Mrs. Tauscher, 
H.R. 2652 responds to a need to complement current copyright 
law with a misappropriation law which prevents the wholesale 
copying of another's collection of information which harms the 
market of the original collector. The bill provides an 
incentive for the investment and development of collections of 
information while maintaining sufficient protections for 
continued access and use of collections by not-for-profit 
educational, library, research and scientific entities.
    The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act prohibits the 
misappropriation of valuable commercial collections by 
unscrupulous competitors who grab data collected by others, 
repackage it, and market a product that threatens competitive 
injury to the original collection. This protection is modeled 
in part on the Lanham Act, which already makes similar kinds of 
unfair competition a civil wrong under federal law. 
Importantly, this bill would maintain existing protections for 
collections of information afforded by copyright and contract 
rights. It is intended to supplement these legal rights, not 
replace them.
    On October 23, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2652. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: Paul Warren, Executive Publisher, Warren 
Publishing, Incorporated, on behalf of the Coalition Against 
Database Piracy; Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Former National Economic 
Advisor to the President and Former Chair of the White House 
Counsel on Economic Advisors, Consultant to Reed-Elsevier, 
Inc., and the Thomson Corporation; James G. Neal, Sheridan 
Director of the Milton S. Eisenhower Library, Johns Hopkins 
University; Dr. William A. Wulf, President, National Academy of 
Engineering, on behalf of the National Research Council; 
Professor Jerome A. Reichman, Visiting Professor, University of 
Michigan Law School, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University, 
Senior Advisor to the National Research Council; and Dr. Robert 
S. Ledley, Director of Medical Computing, Biophysics Division, 
Georgetown University Medical Center.
    On February 12, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2652. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: Robert Aber, Senior Vice President and 
General Counsel, Nasdaq Stock Market; Dr. Debra W. Stewart, 
Dean of the Graduate School, North Carolina State University, 
on behalf of the Association of American Universities; Richard 
Corlin, M.D., Speaker of the House of Delegates, American 
Medical Association; William Hammack, President, The Sunshine 
Pages; Professor Jane Ginsberg, Columbia University School of 
Law; Jonathan Band, Partner, Morrison & Foerester, LLP, on 
behalf of the On-line Banking Association; and Tim Casey, 
Information Technology Association of America.
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2652, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On March 3, 1998, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 2652, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present (H. Rept. 105-436). H.R. 2652 passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on March 18, 1998. The provisions of 
H.R. 2652 were incorporated by the House into H.R. 2281, the 
``Digital Millenium Copyright Act,'' but were not included in 
the conference report on H.R. 2281.

                          OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

Judicial Discipline and Misconduct
    On May 15, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on the issue of judicial discipline and misconduct. The 
Honorable Bob Barr, U.S. Representative, 7th District of 
Georgia; The Honorable Tom DeLay, U.S. Representative, 22nd 
District of Texas; The Honorable John N. Hostettler, U.S. 
Representative, 8th District of Indiana; The Honorable Nita M. 
Lowey, U.S. Representative, 18th District of New York; Thomas 
Jipping, Director of the Center for Law & Democracy, Judicial 
Selection Monitoring Project, Free Congress Foundation; 
Charlotte Stout, Greenfield, Tennessee; Bruce Fein, McLean, 
Virginia; Lino Graglia, Professor, University of Texas School 
of Law; Roger Pilon, Director for the Center for Constitutional 
Studies, Cato Institute; and Wade Henderson, Executive 
Director, Leadership Conference, Washington, D.C.
Music Licensing in Restaurants and Retail and Other Establishments
    On July 17, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on 
the issue of music licensing in restaurants and retail and 
other establishments. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: The Honorable Marybeth Peters, 
Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States, 
The Library of Congress; Robert Stoll, Administrator, Office of 
Legislative Affairs, United States Department of Commerce, 
Patent and Trademark Office; Wayland Holyfield, President, 
Nashville Songwriters' Association International, on behalf of 
the American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers; Mac 
Davis, Songwriter, on behalf of Broadcast Music Incorporated; 
Pat Collins, Senior Vice-President, Licensing, SESAC, Inc.; 
Debra Leach, Executive Director, National Licensed Beverage 
Association; Peter Kilgore, General Counsel, National 
Restaurant Association; Pete Madland, President, Wisconsin 
Tavern League, Owner of ``Pete's Landing''; Thelma Showman, 
Owner, Thelma Showman's School of Dance; and Gary Shapiro, 
President, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association.
Electronic Copyright Piracy
    On March 26, 1998, the Subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing on privacy in electronic communications. The hearing 
focused on privacy over the Internet, privacy in electronic 
telecommunications, and whether and to what extent changes in 
the law or government regulation is necessary.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: Ambassador, David Aaron, Under Secretary of Commerce 
for International Trade, United States Department of Commerce; 
David Medine, Associate Director for Credit Practices, Bureau 
of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission; Professor 
Fred H. Cate, Louis F. Niezen Faculty Fellow, Indiana 
University School of Law; Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director, 
Electronic Privacy Information Center; and Deirdre Mulligan, 
Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy and Technology.
Effect of Pre-1978 Distribution of Recordings Containing Musical 
        Compositions
    On June 27, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the effect of pre-1978 distribution of recordings 
containing musical compositions. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from the following witnesses: Paul Williams, 
Songwriter, on behalf of the American Society of Composers, 
Authors and Publishers; and Ed Murphy, President, National 
Music Publishers Association.
Copyright Term Extension
    On June 27, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the issue of copyright term extension. The 
Subcommittee received testimony regarding copyright term 
extension from the following witnesses: Fritz Attaway, General 
Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America; George David 
Weiss, Songwriter, Songwriters Guild of America; Frances 
Preston, President, Broadcast Music Incorporated; Julius 
Epstein, Author of ``Casablanca,'' Writers Guild of America, 
West; and Professor Jerome Reichman, Vanderbilt Law School.
Copyright Per Program Licenses
    On June 27, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the issue of per program licenses, which are 
addressed in H.R. 789. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: Bob Sterling, President, Coalition to 
Save America's Gospel Music Heritage; Ed Atsinger, President, 
Salem Communications Corporation; and Dirk Hallemeier, Radio 
Station Owner, St. Louis Mid-American Gospel.
Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of Broadcast 
        Signals
    On October 30, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on copyright licensing regimes covering retransmission 
of broadcast signals. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: The Honorable Marybeth Peters, 
Register, U.S. Copyright Office, The Library of Congress; Chuck 
Hewitt, President, Satellite Broadcasting and Communications 
Association; William (Rik) Hawkins, Owner, Starpath of Hardin 
County, Elizabethtown, Kentucky; Steven J. Cox, Senior Vice 
President, New Ventures, DirecTV, Incorporated, El Segundo, 
California; James F. Goodmon, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Incorporated, Raleigh, 
North Carolina; Tom Howe, Director and General Manager of North 
Carolina University Center for Public Television, Public 
Broadcasting Service (PBS)/National Public Radio (NPR); Thomas 
J. Ostertag, General Counsel, Major League Baseball, Office of 
the Commissioner; Fritz E. Attaway, Senior Vice President, 
Motion Picture Association of America; Decker Anstrom, 
President, National Cable Television Association; and Wade 
Hargrove, Networks Affiliated Stations Alliance, Raleigh, North 
Carolina.
    On February 4, 1998, the Subcommittee conducted another 
oversight hearing on copyright licensing regimes covering 
retransmission of broadcast signals. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from the following witnesses: Charles W. Ergen, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of Echostar 
Communications Corporation; Peter C. Boylan, III, President and 
Chief Executive Officer of United Video Satellite Group; H. 
Thomas Casey, Chief Executive Officer and President of 
Primetime 24; Matthew M. Polka, President of the Small Cable 
Business Association; William Sullivan, Board of Directors of 
the National Association of Broadcasters; James J. Popham, Vice 
President and General Counsel of the Association of Local 
Television Stations; Bob Phillips, Chief Executive Officer of 
the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative; and Marsha 
E. Kessler, Vice President, Copyright Royalty Distribution on 
behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America.
Internet Domain Name Trademark Protection
    On November 5, 1997, the Subcommittee conducted an 
oversight hearing on Internet domain name trademark protection. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable Bruce Lehman, Assistant Secretary of 
Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and 
Trademark Office, United States Department of Commerce; Gabriel 
A. Battista, Chief Executive Officer, Network Solutions, Inc., 
Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual 
Property Law Association; David Stimson, President, 
International Trademark Association; John Wood, Senior Internet 
Consultant, PRINCE, plc; and Douglas J. Wood, Executive 
Partner, Hall, Dickler, Kent, Friedman & Wood, on behalf of the 
Coalition for Advertising Supported Information and 
Entertainment.
Attorneys Fees and the Proposed Global Tobacco Settlement
    On December 10, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
attorneys fees and the proposed global tobacco settlement. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the following witnesses: 
The Honorable Scott McInnis, U.S. Representative, 3rd District 
of Colorado; The Honorable Christopher Cox, U.S. 
Representative, 47th District of California; The Honorable Paul 
McHale, U.S. Representative, 15th District of Pennsylvania; 
Michael Moor, Attorney General, State of Mississippi; Richard 
F. Scruggs, Esq., Scruggs, Millette, Lawson, Bozeman & Dent; 
Joseph Rice, Esq., Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole; 
C. Steven Yerrid, Esq., Yerrid, Knopik & Mudano.
Mass Torts and Class Action Lawsuits
    On March 5, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the subject of mass torts and class actions. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the following witnesses: 
The Honorable James P. Moran, U.S. Representative, 8th District 
of Virginia; Richard L. Thornburgh, Esq., Kirkpatrick & 
Lockhart, LLP; The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica, United States 
Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit; John 
P. Frank, Esq., Lewis & Roca; Professor Susan P. Koniak, Boston 
University School of Law; Ralf G. Wellington, Esq., Schnader, 
Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP; Jack W. Martin, Vice President-
General Counsel, Ford Motor Company; John L. McGoldrick, Senior 
Vice President for Law and Strategic Planning and General 
Counsel, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company; Elizabeth J. Cabraser, 
Attorney at Law, Lief, Cabraser, Heinmann & Bernstein, LLP; and 
Dr. John B. Hendricks, President, Alabama Cryogenic 
Engineering, Inc.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    On March 19, 1998, the Subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing on the administration and operations of the Patent and 
Trademark Office. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce & Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, 
Patent and Trademark Office; David Stimson, President, 
International Trademark Association; Michael K. Kirk, Executive 
Director, American Intellectual Property Law Association; 
Norman L. Balmer, President, Intellectual Property Owners and 
Chief Patent Counsel of Union Carbide Corporation; Roger N. 
Coe, Director, Patents and Licensing at Elkhart Site, Bayer 
Corporation, on behalf of the Section of Intellectual Property 
Law of the American Bar Association; Ronald J. Stern, 
President, Patent Office Professional Association; and Robert 
M. Tobias, National President, National Treasury Employees 
Union.
U.S. Copyright Office
    On July 23, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the administration and operation of the Copyright 
Office of the United States. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from the following witnesses: The Honorable Marybeth 
Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United 
States, The Library of Congress; and Shira Perlmutter, 
Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, 
Copyright Office of the United States, The Library of Congress; 
accompanied by: David O. Carson, General Counsel, Copyright 
Office of the United States, The Library of Congress; Marilyn 
Kretsinger, Assistant General Counsel, Copyright Office of the 
United States, The Library of Congress; and Louis Mortimer, 
Chief Operating Office, Copyright Office of the United States, 
The Library of Congress.
Celebrity Imposters/Federal Right of Publicity
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee held and oversight 
hearing on ``celebrity imposters''; or the issue of 
misappropriation of musical group ``personas'' and the 
resulting effect on authentic or original band members. It 
focused on a federal right of publicity and other legislative 
proposals that would proscribe fraudulent performances by 
individuals posing as celebrities or members of a celebrity 
band.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American 
Intellectual Property Law Association; Fred Mostert, President-
Elect, International Trademark Association; Garo A. Partoyan, 
General Counsel for Marketing and Technology, Mars, Inc., on 
behalf of the Intellectual Property Owners; Sam Moore, Member 
of Musical Group Sam & Dave; and Joe Terry, Member of Musical 
Group Danny & The Juniors.
State Commodity Commissions and Product Certification
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on Representative Crapo's proposal to amend the Lanham Act to 
prevent the advertising of potatoes grown in Idaho as ``Idaho 
Potatoes'' when they otherwise fail to meet those quality 
standards imposed by that state's commodity commission.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable Michael Crapo, U.S. Representative, 
2nd District of Idaho; Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, 
American Intellectual Property Law Association; Fred Mostert, 
President-Elect, International Trademark Association; and Garo 
A. Partoyan, General Counsel for Marketing and Technology, 
Mars, Inc., on behalf of Intellectual Property Owners.
International Expropriation of Registered Marks
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on the issue of international expropriation of registered 
marks. This issue was brought to the attention of the Congress 
by the Bacardi Corporation. It acquired a Cuban rum company 
along with its trademark, ``Havana Club'' from Cuban owners who 
fled the country. The trademark was expropriated by a Cuban 
state enterprise. Litigation as to who owns the trademark is 
still pending. Barcardi wanted Congress to amend the Lanham Act 
by specifying that the PTO could not refuse registration to an 
otherwise valid trademark if the applicant demonstrates that 
he/she or a predecessor in interest owned the mark after 
January 1, 1959; that the mark, or a business property 
associated with the mark, was expropriated without 
compensation; and that the owner or his/her predecessor in 
interest has not authorized another party to make exclusive use 
of the mark. The Bacardi proposal would also compel the PTO to 
deny registration, recordation, or recognition to a mark if an 
opposer (the rightful owner) demonstrates these same 
conditions.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American 
Intellectual Property Law Association; Fred Mostert, President-
Elect, International Trademark Association; Garo A. Partoyan, 
General Counsel for Marketing and Technology, Mars, Inc., and 
Ignacio E. Sanchez, Kelly, Drye & Warren, LLP.
Patent Extension Review
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on the issue of the process involved in patent extension 
review.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: Peter B. Hutt, Partner, Covington & Burling; Gerald 
F. Meyer, Former Acting Director and Deputy Director of the 
Federal Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research; and Bruce Downey, Chairman and Chief Executive 
Officer, Barr Laboratories, Inc.
U.S. Judicial Conference, Administrative Office of the United States 
        Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center
    On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the administration and operation of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of 
the United States Courts and the Federal Judicial Center. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the following witnesses: 
The Honorable Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chairman, Executive 
Committee, Judicial Conference of the United States; Leonidas 
Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts; and the Honorable Rya W. Zobel, Director, 
Federal Judicial Center.

              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, 1997, an 
oversight plan including matters to be referred to the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. Following is 
a summary of the portions of that plan relating to the 
Subcommittee and a summary of the Subcommittee's activities to 
implement the oversight plan.
Article III Courts
    In its oversight plan, the Subcommittee proposed to 
continue to devote considerable time and resources to improving 
the delivery of justice by Article III Federal courts through 
its oversight responsibility for (1) the Administrative Office 
of the U.S. Courts; (2) the Federal Judicial Center; (3) the 
Judicial Conference of the United States; and (4) United States 
Attorneys within the Department of Justice.
    Subcommittee hearings and legislation focused on the needs 
and recommendations of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 
and the federal judiciary, recommended changes under the Rules 
Enabling Act, judicial reform and discipline, existing and new 
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 international piracy and a 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, the implementation of 
trademark treaties, and the effects of the new patent term.
                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS

   LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California              CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               ED BRYANT, Tennessee
                                     SONNY BONO, California \1\
                                     JAMES E. ROGAN, California \2\
                                     MARY BONO, California \3\

----------
    \1\ Sonny Bono, California, deceased January 5, 1998.
    \2\ James E. Rogan, California, assigned March 3, 1998, to fill the 
vacancy resulting from the death of Sonny Bono, California.
    \3\ Mary Bono, California, assigned June 17, 1998.

Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the Subcommittee

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................   159
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    16
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......................    12
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     6
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................    11
Legislation reported to the House.................................    12
Legislation pending in the House..................................     0
Legislation passed by the House...................................    19
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     6
Legislation included in the Appropriations bill...................     3
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden)..............     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................    12
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    18
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    27
Private Bills:
    Claims bills referred to Subcommittee.........................    34
    Immigration bills referred to Subcommittee....................    40
    Bill on which hearings were held..............................     0
    Claims bills heard/reported favorably to the full Committee...     6
    Immigration bills heard/reported favorably to the full 
      Committee...................................................    10
    Claims bills ordered reported to the House....................     6
    Immigration bills ordered reported to the House...............    10
    Claims bills which passed the House...........................     6
    Immigration bills which passed the House......................     9
    Claims bills pending in the House.............................     0
    Immigration bills pending in the House........................     1
    Claims bills pending in the Senate............................     5
    Immigration bills pending in the Senate.......................     0
    Claims bills which became law.................................     1
    Immigration bills which became law............................     9

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims has legislative 
and oversight jurisdiction over matters involving: immigration 
and naturalization, admission of refugees, treaties, 
conventions and international agreements, claims against the 
United States, federal charters of incorporation, private 
immigration and claims bills, and other appropriate matters as 
referred by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

                  Public Legislation Enacted Into Law

                              IMMIGRATION

S. 670--U.S. Citizenship for Children Born Abroad
    On March 18, 1997, Representative Bill McCollum introduced 
H.R. 1109 to eliminate the special transition rule for issuance 
of a certificate of citizenship for certain children born 
outside the United States.
    On April 30, 1997, Senator Spencer Abraham introduced S. 
670, a similar bill.
    On May 8, 1997, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S. 
670 favorably reported to the Senate.
    On May 14, 1997, S. 670 passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent.
    On July 15, 1997, the House Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims reported H.R. 1109 to the Judiciary Committee by voice 
vote.
    On July 23, 1997, the House Judiciary Committee ordered 
H.R. 1109 reported to the House by voice vote.
    On July 28, 1997, S. 670 was discharged from the House 
Judiciary Committee. On the same day, the House passed H.R. 
1109 by voice vote under suspension of the rules and laid it on 
the table. The House then passed S. 670 by voice vote.
    On August 8, 1997, the President signed S. 670 into law 
(Public Law 105-38).
S. 1198, the Religious Workers Act of 1997
    ``Special immigrant'' visas (9,940 each year) are available 
for a number of different categories of aliens. One such 
category is religious worker. An alien (along with spouse and 
children) can qualify for a special immigrant visa if the alien 
has been a member for the immediately preceding 2 years of a 
religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious 
organization in the United States and seeks to enter the United 
States to (1) serve as a minister, (2) serve in a professional 
capacity in a religious vocation or occupation at the request 
of the organization, or (3) serve in a religious vocation or 
occupation at the request of the organization, and in each case 
has been carrying out such work continuously for at least the 
prior 2 years. The two non-minister categories are limited to 
5,000 visas a year and were set to sunset on October 1, 1997. 
S. 1198, the ``Religious Workers Act of 1997,'' extended the 
sunset date to October 1, 2000.
    In addition, S. 1198 allows the Secretary of State to waive 
nonimmigrant visa fees for aliens coming to the United States 
for charitable purposes involving health or nursing care, the 
provision of food or housing, job training, or any other 
similar direct service or assistance to poor or otherwise needy 
individuals.
    Finally, S. 1198 extended the deadline by which the 
Attorney General had to reduce the number of documents 
acceptable for new hires to prove identity and work eligibility 
(as provided in section 412(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 
104-208)) from September 30, 1997, to March 30, 1998.
    On September 5, 1997, Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 2412, extending the 
sunset date for the non-minister religious worker special 
immigrant visas, making certain changes to the program (and to 
the nonimmigrant religious worker visa program), and extending 
the visa waiver pilot program and the Attorney General's 
deadline for reducing the number of acceptable documents for 
new hires.
    On September 8, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 2412 reported by a voice vote.
    On September 18, 1997, Senator Spencer Abraham introduced 
S. 1198. On the same day, S. 1198 was passed by the Senate as 
amended by unanimous consent.
    On October 1, 1997, S. 1198 was passed by the House as 
amended under suspension of the rules by voice vote. On the 
same day, the Senate passed S. 1198 by unanimous consent as 
amended by the House.
    On October 6, 1997, the President signed S. 1198 into law 
(Public Law 105-54).
H.R. 2464, Exempting Internationally Adopted Children 10 and Under from 
        the Immunization Requirement of the Immigration and Nationality 
        Act
    Section 341 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, requires that 
immigrants, prior to lawful admission, have received 
vaccinations against specified communicable diseases. H.R. 2464 
waives this requirement for alien children 10 years of age and 
under who are adopted by United States citizens if, prior to 
the admission of the child, the sponsor has executed an 
affidavit stating that within a specified time period the child 
will receive appropriate vaccinations.
    On September 11, 1997, Representative Bill McCollum 
introduced H.R. 2464.
    On September 15, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2464.
    On September 17, 1997, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
2464 reported as amended by voice vote.
    On October 1, 1997, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
2464 (H. Rept. 105-289).
    On October 21, 1997, the House passed H.R. 2464 under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 420-0.
    On November 4, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 2464 by 
unanimous consent.
    On November 12, 1997, the President signed H.R. 2464 into 
law (Public Law 105-73).
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997
    The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act 
of 1997 provides certain nationalities with the opportunity to 
apply for relief from removal.
    Section 202 of NACARA allows Nicaraguans and Cubans who 
have been physically present in the United States continuously 
since December 1, 1995, to apply for adjustment of status 
before April 1, 2000. Once granted lawful permanent resident 
status, their spouses, children and certain unmarried sons and 
daughters may apply for adjustment of status.
    Section 203 of NACARA amends the transition rules 
established in section 309(c)(5) of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 
104-208). Prior to IIRIRA, aliens were eligible for suspension 
of deportation if they could establish continuous physical 
presence in the United States for 7 years, good moral character 
during the 7-year period, and extreme hardship to themselves or 
an immediate family member who was a citizen or permanent legal 
resident of the United States in the event the alien was 
deported. Time accrued during deportation proceedings counted 
toward the 7 years continuous physical presence. Since IIRIRA, 
aliens have been eligible for ``cancellation of removal'' if 
they establish continuous physical presence of 10 years, good 
moral character during the period, and exceptional and 
extremely unusual hardship to a citizen or lawfully resident 
family member if the alien is deported. In addition, the 10-
year period must accrue before the alien receives a ``notice to 
appear'' for removal proceedings.
    Section 203(a) of NACARA exempts certain categories of 
aliens from the new rules provided by section 309(c)(5) of 
IIRIRA. They will be processed under the old suspension of 
deportation standards. The exempted classes include the 
following aliens (provided such aliens have not been convicted 
of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act): (1) Salvadorans who entered 
the United States on or before September 19, 1990, and who, on 
or before October 31, 1991, either registered for benefits 
under the settlement agreement in American Baptist Churches v. 
Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) or applied for 
Temporary Protected Status under section 244A of the INA; (2) 
Guatemalans who entered the United States on or before October 
1, 1990, and registered for benefits under the ABC settlement 
on or before December 31, 1991; (3) Salvadorans and Guatemalans 
not included in the foregoing groups who applied for asylum on 
or before April 1, 1990; (4) the spouses or children of aliens 
described in the foregoing paragraphs at the time the alien's 
application for relief is decided upon; (5) the adult, 
unmarried sons or daughters of aliens described in the 
foregoing paragraphs if the sons or daughters entered the 
United States on or before October 1, 1990; and (6) nationals 
of the Soviet Union (or any of its successor republics), 
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia (or its 
successor republics), Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, East 
Germany, or Yugoslavia (or its successor republics) who entered 
the United States on or before December 31, 1990, and applied 
for asylum on or before December 31, 1991.
    On November 19, 1997, the President signed the ``District 
of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1998'' into law (H.R. 2607, 
Public Law 105-100). NACARA was enacted into law as title II of 
the Act.
    On November 13, 1997, the Senate passed S. 1565 by 
unanimous consent, which made technical corrections to NACARA. 
On the same day, the House passed S. 1565 by unanimous consent.
    On December 2, 1997, the President signed S. 1565 into law 
(Public Law 105-139).
Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997
    The ``Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997'' expanded the number 
of war crimes violation of which would subject the perpetrator 
to federal criminal penalties. The ``War Crimes Act of 1996'' 
had been enacted into law (Public Law 104-192) to carry out the 
obligation the United States incurred when it ratified the 1949 
Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War to 
provide criminal penalties for grave breaches of the 
conventions. ``The Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997'' expanded 
the number of punishable offenses to include violations of 
certain articles of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, 
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, of common 
Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (or any protocol to 
such conventions to which the United States is a party and 
which deals with non-international armed conflict), or of 
certain provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or 
Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices 
as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996, when the United States is a 
party to such Protocol.
    On April 16, 1997, H.R. 1348, the ``Expanded War Crimes Act 
of 1997,'' was introduced by Representative Walter Jones.
    On July 15, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 1348 reported by voice vote.
    On July 23, 1997, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 1348 
favorably reported by a recorded vote of 17 to 4.
    On July 25, 1997, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
1348 to the House (H. Rept. 105-204).
    On July 29, 1997, the House passed H.R. 1348 under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 391-32.
    H.R. 1348 was placed (as section 583 of title V) in H.R. 
2159, the ``Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 1998,'' which the President signed 
into law on November 26, 1997 (Public Law 105-118).
Sunset of Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
    Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was 
adopted on a temporary basis by section 506(b) of the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1995 (Public Law 103-
317). The section allowed aliens who were eligible for an 
immigrant visa but who were illegally present in the United 
States to adjust their status in the United States to that of 
lawful permanent residents upon payment of a penalty. In the 
absence of section 245(i), such aliens must pursue their visa 
applications at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the United 
States and are potentially subject to the 3- and 10-year bars 
on admissibility instituted by section 301(b) of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-208). Section 245(i) was scheduled to sunset on 
September 30, 1997.
    On July 29, 1997, the Senate passed S. 1022, ``the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998,'' which contained 
a permanent extension of section 245(i).
    On September 30, 1997, the House passed H.R. 2267, ``the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998,'' which allowed 
section 245(i) to expire.
    On October 1, 1997, the President signed a continuing 
resolution (H.J. Res. 94) into law that extended section 245(i) 
until October 23.
    On October 23, 1997, the President signed a continuing 
resolution (H.J. Res. 97) into law that extended section 245(i) 
until November 7.
    On October 29, 1997, the House defeated by a vote of 153-
268 a motion to instruct conferees on the ``Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998'' to support the House 
version of the bill allowing section 245(i) to expire.
    On November 13, 1997, the House agrees to the conference 
report to H.R. 2267 by a vote of 282-110. On the same day, the 
Senate agreed to the conference report by unanimous consent. 
Sections 111(a)-(b) of title I of the conference report 
sunsetted section 245(i) as of January 14, 1998. However, the 
provisions allow aliens who had applied for immigrant visas 
before this date to be processed under section 245(i) 
(regardless of the date of processing). Section 111(c) allows 
aliens eligible to receive employment-based immigrant visas to 
adjust status in the U.S. if they were lawfully admitted and 
have not failed to maintain a lawful status, engaged in 
unauthorized employment, or otherwise violated the terms and 
conditions of their employment, for a period exceeding 180 
days.
    On November 26, 1997, the President signed the 
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998'' into law 
(H.R. 2267, Public Law 105-119).
Fingerprints for Criminal Background Checks
    On November 26, 1997, the President signed the 
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998'' into law 
(H.R. 2267, Public Law 105-119). Title I of the Act provided 
that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (in this or 
subsequent fiscal years) could be used by it to accept, for the 
purpose of conducting criminal background checks on applicants 
for any immigration benefit (including naturalization), any FD-
258 fingerprint card which has been prepared by or received 
from any entity other than an office of the INS, any state or 
local law enforcement agency, any U.S. consular officers or 
certain U.S. military offices. This provision was added because 
of concern with the integrity of fingerprints taken by private 
entities under INS' ``Designated Fingerprint Services'' 
program. (See Oversight Activities, Immigration--Safeguarding 
the Integrity of the Naturalization Process.)
Criminal Background Checks for Naturalization Applications
    On November 26, 1997, the President signed the 
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998'' into law 
(H.R. 2267, Public Law 105-119). Title I of the Act provided 
that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (in this or 
subsequent fiscal years) could be used by it to complete 
adjudication of applications for naturalization unless it has 
received confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
that full criminal background checks have been completed. This 
provision was added because of the wholesale breakdown during 
INS' ``Citizenship USA'' program of the criminal background 
check process for naturalization applicants. (See Oversight 
Activities, Immigration--Improper Granting of U.S. Citizenship 
Without Conducting Criminal Background Checks and Safeguarding 
the Integrity of the Naturalization Process.)
Discipline of INS Employees
    On November 26, 1997, the President signed the 
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998'' into law 
(H.R. 2267, Public Law 105-119). Title I of the Act authorized 
the Attorney General (in fiscal year 1998) to impose 
disciplinary action, including termination of employment, 
pursuant to policies and procedures applicable to employees of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for any employee of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service who violates policies 
and procedures set forth by the Department of Justice relative 
to the granting of citizenship or who willfully deceives the 
Congress or department leadership on any matter. This provision 
was added because of dissatisfaction with the disciplinary 
process regarding INS employees who deceived a Congressional 
task force delegation to the Miami District of the INS. (See 
Oversight Activities, Immigration--Deception of a Congressional 
Task Force Delegation to Miami District of INS (Krome).)
Philippine Army, Scouts, and Guerilla Veterans of World War II 
        Naturalization Act of 1997
    On November 26, 1997, the President signed the 
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998'' into law 
(H.R. 2267, Public Law 105-119). Section 112 of title I of the 
Act waived certain naturalization requirements (regarding prior 
residence in the U.S. or prior permanent residence status) for 
individuals who applied for naturalization before February 3, 
1995, and who served in the Philippine Army, a recognized 
Philippines guerilla unit, or in the Philippine Scouts during 
World War II.
Special Immigrant Status for Dependents on Juvenile Courts
    On November 26, 1997, the President signed the 
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998'' into law 
(H.R. 2267, Public Law 105-119). Section 113 of title I of the 
Act modified the provision of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act which provides special immigrant status to aliens who are 
dependents on U.S. juvenile courts, who have been deemed 
eligible by such courts for long-term foster care and for whom 
it has been determined that it would not be their best 
interests to be returned to their home countries. Under section 
113, the placements in foster care must be because of abuse, 
neglect, or abandonment, the Attorney General must expressly 
consent to the dependency orders serving as preconditions to 
the grants of special immigrant status, and no juvenile court 
can determine the custody status or placement of aliens in the 
actual or constructive custody of the Attorney General without 
the consent of the Attorney General.
S. 1161--Authorization of Appropriations for Refugee Assistance
    On September 10, 1997, Senator Spencer Abraham introduced 
S. 1161 to authorize appropriations for refugee and entrant 
assistance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The bill passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent on the same date.
    On October 1, 1997, the House failed to pass the bill under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 230-193.
    On November 13, 1997, the House passed the bill under 
suspension of the rules by unanimous consent.
    On December 2, 1997, the President signed the bill into law 
(Public Law 105-136).
H.R. 1493, to Require the Attorney General to Establish a Program in 
        Local Prisons to Identify, Prior to Arraignment, Criminal 
        Aliens and Aliens Who Are Unlawfully Present in the United 
        States
    H.R. 1493 requires the Attorney General to detail 
Immigration and Naturalization Service employees to selected 
local governmental jails and prisons in order to identify, 
prior to arraignment, deportable criminal aliens and aliens 
unlawfully present in the United States (subject to such 
amounts as are provided in appropriations acts). The facilities 
would have to be located in areas that have a high 
concentration of such aliens. For fiscal year 1999, not less 
than 10 and not more than 25 areas can be determined to meet 
this standard. For fiscal year 2000, not less than 25 and not 
more than 50 can be so determined; for fiscal year 2001, not 
more than 75; for fiscal year 2002, not more than 100; and for 
fiscal year 2003 and subsequent fiscal years, 100 or such other 
number as may be specified in appropriations acts. For any 
fiscal year, not less than 20% of areas should be in states not 
contiguous to a land border. In addition, certain facilities in 
California shall be selected for participation.
    On April 30, 1997, Representative Elton Gallegly introduced 
H.R. 1493.
    On May 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held a hearing on H.R. 1493. Testimony was received from 
Representative Gallegly; Paul Virtue, Acting Executive 
Associate Commissioner for Programs, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Richard Bryce, Undersheriff, County of 
Ventura, California; and Randy Gaston, Chief of Police, 
Anaheim, California.
    On July 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 1493 favorably reported to the Judiciary 
Committee, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
(phasing in the program and making it subject to 
appropriations), by voice vote.
    On September 9, 1997, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
1493 favorably reported by voice vote. An amendment by 
Representative Chris Cannon, adding the interior states 
provision, was adopted by voice vote. An amendment by 
Representative Gallegly, providing that selected facilities 
must be ones that incarcerate or process individuals prior to 
their arraignment, was also adopted by voice vote.
    On October 23, 1997, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
1493 to the House (H. Rept. 105-338).
    On November 4, 1997, the House passed H.R. 1493 under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 410-2.
    On November 13, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 1493 by 
unanimous consent.
    On December 5, 1997, the President signed H.R. 1493 into 
law (Public Law 105-141).
S. 1178, Extending the Visa Waiver Pilot Program
    S. 1178 extends the visa waiver pilot program through April 
30, 2000. Under the pilot program, tourists and business 
visitors from certain countries can enter the United States for 
up to 90 days without first obtaining a visa. Before enactment 
of S. 1178, one of the conditions a country had to meet to be 
eligible for the pilot program was that for the preceding 2-
year period, the average refusal rate for its nationals seeking 
temporary visitor visas to enter the United States had to be 
less than 2 percent, and the refusal rate for both years had to 
be less than 2\1/2\ percent. S. 1178 provides that a country 
can be eligible for the pilot program if the refusal rate 
during the previous full fiscal year was less than 3 percent. 
In addition, S. 1178 requires the Attorney General to implement 
a program to collect data regarding the total number of aliens 
whose authorized period of stay in the United States 
terminates, but who remain in the United States notwithstanding 
such termination.
    On September 15, 1997, Senator Spencer Abraham introduced 
S. 1178.
    On September 26, 1997, S. 1178 was passed by the Senate, as 
amended, by unanimous consent.
    On September 30, 1997, House Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 2578. The bill 
would not have modified the refusal rate eligibility test as it 
existed and would have extended the visa waiver pilot program 
to September 30, 1999.
    On October 1, 1997, the House Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims was discharged from consideration of H.R. 2578. On 
October 7, 1997, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
2578 favorably reported by voice vote. An amendment by 
Representative Barney Frank, which would have modified the 
refusal rate eligibility test, was defeated by a vote of 10-16.
    On November 7, 1997, the House Judiciary Committee reported 
H.R. 2578 to the House (H. Rept. 105-387).
    On March 25, 1998, the House passed Rules Committee 
resolution H. Res. 391 by a voice vote. On the same day, the 
House called up S. 1178 in lieu of H.R. 2578 and without 
objection struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in 
lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 2578. The House then passed 
S. 1178 by a vote of 407-0. The House had earlier agreed to an 
amendment by Representative Richard Pombo by a vote of 360-46 
to modify the refusal rate eligibility test. The House also had 
agreed to an amendment by Lamar Smith, as modified, by a voice 
vote to extend the visa waiver pilot program to April 30, 2000.
    On April 1, 1998, the Senate agreed to the House amendments 
to S. 1178 by unanimous consent.
    On April 27, 1998, the President signed S. 1178 into law 
(Public Law 105-173).
H.R. 4658, Extending the Deadline for Implementation of an Automated 
        Entry-Exit Control System under Section 110 of the Illegal 
        Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
    H.R. 4658 extended the deadline for implementation of the 
automated entry-exit system required by section 110 of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-208, at land and sea points of entry from 
October 1, 1998 to October 15, 1998.
    On October 1, 1998, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 4658. On the same day, the 
Judiciary Committee was discharged from consideration of the 
bill and the House passed it by voice vote.
    On October 8, 1998, the Senate passed H.R. 4658 by 
unanimous consent.
    On October 15, 1998, the President signed H.R. 4658 into 
law (Public Law 105-259).
Amendment to Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
        Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Regarding Implementation 
        of an Automated Entry-Exit Control System
    This provision extended from September 30, 1998, until 
March 30, 2001, the deadline for implementation of the 
automated entry-exit control system at land and sea points of 
entry required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208. 
It also required that the control system implemented not 
significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate 
cross-border traffic at land border points of entry.
    This modification was made by section 116 of the general 
provisions (Department of Justice) of the ``Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, 
``Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), 
which the President signed into law on October 21, 1998.
The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998
            Background

    The H-1B Visa Program Prior to the American Competitiveness and 
                   Workforce Improvement Act of 1998

    ``H-1B'' visas were available for workers coming 
temporarily to the United States to perform services in 
specialty occupations. Such occupations were ones that required 
``(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and (B) attainment of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in the specific speciality (or its equivalent) as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.'' 
The total number of aliens who could be issued visas or 
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status as H-1B workers during 
any fiscal year could not exceed 65,000. The period of 
authorized admission was up to 6 years. In fiscal year 1997, 
the 65,000 cap was reached for the first time on September 1. 
In fiscal year 1998, the cap was reached on May 11.
    The H-1B program's mechanism for protecting American 
workers was not based on a lengthy pre-arrival review of the 
availability of suitable American workers. Instead, an employer 
filed a ``labor condition application'' making certain basic 
attestations (promises) and the Secretary of Labor then 
investigated complaints alleging noncompliance.
    There were four attestations:
          (1) The employer will pay H-1B aliens wages that are 
        the higher of the actual wage level paid by the 
        employer to all other individuals with similar 
        experience and qualifications for the specific 
        employment in question or the prevailing wage level for 
        the occupational classification in the area of 
        employment, and the employer will provide working 
        conditions for H-1B aliens that will not adversely 
        affect those of workers similarly employed.
          (2) There is no strike or lockout in the course of a 
        labor dispute in the occupational classification at the 
        place of employment.
          (3) At the time of the filing of the application, the 
        employer has provided notice of the filing to the 
        bargaining representative of the employer's employees 
        in the occupational classification and area for which 
        the H-1B aliens are sought, or if there is no such 
        bargaining representative, the employer has posted 
        notice in conspicuous locations at the place of 
        employment.
          (4) The application will contain a specification of 
        the number of aliens sought, the occupational 
        classification in which the aliens will be employed, 
        and the wage rate and conditions under which they will 
        be employed.
    Departmental investigations as to whether an employer had 
failed to fulfill its attestations or had misrepresented 
material facts in its application were triggered by complaints 
filed by aggrieved persons or organizations. Investigations 
could be conducted where there was reasonable cause to believe 
that a violation had occurred.
    An employer was subject to penalties for failing to fulfill 
the attestations--for willfully failing to pay the required 
wage, for there being a strike or lockout, for substantially 
failing to provide notice or provide all required information 
in an application--and for making a misrepresentation of 
material fact in an application. Penalties included 
administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties not 
to exceed $1,000 per violation) that the Secretary of Labor 
determined to be appropriate and a bar for at least 1 year on 
the Attorney General's ability to approve petitions filed by 
the employer for alien workers (both immigrant and 
nonimmigrant). In addition, the Secretary of Labor had to order 
an employer to provide H-1B nonimmigrants with back pay where 
wages were not paid at the required level, regardless of 
whether other penalties were imposed.

                       Labor Department Concerns

          In 1995, then Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated 
        that:

          Our experience with the practical operation of the H-
        1B program has raised serious concerns . . . that what 
        was conceived as a means to meet temporary business 
        needs for unique, highly skilled professionals from 
        abroad is, in fact, being used by some employers to 
        bring in relatively large numbers of foreign workers 
        who may well be displacing U.S. workers and eroding 
        employers' commitment to the domestic workforce. Some 
        employers . . . seek the admission of scores, even 
        hundreds of [H-1B aliens], especially for work in 
        relatively low-level computer-related and health care 
        occupations. These employers include ``job 
        contractors,'' some of which have a workforce composed 
        predominantly or even entirely of H-1B workers, which 
        then lease these employees to other U.S. companies or 
        use them to provide services previously provided by 
        laid off U.S. workers.

             The State of the Labor Market for Information

                           Technology Workers

    There is a widespread belief that the United States is 
facing a severe shortage of workers who are qualified to 
perform skilled information technology jobs. This belief has 
been fostered, in part, by a number of studies designed to 
document a shortage of information technology workers, 
including Help Wanted: The IT Workforce Gap at the Dawn of a 
New Century (by the Information Technology Association of 
America), America's New Deficit: The Shortage of Information 
Technology Workers (by the U.S. Commerce Department), and Help 
Wanted 1998: A Call for Collaborative Action for the New 
Millennium (by ITAA). These studies estimate that there are up 
to 346,000 vacancies in information technology professions. 
However, in March of 1998, the U.S. General Accounting Office 
issued a report criticizing the methodology of Help Wanted and 
America's New Deficit. GAO found that Commerce's study had 
``serious analytical and methodological weaknesses that 
undermine the credibility of its conclusions that a shortage of 
[information technology] workers exists.''
    It is possible that there currently exists a significant 
shortage of information technology workers. The evidence for 
such a shortage is inconclusive. However, because the success 
of our economy is so indebted to advances in computer 
technology, the industry should be given the benefit of the 
doubt. Claims that there is a shortage and that it can only be 
alleviated through an increase of foreign workers through the 
H-1B program should be accepted.
            The Act
    The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act 
of 1998 modifies the H-1B visa quota as follows: 1999--115,000, 
2000--115,000, 2001--107,500, 2002 and following years--65,000.
    The employers most prone to abusing the H-1B program are 
called ``job contractors'' or ``job shops.'' Much, or all, of 
their workforces are composed of foreign workers on H-1B visas. 
Many of these companies make no pretense of looking for 
American workers and are in business to contract their H-1Bs 
out to other companies. The companies to which the H-1Bs are 
contracted benefit in that the wages paid to the foreign 
workers are often well below what comparable Americans would 
receive. Also, the companies don't have to shoulder the 
obligations of being the legally recognized employers--the job 
contractors/shops remain the official employers.
    Under the Act, two new attestations--the no-lay off/non-
displacement and recruitment attestations--will apply 
principally to job contractors/shops, defined in the bill (for 
larger companies) as those employers 15% or more of whose 
workforces are composed of H-1B workers. These businesses, 
designated as ``H-1B-dependent,'' will be subject to the 
attestations in those instances where they petition for H-1Bs 
without masters degrees in high technology fields or where they 
plan to pay the H-1Bs less than $60,000 a year. Thus, the 
attestations are being targeted to hit the companies most 
likely to abuse the system--job contractors/shops who are 
seeking aliens without extraordinary talents (only bachelors 
degrees) or offering relatively low wages (below $60,000). 
Other employers, who use a relatively small number of H-1Bs, 
will not have to comply with the new attestations unless they 
have been found to have willfully violated the rules of the H-
1B program.
    The no-lay off attestation prohibits an employer from 
laying off an American worker from a job that is essentially 
the equivalent of the job for which an H-1B alien is sought 
during the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days 
after the employer files a visa petition for the alien. The 
recruitment attestation requires an employer to have taken good 
faith steps to recruit American workers (using industry-wide 
recruitment standards) for the job an H-1B alien will perform 
and to offer the job to an American worker who applies and is 
equally or better qualified than the alien. The attestations 
sunset after 2001.
    The Labor Department will enforce all aspects of the 
program except in instances where an American worker claims 
that a job should have been offered to him or her instead of an 
H-1B alien. In such cases, an arbitrator appointed by the 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service will decide the 
issue.
    The Labor Department will be able to investigate an 
employer using the H-1B program without having received a 
complaint from an aggrieved party in certain circumstances 
where it receives specific and credible information that 
provides reasonable cause to believe that the employer has 
committed a willful failure to meet conditions of the H-1B 
program, has shown a pattern or practice of failing to meet the 
conditions, or has substantially failed to meet the conditions 
that affects multiple employees.
    An employer must offer an H-1B alien benefits and 
eligibility for benefits on the same basis, and in accordance 
with the same criteria, as the employer offers to American 
workers.
    Potential penalties include back pay, civil monetary 
penalties of $1,000 per violation ($5,000 per willful 
violation, and $35,000 per violation where a willful violation 
was committed along with the improper layoff of an American 
worker), and debarment from the H-1B program for from 1 to 3 
years.
    A $500 fee per alien will be charged to all employers 
except universities and certain other institutions. The funds 
will go for scholarship assistance for students studying 
mathematics, computer science, or engineering, for federal job 
training services, and for administrative and enforcement 
expenses. The fee will sunset after 2001.
            Procedural History
    On February 25, 1998, the Immigration Subcommittee of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the H-1B visa 
program.
    On March 6, 1998, Senator Spencer Abraham introduced S. 
1723, the ``American Competitiveness Act.''
    On April 2, 1998, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S. 
1723 favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    On April 21, 1998, the House Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims held a hearing, part of which was in regard to the 
H-1B visa program (See Oversight Hearings--Immigration).
    On April 28, 1998, House Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 3736, the 
``Workforce Improvement and Protection Act of 1998.'' The bill 
would have increased the H-1B quota to 95,000 in 1998, 105,000 
in 1999, and 115,000 in 2000. It would have applied the two new 
attestations to all employers and contained no fee provision.
    On April 30, 1998, the House Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims ordered H.R. 3736 reported to the House Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote.
    On May 11, 1998, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported S. 
1723 to the Senate (S. Rept. 105-186).
    On May 18, 1998, the Senate passed S. 1723, as amended, by 
a vote of 78-20.
    On May 20, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
3736 favorably reported to the House by a vote of 23-4. Eleven 
amendments were adopted by voice vote. An amendment by 
Representative James Rogan striking the no-lay off attestation 
and the recruitment attestation was defeated by a vote of 7-24.
    On July 29, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee reported 
H.R. 3736 to the House (H. Rept. 105-657).
    On September 24, 1998, the House passed the House Rules 
Committee resolution (H. Res. 513), as amended, by voice vote. 
Under the rule, the base text represented a compromise worked 
out by Senator Abraham and Representative Smith and the 
Administration that was similar to what was eventually enacted 
into law as the American Competitiveness and Workforce 
Improvement Act of 1998. On the same day, the House passed H.R. 
3736 by a vote of 288-133. An amendment by Representative 
Melvin Watt was defeated by a vote of 177-242. The amendment 
embodied the Judiciary Committee-reported bill with the 
addition of a fee on employers.
    The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act 
of 1998 was contained in title IV of Division C of H.R. 4328, 
``Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), 
which the President signed into law on October 21, 1998. The 
Act was slightly modified from the form that passed the House 
in order to fully reflect the terms of the compromise worked 
out between Congress and the Administration.
NATO Special Immigrant Amendments
    The Immigration and Nationality Act makes available 9,940 
immigrant visas a year for ``special immigrants,'' a category 
that includes many different types of aliens. One group in this 
category is composed of retired long-time officers or employees 
in the United States of certain international organizations 
(and certain spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of the 
retired officers/employees, certain unmarried sons and 
daughters of present officers/employees and certain surviving 
spouses of deceased officers/employees). The NATO Special 
Immigrant Amendments makes civilian employees of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization and their immediate family members 
eligible for special immigrant visas on the same terms as these 
individuals.
    On January 9, 1997, Representative Owen Pickett introduced 
H.R. 429, the ``NATO Special Immigrant Amendments of 1997.''
    On May 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held a hearing on H.R. 429. Testimony was received from 
Representative Owen Pickett; Paul Virtue, Acting Executive 
Commissioner for Programs, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization 
Service; and Colin Wright, NATO Civilian Coalition.
    On October 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 429 reported to the Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote.
    On October 29, 1997, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
429 favorably reported to the House by voice vote.
    On February 3, 1998, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
429 (H. Rept. 105-410).
    On February 24, 1998, the House passed H.R. 429, as 
amended, under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On September 24, 1998, H.R. 429 was included as part of 
H.R. 3736 as passed by the House.
    H.R. 429 was included as section 421 of subtitle B of title 
IV of Division C of H.R. 4328, ``Making Omnibus Consolidated 
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 
1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the President signed into 
law on October 21, 1998.
Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998
    The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 allows 
certain Haitians to apply for adjustment of status by April 1, 
2000. Haitians present in the United States on December 31, 
1995, who: (1) filed for asylum on or before December 31, 1995; 
(2) were paroled into the U.S. on or before December 31, 1995, 
after being identified as having a credible fear of persecution 
or for emergent reasons or reasons deemed strictly in the 
public interest; or (3) were children and who (a) arrived in 
U.S. without parents and have remained without parents while in 
the U.S., (b) became orphaned subsequent to arrival in the 
U.S., or (c) were abandoned by parents or guardians prior to 
April 1, 1998, and have remained abandoned. Once the principal 
applicant is granted lawful permanent resident status, his or 
her spouse, child or certain unmarried sons or daughters may 
apply for adjustment of status as well. The Immigration and 
Naturalization Service estimates that approximately 49,700 
Haitians will be granted relief under this provision.
    The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 is 
identical to S. 1504, introduced by Senator Bob Graham on 
November 9, 1997, and reported to the Senate by the Committee 
on the Judiciary with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute on April 23, 1998. S. 1504 was included in the 
Senate-passed version of H.R. 4104, the fiscal year 1999 
appropriations bill for the Treasury Department, Postal 
Service, and other entities.
    The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 was 
enacted into law as title IX of the ``Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, 
``Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), 
which the President signed into law on October 21, 1998.
Modification of Border Crossing Card Program
    To remedy the problem of old, unreliable, and counterfeit 
border crossing cards (used by frequent short-term visitors 
from Mexico), the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, mandated the 
issuance of new border crossing cards containing a machine 
readable biometric identifier (i.e. a fingerprint). The 1996 
Act stated that the old, non-biometric border crossing cards 
would no longer be valid after September 30, 1999. In 1998, the 
State Department began accepting applications for the new 
border crossing cards, called ``Laser Visas,'' at its 
consulates in Mexico. The State Department also began charging 
a fee of $45 per application.
    Section 410 of the general provisions of title IV of the 
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999,'' contained in 
H.R. 4328, ``Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 
105-277), which the President signed into law on October 21, 
1998, modifies three aspects of the border crossing card 
program: (1) extends the statutory deadline from September 30, 
1999 to September 30, 2001; (2) reduces the application fee 
from $45 to $13 for Mexican children under 15 who have at least 
one parent possessing or applying for a Laser Visa; and (3) 
requires the State Department to accept Laser Visa applications 
in the following Mexican border towns: Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, 
Ciudad Acuna, Piedras Negras, Agua Prieta, and Reynosa.
Investor Visas
    Almost 10,000 ``employment creation'' immigrant visas a 
year are available for individuals who will invest specified 
amounts of money to start new businesses that will create jobs 
in the United States. There have been allegations that some 
aliens have used the program to obtain U.S. citizenship without 
making the necessary contributions that Congress intended. 
Title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999,'' 
contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999'' 
(Public Law 105-277), which the President signed into law on 
October 21, 1998, requires the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service to report within 90 days on any legislative remedies 
needed by INS to provide it with the tools to ensure that 
aliens taking advantage of this program actually make, and are 
personally liable for, the required investments and are 
sufficiently involved in the management of the businesses.
Injury and Death-Related Benefits for Immigration Officers
    Section 109(b) of the general provisions (Department of 
Justice) of title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the President 
signed into law on October 21, 1998, grants Immigration and 
Naturalization Service officers the same injury and death-
related benefits as those already possessed by agents of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement 
Agency.
Exemption of Inspection Fees for Cruise Ship Passengers
    Section 114 of the general provisions (Department of 
Justice) of title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the President 
signed into law on October 21, 1998, expands the exemption from 
inspection fees for cruise ship passengers to include ships 
originating from a State that go into international waters or 
ports.
Exemption of Certain Iraqi Asylees from Adjustment Cap
    Section 128 of the general provisions (Department of 
Justice) of title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the President 
signed into law on October 21, 1998, exempts Iraqi asylees 
airlifted to Guam in 1996 and 1997 from the statutory 10,000-
per-year cap on adjustments to permanent resident status.
Denial of Visas to Haitians Involved in Certain Killings
    Section 616 of title VI of the ``Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the 
President signed into law on October 21, 1998, forbids the use 
of appropriated funds in the Act to grant visas to Haitians 
involved in extrajudicial and political killings in Haiti.
Sense of Congress Regarding U.S. Residence Obtained by El Salvadoran 
        Killers
    Section 595 of title V of the ``District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the 
President signed into law on October 21, 1998, regards El 
Salvadorans who were involved in the 1980 murders of four 
American churchwomen and later granted permanent residence in 
the United States. It is the sense of Congress that, among 
other things, information relevant to the murders should be 
made public to the fullest extent possible and that the 
Attorney General should review the circumstances under which 
those involved in the murders or the subsequent cover-up 
obtained residence in the United States and submit a report to 
Congress by January 1, 1999.
Consular Authorities of the Department of State
    Chapter 2 of title XXII of the ``Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the 
President signed into law on October 21, 1998, makes a number 
of changes to the law regarding consular officers. In addition, 
it allows consular officers to deny visas to aliens responsible 
for confiscating or expropriating property owned by U.S. 
nationals and makes inadmissible aliens who have assisted 
international child abductors (and certain relatives).
Refugees and Migration
    Chapter 3 of title XXII of the ``Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the 
President signed into law on October 21, 1998: (1) forbids the 
use of funds appropriated by the Act to effect the involuntary 
return of aliens to countries where they have a well-founded 
fear of persecution, except as permitted by international 
refugee law, (2) requires the promulgation of regulations 
within 120 days to implement (with certain exceptions) the 
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Forms of 
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which 
forbids the involuntary return of aliens to countries where 
there are substantial grounds to believe that they may be 
tortured; (3) provides that (for fiscal year 1999) adult 
unmarried children of Vietnamese reeducation camp internees are 
eligible for refugee status under the Orderly Departure Program 
for Vietnamese refugees (On November 13, 1997, Representative 
Christopher Smith introduced H.R. 3037, containing similar 
language. On the same date, the House passed the bill by voice 
vote under suspension of the rules.); and (4) requires 
semiannual reports from the State Department to Congress on the 
Cuban government's compliance (or lack thereof) with its treaty 
obligations regarding the treatment of migrants who have been 
returned to Cuba.
Limitation on Funding for Regulations Regarding State Driver's License 
        Integrity
    Section 656(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, sets 
forth a process for the establishment of future standards for 
driver's licenses and other state-issued identity documents 
that will be acceptable to the federal government for 
identification purposes. This provision was designed to combat 
the fraudulent use of these documents by illegal aliens. The 
National Highway Transportation Safety Agency was charged with 
developing regulations to implement three requirements: (1) the 
application process must include presentation of acceptable 
evidence of identity; (2) the license must contain security 
features designated to limit tampering and counterfeiting; and 
(3) the social security number of the bearer must be displayed 
visually or electronically on the document or it must be 
verified at the time of application.
    NHTSA published interim regulations implementing section 
656(b) on June 17, 1998. Language prohibiting NHTSA's use of 
appropriated funds to implement a final rule during fiscal year 
1999 was included in section 362 of title III of the 
``Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999,'' contained in H.R. 4328, ``Making 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
for Fiscal Year 1999'' (Public Law 105-277), which the 
President signed into law on October 21, 1998.
H.R. 2431, Freedom from Religious Persecution Act
    The immigration-related provisions of H.R. 2431 deny visas 
to aliens who have committed acts of religious persecution, 
require guidelines ensuring fair treatment of asylum and 
refugee claims based on religious persecution, require training 
on religious persecution for immigration officers, immigration 
judges, and foreign service officers, and require studies and 
reports on the effects of expedited removal procedures on 
asylum claims.
    On September 8, 1997, Representative Frank Wolf introduced 
H.R. 2431, the ``Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 
1997.'' The bill as introduced contained provisions making it 
easier for aliens claiming religious persecution to obtain 
asylum or refugee status, requiring training on religious 
persecution for immigration officers, requiring the Attorney 
General to submit annual reports on religious persecution 
claims, requiring a period of public comment and review on 
annual refugee admissions, and denying entry visas to aliens 
who committed acts of religious persecution.
    On March 24, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2431. Testimony was received from 
Paul Virtue, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service; Alan Kreczko, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department 
of State; Nancy Sambaiew, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa 
Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; 
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration 
Studies; James Robb, Evangelicals for Immigration Reform; and 
Mark Franken, Executive Director, U.S. Catholic Conference 
Migration and Refugee Services
    On April 30, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims by voice vote struck all the immigration-related 
provisions from H.R. 2431 and reported the bill to the 
Judiciary Committee.
    On May 6, 1998, the Judiciary Committee conducted a markup 
of H.R. 2431 at which Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that differed from the original bill in that it 
removed provisions granting asylum preferences to aliens 
claiming religious persecution, and added provisions requiring 
training on religious persecution for immigration judges, 
implementation of guidelines to ensure fair treatment of asylum 
and refugee claims based on religious persecution, and the 
conduct of studies and submission of reports on the effects of 
expedited removal procedures on asylum claims. The Committee 
ordered H.R. 2431 favorably reported by voice vote to the 
House.
    On May 8, 1998, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 2431 
to the House (H. Rept. 105-480, part III).
    On May 14, 1998, the House passed H.R. 2431 by a vote of 
375-41 with one ``present.''
    On October 9, 1998, the Senate passed an amended version of 
H.R. 2431 by a vote of 98-0. The Senate version contained the 
immigration-related language to be enacted into law.
    On October 10, 1998, the House passed the Senate version of 
H.R. 2431 under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On October 27, 1998, the President signed H.R. 2431 into 
law (Public Law 105-292).
H.R. 4293, the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act
    H.R. 4293 creates a new work-authorized cultural exchange 
visa. The bill allows the issuance of 4,000 visas per year for 
3 successive years, with visa duration of 3 years and no 
waivers of inadmissibility, to aliens age 35 or younger from 
Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Republic of 
Ireland in order to provide such individuals with the 
experience of living and working in a multicultural society 
while obtaining valuable work skills.
    On July 21, 1998, Representative James T. Walsh introduced 
H.R. 4293. The bill as introduced established a 60-month 
duration for the new visas, contained no limit on visa 
issuance, and waived certain grounds of inadmissibility.
    On October 7, 1998, the House suspended the rules and 
passed H.R. 4293 (as amended to its final version) by voice 
vote.
    On October 8, 1998, the Senate passed the House-passed 
version of H.R. 4293 by unanimous consent.
    On October 30, 1998, the President signed H.R. 4293 into 
law (Public Law 105-319).
H.R. 4821, Extending into Fiscal Year 1999 the Visa Processing Period 
        for Diversity Applicants Whose Visa Processing Was Suspended 
        Due to Embassy Bombings
    H.R. 4821 extends into fiscal year 1999 the visa processing 
period for diversity visa applicants whose visa processing was 
suspended during fiscal year 1998 due to the bombing of two 
United States embassies. The annual diversity visa lottery 
provides applicants from countries that are under-represented 
in other legal immigration programs with the opportunity to 
apply for immigrant visas. Applicants selected in the annual 
diversity visa lottery must complete their applications and be 
issued a visa by the end of the fiscal year for which they are 
selected--otherwise, their applications expire. Through no 
fault of their own, hundreds of diversity visa applicants who 
had been selected in the lottery lost the opportunity to 
complete their applications and obtain a visa because of 
disruption to their cases at the United States Embassies at 
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, which were 
destroyed by terrorist bombings on August 7, 1998, and at the 
United States Embassy at Tirana, Albania, which was closed in 
response to terrorists threats related to the August 7 
bombings. H.R. 4821 allows these applicants to complete their 
applications during fiscal year 1999. It makes no changes in 
the requirements for diversity visas and did not guarantee the 
affected applicants a visa. The visa numbers used by the 
affected applicants will be charged to the regular diversity 
visas allocation for fiscal year 1999.
    On October 13, 1998, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 4821.
    On October 15, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4821 under 
suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
    On October 21,1998, the Senate passed H.R. 4821 by 
unanimous consent.
    On November 10, 1998, the President signed H.R. 4821 into 
law (Public Law 105-360).

                                 CLAIMS

H.R. 1023, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1998
    H.R. 1023 provides compassionate payments to individuals 
with blood-clotting disorders, such as hemophilia, who 
contracted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) due to the 
contaminated blood product anti-hemophilic factor. The Act 
establishes a $750 million ``Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief 
Fund,'' which will fund the payments. Each eligible individual 
will receive a $100,000 payment. The following persons will be 
eligible for this payment: (1) an individual with a blood-
clotting disorder who used anti-hemophilic factor at any time 
between July 1, 1982, and December 31, 1987; (2) a lawful 
spouse or former lawful spouse during the stated time period; 
or (3) an individual who acquired HIV from the mother during 
pregnancy. In the case of a deceased individual, payment will 
be made to the surviving spouse, children, or parents, in that 
order. If the individual is not survived by any of these 
individuals the payment will revert back to the fund.
    On March 11, 1997, Representative Porter Goss introduced 
H.R. 1023.
    On October 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims was discharged from consideration of H.R. 1023.
    On October 29, 1997, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
1023 favorably reported to the House with amendment by voice 
vote.
    On March 25, 1998, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
1023 to the House as H. Rept. 105-465 (Part I).
    On May 7, 1998, the Committee on Ways and Means reported 
H.R. 1023 to the House with amendment as H. Rept. 105-465 (Part 
II).
    On May 13, 1998, the Committee on Commerce was discharged 
from consideration of H.R. 1023.
    On May 19, 1998, the House passed H.R. 1023 by a voice 
vote.
    On September 23, 1998, the Senate Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources ordered H.R. 1023 favorably reported to the 
Senate.
    On October 21, 1998, the Senate passed H.R. 1023 by 
unanimous consent.
    On November 12, 1998, the President signed H.R. 1023 into 
law (Public Law 105-369).

                   Action on Other Public Legislation

                    LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE HOUSE

H.R. 2027, Regarding Canadian Border Boat Landing Permits
    Currently, American and Canadian small boat operators and 
passengers returning to the United States from Canadian waters 
must either enter through a port-of-entry or possess approved 
I-68 (Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit) forms issued by the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service for $16 and good for 1 
year. While the I-68 form allows individuals on boats to enter 
the United States without being inspected at each docking, the 
persons are physically inspected and entered into INS records 
once a year when applying for the forms at INS offices.
    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. 2027 provides that in the 
case of a United States citizen traveling on a small boat on a 
trip between the United States and Canada of not more than 72 
hours duration, the citizen need not obtain a I-68 permit if 
the citizen is not the owner or operator of the boat and 
carries a U.S. passport for the duration of the trip. The bill 
would create a pilot project lasting through the end of 1998. 
At the conclusion of the pilot, the INS will provide Congress a 
report indicating whether the pilot has had any impact on 
illegal immigration into the United States.
    On June 24, 1997, Representative Steven LaTourette 
introduced H.R. 2027.
    On June 26, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2027. Testimony was received from 
Representative Steven LaTourette; Donna Kay Barnes, Chief 
Inspector, Division of Inspections, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Elaine Dickinson, Director, State 
Affairs, Boat Owners Association of the United States; and Rolf 
Ting, President, Greater Cleveland Boating Association.
    On July 15, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 2027 reported to the Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote.
    On July 23, 1997, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 2027 
favorably reported to the House by voice vote.
    On September 18, 1997, the Judiciary Committee reported 
H.R. 2027 to the House (H. Rept. 105-257).
    On September 23, 1997, the House passed H.R. 2027 under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 412-5.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2027 in the 105th 
Congress.
H.R. 2570, the Forced Abortion Condemnation Act
    H.R. 2570 would have prohibited the Secretary of State from 
issuing any visa to, and the Attorney General from admitting to 
the United States, any Chinese national who has been found to 
have been involved in the enforcement of population control 
policies resulting in a woman being forced to undergo an 
abortion against her will, or resulting in a man or woman being 
forced to undergo sterilization against his or her will. The 
President would have been authorized to waive such prohibitions 
if waiver was in the national interest of the United States and 
the Congress was notified in writing.
    On September 29, 1997, Representative Tillie Fowler 
introduced H.R. 2570.
    On November 6, 1997, the House passed H.R. 2570 (as 
amended) by a vote of 415-1.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2570 in the 105th 
Congress.
H.R. 2920, Amending Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
        Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 as to Implementation of an 
        Automated Entry-Exit Control System
    H.R. 2920 would have extended the deadline for 
implementation of the automated entry-exit system at land 
borders required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 
104-208, from September 30, 1998, until September 30, 1999, and 
would have required that the system implemented not 
significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate 
cross-border traffic at land border points of entry.
    On November 7, 1997, Representative Gerald Solomon 
introduced H.R. 2920.
    On November 10, 1997, the House passed H.R. 2920 by a vote 
of 325 to 90.
    On July 30, 1998, the Senate amended H.R. 2920 and passed 
the amended bill by unanimous consent.
    No further action was taken in the 105th Congress (but see 
Amendment to section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Regarding an Automated 
Entry-Exit Control System in Public Legislation Enacted into 
Law).
H.R. 967, Requiring the Denial of Visas to Chinese Government Officials 
        Responsible for Religious Persecution
    On March 6, 1997, Representative Benjamin Gilman introduced 
H.R. 967, which in part required the denial of visas to Chinese 
government officials responsible for religious persecution.
    On July 24, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
967. Testimony was received from Representative Gilman and 
Martin Dannenfelser, Jr., Assistant to the President for 
Government Relations, Family Research Council.
    On October 7, 1997, the Judiciary Committee was discharged 
from consideration of H.R. 967.
    On November 6, 1997, the House passed H.R. 967 by a vote of 
366-54.
H.R. 992, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act
    H.R. 992 was designed to end the ``Tucker Act Shuffles'' 
that currently can bounce property owners between U.S. District 
Courts and the Court of Federal Claims when seeking redress 
against the federal government for the taking of their property 
(as provided in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). 
The bill would have ended the Tucker Act Shuffles by (1) 
granting both U.S. District Courts and the Court of Federal 
Claims the power to determine all claims--whether for monetary 
relief or other relief (such as injunctive and declaratory 
relief) and including related tort claims--arising out of 
federal agency actions alleged to constitute takings (or not to 
constitute takings only because the actions were not in 
accordance with lawful authority), (2) granting the Court of 
Federal Claims the power to provide all remedies, and (3) 
repealing section 1500 of section 28 of the U.S. Code. Under 
the bill, a property owner would elect which court should hear 
and determine the claims as to him or herself and all appeals 
would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit.
    On March 6, 1997, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 992, the ``Tucker Act 
Shuffle Relief Act of 1997.''
    On September 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 992. Testimony was received from 
Michael Noone, Catholic University of America, Columbus School 
of Law; Stephen Kinnard, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; 
John Echeverria, Georgetown University Law Center; Eleanor 
Acheson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Policy 
Development, U.S. Department of Justice; the Honorable Loren 
Smith, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims; Nancie 
Marzulla, President and Chief Legal Counsel, Defenders of 
Property Rights; Wallace Klussmann; and Edward Baird, Jr., 
Wilcox & Baird. Additional material was received from Ms. 
Marzulla.
    On October 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 992 reported to the Judiciary Committee, 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by voice vote.
    On October 7, 1997, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
992 reported to the House by a vote of 17-13. An amendment by 
Representative Melvin Watt to grant U.S. District Courts, but 
not the Court of Federal Claims, jurisdiction to determine all 
claims arising out of alleged takings, and to strike the repeal 
of section 1500, was defeated by a vote of 12-16.
    On March 3, 1998, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 992 
to the House (H. Rept. 105-424).
    On March 11, 1998, the House passed a Rules Committee 
resolution (H. Res. 382) by voice vote.
    On March 12, 1998, the House passed H.R. 992 by a vote of 
230-180. The House adopted an amendment by Representative Lamar 
Smith by voice vote that clarified that the bill did not 
override federal preclusive review statutes. The House rejected 
an amendment by Representative Melvin Watt, largely similar to 
his Judiciary Committee amendment, by a vote of 206-206.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 992 during the 105th 
Congress.
H.R. 2759, the Health Professional Shortage Area Nursing Relief Act
    H.R. 2759 would have created a new temporary registered 
nurse visa program designated ``H-1C'' that would have provided 
up to 500 visas a year and that would have sunsetted in 4 
years. To be able to petition for an alien, an employer would 
have had to meet four basic conditions. First, the employer 
would have had to be located in a health professional shortage 
area as designated by the Department of Health and Human 
Services. Second, the employer would have had to have at least 
190 acute care beds. Third, a certain percentage (35%) of the 
employer's patients would have had to be Medicare patients. 
Fourth, a certain percentage (28%) of patients would have had 
to be Medicaid patients. The bill contained the most important 
protections for American nurses that had been contained in the 
expired H-1A temporary registered nurse visa program and had 
added additional ones of its own.
    On October 29, 1997, Representative Bobby Rush introduced 
H.R. 2759.
    On November 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2759. Testimony was received from 
Representative Bobby Rush; Neil Sampson, Acting Associate 
Administrator for Health Professions, Health Resources and 
Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services; Ron Campbell, Vice President for Patient Care 
Services, St. Bernard Hospital and Health Care Center, Chicago, 
Illinois; Cheryl Peterson, Associate Director for Federal 
Government Relations, American Nurses Association; and Mark 
Stauder, President and Chief Operating Officer, Mercy Regional 
Medical Center, Laredo, Texas.
    On February 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 2759 reported, as amended, to the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote.
    On March 24, 1998, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
2759 favorably reported by voice vote. An amendment by 
Representative Conyers was adopted by voice vote. In addition 
to modifying the H-IC program, the amendment provided that the 
certification requirement for alien health care workers found 
in section 212(a)(5)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
would not apply to aliens who held full and unrestricted 
licenses as nurses or physical therapists in the state of 
intended employment.
    On August 3, 1998, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
2759 to the House (H. Rept. 105-668). On the same day, the 
House passed H.R. 2759, as amended, under suspension of the 
rules by voice vote.
    A modified version of H.R. 2759 was included in S. 2260, 
the Senate-passed version of the fiscal 1999 appropriations 
bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2759 in the 105th 
Congress.

          Legislation Rejected by the House of Representatives

H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot Program Act
    Section 216 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, provided that 
it shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any federal 
election. Violators of this provision can be fined, imprisoned 
for not more than 1 year, or both. In addition, the Act made an 
alien who has voted in violation of federal, state, or local 
law inadmissable to the United States and deportable if here.
    There is currently no satisfactory way for local registrars 
to ensure that noncitizens are not on their voting rolls or for 
the Justice Department to enforce the criminal penalties. 
Attempts have been made to check voting rolls against 
Immigration and Naturalization Service records. However, INS 
data at best can only tell that a voter is a legal alien or a 
naturalized citizen. INS data cannot tell whether a voter is a 
native-born U.S. citizen or an illegal alien.
    H.R. 1428 would have required the Attorney General, in 
consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, to 
establish a pilot program that would respond to inquiries made 
by state or local officials with responsibility for determining 
individuals' qualifications to vote in order to verify these 
individuals' citizenship. The pilot program would have lasted 
until September 30, 2001, and would have operated in, at a 
minimum, the states of California, New York, Texas, Florida, 
and Illinois. Use of the system would have been voluntary and 
the system would have had to have reasonable safeguards against 
its resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices based on 
national origin or citizenship status, including the selective 
or unauthorized use of the system.
    Under the verification system, the Social Security 
Administration would compare names, dates of birth, and social 
security numbers against SSA records in order to confirm (or 
not confirm) the correspondence of the names and numbers, and 
whether the individuals were citizens. In cases where the SSA 
could not provide confirmation of individuals' citizenship, the 
INS would then compare the names and dates of birth against INS 
records in order to confirm or not confirm the correspondence 
of the names and dates of birth and whether the individuals 
were citizens. Procedures were provided for rejecting voter 
registration applications and removing names from lists of 
eligible voters when citizenship was not verified.
    On April 24, 1997, Representative Stephen Horn introduced 
H.R. 1428.
    On June 25, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 1428. Testimony was received from 
Representative Stephen Horn; David Ogden, Associate Deputy 
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Sandy Crank, 
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning, Social Security 
Administration; Daniel Stein, Executive Director, Federation 
for American Immigration Reform; Theresa LePore, Supervisor of 
Elections, West Palm Beach, Florida; and Becky Cain, President, 
the League of Women Voters.
    On February 12, 1998, the House failed to pass H.R. 1428 
under suspension of the rules (a two-thirds vote required for 
passage) by a vote of 210(in favor)-200(opposed). The bill the 
House considered was different from that introduced by 
Representative Horn in a number of ways, primarily in that the 
verification system was made into a pilot program.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1428 in the 105th 
Congress.

             Legislation Passed by the Judiciary Committee

H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 1997
    The Hmong are a mountain people from southern China and 
parts of Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Hmong soldiers 
fought the Communist Pathet Lao movement in Laos, and many 
Hmong later assisted U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. After 
the war ended in 1975, the Pathet Lao gained control of Laos 
and persecuted and imprisoned many of the Hmong allies of the 
United States. Between 130,000 and 150,000 Laotian Hmong have 
entered the U.S. as refugees since 1975. Many Hmong refugees 
have found it difficult to naturalize because of their 
difficulty in learning English (because their language did not 
have a written form until recent decades). In order to 
naturalize, permanent residents must generally demonstrate an 
understanding of the English language, including an ability to 
read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English 
language.
    H.R. 371 would have exempted naturalization applicants from 
the English requirement if they served with special guerilla 
units or irregular forces operating from bases in Laos in 
support of the United States during the Vietnam War (or were 
spouses or widows of such persons on the day on which such 
persons applied for admission as refugees). The bill would also 
have provided these aliens with special consideration as to the 
civics requirement for naturalization (Naturalization 
applicants must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of 
the fundamentals of the history, and of the principles and form 
of government, of the United States.).
    The bill would have required aliens to submit documentation 
of their, or their spouse's, service with a special guerilla 
unit, or irregular forces which the Attorney General would 
evaluate. The bill provided that a maximum of 45,000 permanent 
residents could take advantage of the benefits provided by the 
bill. This provision was added as an anti-fraud measure, given 
the extreme difficulty in determining which Hmong actually 
served in guerilla units. This number is the outside range of 
the number of Hmong who actually should qualify under the bill.
    On January 7, 1997, Representative Bruce Vento introduced 
H.R. 371.
    On June 26, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 371. Testimony was received from 
Congressman Bruce Vento; Louis D. Crocetti, Jr., Associate 
Commissioner for Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service; Susan Haigh, Ramsey County Commissioner, St. Paul, 
Minnesota; Mark Pratt; and Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, 
Center for Immigration Studies.
    On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 371 reported to the Judiciary Committee as 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute by voice vote.
    On June 17, 1998, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 371 
reported to the House by a vote of 20-9. The Committee rejected 
by a vote of 11-18 an amendment by Representative Melvin Watt 
that would have struck the 45,000 cap.
    No further action on H.R. 371 was taken in the 105th 
Congress.

                 Legislation Passed by the Subcommittee

H.R. 2413, the Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1997
    H.R. 2413 would have made various technical corrections to 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
of 1996, the Immigration Act of 1990, and the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952.
    On September 5, 1997, Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 2413.
    On September 8, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 2413 reported to the Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote.
    No further action on H.R. 2413 was taken in the 105th 
Congress.
H.R. 3410, the Temporary Agricultural Worker Act of 1998
    H.R. 3410 would have set up a 24-month agricultural 
guestworker pilot program that would have operated as an 
alternative to the current H-2A program. The pilot program 
would have allowed up to 20,000 aliens to be admitted or 
provided status in a fiscal year. The pilot would have operated 
in no less than 5 geographically and agriculturally diverse 
areas designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The pilot 
would not have required growers applying for guestworkers to 
engage in positive recruitment efforts for domestic workers, as 
does the current H-2A program.
    In order that any illegally overstaying pilot program 
aliens would not have contributed to an overall increase in 
immigration to the United States, the bill contained a 
numerical offset. Beginning in the second fiscal year of the 
pilot program's operation, (1) the number of available 
unskilled worker immigrant visas (currently 5,000-10,000 per 
year) would have been reduced by one-half of the number of the 
previous fiscal year's pilot program aliens (up to 5,000), and 
(2) the number of available diversity immigrant visas 
(currently 50,000-55,000 per year) would have been reduced by 
one-half of the number of the previous fiscal year's pilot 
program aliens (up to 5,000).
    On March 10, 1998, Representative Robert Smith introduced 
H.R. 3410.
    On March 12, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 3410 reported to the Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote.
    No further action on H.R. 3410 was taken in the 105th 
Congress.
H.R. 2837, Citizenship Integrity and Backlog Reduction Act
    On November 6, 1997, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith and Senate Immigration Subcommittee 
Chairman Spencer Abraham introduced H.R. 2837/S.1382, the 
``Naturalization Reform Act of 1997.'' This bill addressed the 
naturalization process integrity problems caused by the INS' 
``Citizenship USA'' program in 1995 and 1996. The bill 
contained provisions preventing deportable criminals from 
receiving citizenship, increasing the ``good moral character'' 
period required for citizenship, improving the integrity of 
required applicant interviews and criminal background checks, 
requiring inspections and controls of citizenship testing 
contractors, improving accountability over green cards and 
naturalization certificates, clarifying and expanding the 
process of denaturalizing wrongdoers who were mistakenly 
granted citizenship, and mandating continued oversight of the 
naturalization program.
    On March 5, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2837. Testimony was received from 
Paul Virtue, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service; James S. Angus, Acting Executive Director, Office of 
Naturalization Operations, Department of Justice; Richard 
Estrada, Dallas Morning News, Former Member of the U.S. 
Commission on Immigration Reform; Robert Hill, Venable Baetjer 
Howard & Civiletti, LLP, Former Member of the U.S. Commission 
on Immigration Reform; Michael Teitelbaum, Alfred P. Sloan 
Foundation, Former Member of the U.S. Commission on Immigration 
Reform; Rosemary Jenks, Center for Immigration Studies; and 
Mark Hetfield, Project Coordinator, Hebrew Immigrant Aid 
Society. On March 19, 1998, the Subcommittee conducted a 
follow-up hearing at which James Angus, Acting Executive 
Director, Office of Naturalization Operations, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, and Edward Murphy, deputy director of 
the office, testified regarding the pending caseload of 
naturalization applications.
    On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims reported H.R. 2837 to the Judiciary Committee by a vote 
of 5-2. An amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by 
Chairman Smith was adopted. The amendment changed the name of 
the bill to the ``Citizenship Integrity and Backlog Reduction 
Act of 1998,'' and incorporated modifications suggested at the 
Subcommittee's hearings. The amendment in the nature of a 
substitute replaced the ``good moral character'' provision with 
a provision strengthening the procedure for determining ``good 
moral character,'' replaced the citizenship testing provision 
with a provision centralizing and standardizing citizenship 
testing and providing study aids therefor, expanded the 
oversight provisions of the naturalization process to ensure 
expeditious processing, improved customer service and continued 
process integrity, and added new provisions reducing 
application backlogs by providing additional funding and 
eliminating redundant background checks.
    No further action on H.R. 2837 was taken in the 105th 
Congress.
H.R. 4264, Restructuring the Immigration and Naturalization Service
    During the 105th Congress, several different entities 
presented plans for restructuring the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. Some plans were introduced as bills 
(H.R. 2588, H.R. 3904, H.R. 4363) and others were merely 
published in reports by nongovernmental organizations, such as 
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. On May 21, 
1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held an 
oversight hearing regarding the various plans for 
restructuring. All Subcommittee members who were present and 
all witnesses who testified at the hearing agreed that the INS 
as it exists today does not perform adequately.
    On July 17, 1998, Representative Harold Rogers introduced 
H.R. 4264. H.R. 4264 would remove the enforcement components of 
the INS and place them in a new ``Bureau of Enforcement and 
Border Affairs'' in the Department of Justice. The enforcement 
components include the Border Patrol, Investigations, Detention 
and Deportation, Intelligence and Inspections. Under H.R. 4264, 
the INS would retain the service components, which perform 
operations such as the adjudication of applications for 
benefits such as naturalization, visa petitions, and asylum.
    On July 30, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims amended H.R. 4264 and reported it favorably to the 
Judiciary Committee by voice vote.
    No further action on H.R. 4264 was taken in the 105th 
Congress.

              Hearings on Public Legislation not Processed

                              IMMIGRATION

H.R. 231 and H.R. 471
    On May 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held hearings on H.R. 231, a bill introduced by Representative 
Bill McCollum which would have improved the integrity of the 
social security card, and H.R. 471, a bill introduced by 
Representative Elton Gallegly which would have prevented work 
experience gained while ineligible to work from being used by 
an alien to help procure an H-1B visa (hearings were also held 
on H.R. 1493 and H.R. 429). Testimony on H.R. 231 was received 
from Representative McCollum; Sandy Crank, Associate 
Commissioner for Policy and Planning, Social Security 
Administration; Roy Beck; Rosemary Jenks, Senior Fellow, Center 
for Immigration Studies; and Stephen Moore, the CATO Institute. 
Testimony on H.R. 471 was received from Representative 
Gallegly; Paul Virtue, Immigration and Naturalization Service; 
and Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration 
Studies.
H.R. 7
    On June 25, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 7, a bill introduced by 
Representative Brian Bilbray that would have ended the right to 
birthright citizenship (a hearing was also held on H.R. 1428). 
Testimony on H.R. 7 was received from Representative Bilbray; 
Dawn Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Office of 
Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; Dr. Edward Erler, 
California State University at San Bernardino; Pam Slater, 
Chairwoman, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, San Diego, 
California; Phil Peters, Alexis de Tocqueville Institute; and 
Gwat Bhattacharjie.
H.R. 1543, H.R. 2172
    On July 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held hearings on H.R. 1543, a bill introduced by 
Representative Ronald Dellums which would have allowed aliens 
to receive student visas in certain instances to study in 
publically funded adult education programs, and on H.R. 2172, a 
bill introduced by Representative Barney Frank, which would 
have allowed aliens to receive student visas to study at public 
elementary or secondary schools if the schools consent and no 
federal funds are used to pay the cost of the education (a 
hearing was also held on H.R. 967). Testimony on H.R. 1543 was 
received from Representative Dellums; Jacquelyn A. Bednarz, 
Special Assistant to the Associate Commissioner for 
Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Cora 
Jckowski, ESL Coordinator and Foreign Student Advisor, Central 
High Community School, Granite School District, Salt Lake City, 
Utah; and Judy Judd Price, Center Director, ELS Language 
Centers. Testimony on H.R. 2172 was received from 
Representative Frank; Jacquelyn A. Bednarz; Rodney Barker, 
Member, Newton, Massachusetts School Committee; and K.C. 
McAlpin, Deputy Director, Federation for American Immigration 
Reform.
H.R. 225
    On June 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held a hearing on H.R. 225, a bill introduced by Representative 
Bill McCollum that would have created a nonimmigrant visitor's 
visa for certain aliens at least 55 years of age. Testimony was 
received from Representative McCollum; Paul Virtue, General 
Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Steve Beckham, 
Federal Liaison, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation 
and Tourism; and Ethel Laird (Canadian citizen).

                                 CLAIMS

H.R. 3022
    On June 18, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 3022, which would amend title 10, 
United States Code, to authorize the settlement and payment of 
claims against the United States for injury to and death of 
members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Department of Defense 
civilian employees arising from incidents in which claims are 
settled for injury to and death of foreign nationals. The 
hearing also reviewed H.R. 2986, which was for the relief of 
the survivors of an incident when United States fighter 
aircraft mistakenly shot down 2 helicopters in Iraq. Testimony 
was received from Represenative Mac Collins; Elijay B. Bowron, 
Assistant Comptroller General for Special Investigations, 
Office of Special Investigations, U.S. General Accounting 
Office, accompanied by Don Fulwider and Don Wheeler, Deputy 
Directors, Investigations; Captain Elliott L. Bloxom, Director 
of Compensation, Military Personnel Policy, Office of Under 
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), U.S. Department 
of Defense, accompanied by Frances Adams, Chief, International 
Torts Branch, Tort Claims and Litigation Division, Air Force 
Legal Services Agency; Donald M. Remy, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Mrs. Cornelia Bass; Mrs. Georgia Bergmann; and Lt. Col. (Ret.) 
Robert McKenna.
H.R. 3539
    On June 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 3539, the ``Radiation Workers 
Justice Act of 1998.'' H.R. 3539 would have amended the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 to expand the 
number of individuals who may receive payment under the Act to 
include above ground uranium miners and uranium millers, and 
made changes to the Act to reflect inadequacies in the program 
that have become apparent over time. Testimony was received 
from Representative Bill Redmond; Donald M. Remy, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice; Lawrence J. Fine, M.D., Director, Division of 
Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Center for 
Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services; Dr. David Coultos, Health Science Center, 
University of New Mexico; Dr. Susan E. Dawson, Department of 
Sociology, Utah State University, accompanied by Dr. Gary E. 
Madsen, Utah State University; Mr. Paul Robinson, S.W. Research 
& Information Center; Honorable Thomas Atcitty, President, The 
Navajo Nation, accompanied by E. Cooper Brown; Honorable Roland 
Johnson, Governor, Pueblo of Laguna, accompanied by Tribal 
Councilman Larry Lente; the Honorable Reginald Pascual, 
Governor, Pueblo of Acoma, accompanied by Tribal Councilman 
David Villo; Mr. Paul Hicks, New Mexico Uranium Workers 
Council, accompanied by Kevin Martinez and Earl Chavez, 
Chairman, Cibola County Commission; and Curtis Freeman, Utah 
Uranium Workers Council.

                            Federal Charters

Subcommittee Policy on New Federal Charters
    On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims adopted the following policy concerning the granting of 
new federal charters:

          The Subcommittee will not consider any legislation to 
        grant new federal charters because such charters are 
        unnecessary for the operations of any charitable, non-
        profit organization and falsely imply to the public 
        that a chartered organization and its activities carry 
        a congressional ``seal of approval,'' or that the 
        Federal Government is in some way responsible for its 
        operations. The Subcommittee believes that the 
        significant resources required to properly investigate 
        prospective chartered organizations and monitor them 
        after their charters are granted could and should be 
        spent instead on the Subcommittee's large range of 
        legislative and other substantive policy matters. This 
        policy is not based on any decision that the 
        organizations seeking federal charters are not 
        worthwhile, but rather on the fact that federal 
        charters serve no valid purpose and therefore ought to 
        be discontinued.

    This policy represented a continuation of the 
Subcommittee's informal policy, which was put in place at the 
start of the 101st Congress and continued through the 102nd-
104th 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 104th Congress, 
approximately 90 private, non-profit organizations had federal 
charters over which the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction. 
About half of these had only a federal charter, and were not 
incorporated in any state and thus not subject to any state 
regulatory requirements.
    Those organizations chartered more recently are required by 
their charters to submit annual audit reports to Congress, 
which the Subcommittee sends to the General Accounting Office 
to determine if the reports comply with the audit requirements 
detailed in the charter. The GAO does not conduct an 
independent or more detailed audit of chartered organizations.
Amendment to the American Legion Charter
    S. 1377 amended the federal charter of the American Legion 
to change one of the qualifying dates for membership from 
December 22, 1961 to February 28, 1961.
    On November 5, 1997, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 
1377. On the same day, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous 
consent.
    On November 8, 1997, the House passed S. 1377 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On November 20, 1997, the President signed S. 1377 into law 
(Public Law 105-110).
S. 1759, Federal Charter for the American GI Forum
    S. 1759 granted a federal charter to the American GI Forum 
of the United States. The American GI Forum of the United 
States is an Hispanic veterans family organization that has 
been in existence for 50 years. The organization has more than 
100,000 members in 500 chapters in 32 states and Puerto Rico. 
Although predominantly Hispanic, the American GI Forum is open 
to all veterans and their families.
    The House Subcommittee of jurisdiction suspended the 
granting of federal charters to private, nonprofit 
organizations in 1989. However, it came to the attention of the 
Committee that the circumstances surrounding the American GI 
Forum were such that an exception to the moratorium was 
appropriate. The American GI Forum was founded in 1948 in 
response to a lack of respect and representation available to 
Hispanic veterans within already established veterans 
organizations.
    In the 1960s, the American GI Forum looked into obtaining a 
federal charter, as was possessed by its contemporaries, the 
American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It was told 
that it could not obtain one because its membership was not 
limited to veterans only. However, prior to the American GI 
Forum's inquiry, many charters had been given to organizations 
that were not limited to veterans, such as the National 
Conference on Citizenship in 1953, Little League Baseball, Inc. 
in 1955, the Boys Clubs of America in 1956, and the Big 
Brothers/Sisters of America in 1958.
    The American GI Forum made inquiries again in 1992 about 
obtaining a federal charter and was informed of the current 
moratorium on the granting of any new federal charters.
    When looking at the historical record, it appeared that 
general societal prejudice against Hispanics during the 1950s 
and 1960s prevented the American GI Forum from receiving a 
federal charter.
    The American GI Forum's history and situation is unique. 
So, as a matter of policy, the Committee felt it was 
appropriate to make an exception to the moratorium on the 
granting of federal charters in this instance.
    On March 13, 1998, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 1759.
    On May 12, 1998, Representative Ciro Rodriguez introduced 
H.R. 3843, its companion bill.
    On July 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims favorably reported H.R. 3843 by voice vote to the 
Judiciary Committee.
    On July 31, 1998, the Senate passed S. 1759, as amended, by 
unanimous consent.
    On August 3, 1998, the House passed S. 1759 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On August 13, 1998, the President signed S. 1759 into law 
(Public Law 105-231).

           Private Claims and Private Immigration Legislation

    During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims received 34 private claims bills and 40 private 
immigration bills. The Subcommittee held no hearings on these 
bills. The Subcommittee recommended six private claims bills 
and 10 private immigration bills to the Judiciary Committee. 
The Committee ordered all these bills reported favorably to the 
House. The House passed all but one private immigration bill. 
Of these, one private claims bill and nine private immigration 
bills were passed by the Senate and signed into law by the 
President.

                          Oversight Activities

                              IMMIGRATION

Implementation of Title III of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
        Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
    On February 11, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the implementation of Title 
III of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996. Testimony was received from Paul 
Virtue, Acting Executive Associate Commissioner, Programs, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, accompanied by David 
Martin, General Counsel; Paul W. Schmidt, Chairman, Board of 
Immigration Appeals; and Michael J. Creppy, Chief Immigration 
Judge, Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Deception of a Congressional Task Force Delegation to Miami District of 
        INS (Krome)
    On February 27, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on deception of a 
Congressional task force delegation to the Miami District of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Testimony was 
received from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for 
Administration, U.S. Department of Justice; and Doris Meissner, 
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
accompanied by William Slattery, Executive Associate 
Commissioner, and Chris Sale, Deputy Commissioner.
Improper Granting of U.S. Citizenship Without Conducting Criminal 
        Background Checks
    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the improper granting of 
U.S. citizenship without conducting criminal background checks. 
Testimony was received from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney 
General for Administration, U.S. Department of Justice; Dawn 
Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 
Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; Laurie E. Ekstrand, 
Associate Director for Administration of Justice, General 
Government Division, General Accounting Office; Gary Ahrens, 
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP; Doris M. Meissner, Commissioner, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; David Rosenberg, 
Citizenship USA Program Director, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Louis D. Crocetti, Associate 
Commissioner for Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service; and David Martin, General Counsel, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.
Border Security and Deterring Illegal Entry into the U.S.
    On April 23, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on border security and 
deterring illegal entry into the United States. Testimony was 
received from Representative Silvestre Reyes; Alan Bersin, 
United States Attorney, Southern District of California, 
Attorney General's Representative to the Southwest Border, 
accompanied by Donnie Marshall, Chief of Operations, Drug 
Enforcement Administration, and Thomas Kneir, Deputy Assistant 
Director of the Criminal Investigative Division, Federal Bureau 
of Investigation; George Regan, Acting Assistant Commissioner 
for Enforcement, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
accompanied by Joseph Greene, District Director--Denver, 
Colorado, James Bailey, Assistant Regional Director for 
Intelligence for Central Region (Dallas, Texas), Jose Garza, 
Chief Border Patrol Agent, McAllen, Texas Sector, Louis F. 
Nardi, Director, Smuggling/Criminal Organizations Branch, and 
Anne Veysey, Employer Sanctions Specialist; Samuel Banks, 
Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Department of 
the Treasury; Jonathan Winer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
State, International Narcotics Matters and Law Enforcement 
Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Richard J. Gallo, Senior 
Special Agent, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Dr. Roy Godson, 
Professor of Government, Georgetown University, President, 
National Strategy Information Center; Robert Heiserman, Denver, 
Colorado; Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington, D.C. Office, 
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
Safeguarding the Integrity of the Naturalization Process
    On April 30, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on safeguarding the integrity 
of the naturalization process. Testimony was received from 
Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for Administration, 
U.S. Department of Justice; Gary Ahrens, Principal, KPMG Peat 
Marwick LLP; Norman Rabkin, Director, Administration of Justice 
Issues, General Government Division, General Accounting Office; 
Dennis Kurre, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Justice 
Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Doris Meissner, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, accompanied by Chris Sale, Deputy Commissioner, and 
David Martin, General Counsel; Representative Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen; Rosemary Jenks, Senior Fellow, Center for Immigration 
Studies; and Gary Rubin, Director--Public Policy, New York 
Association for New Americans.
Visa Fraud and Immigration Benefits Application Fraud
    On May 20, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held an oversight hearing on visa fraud and immigration 
benefits application fraud. Testimony was received from Mary 
Ryan, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. 
Department of State, accompanied by Ed Vasquez, Consular 
Affairs, Fraud Prevention Program, and Thomas McKeever, 
Diplomatic Security, Criminal Investigations Division; Paul W. 
Virtue, Acting Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, accompanied by William 
Yates, Director, Eastern Service Center (Vermont), Gideon 
Epstein, Chief Forensic Document Analyst, Forensic Documents 
Laboratory, William West, Chief, Investigative Division Special 
Operations Unit, Miami District, and Michael Cutler, Senior 
Special Agent, New York District; Michael R. Bromwich, 
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice; and Benjamin 
Nelson, Director, International Relations and Trade Issues, 
National Security and International Affairs Division, U.S. 
General Accounting Office.
Visa Waiver Pilot Program
    On June 17, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the visa waiver pilot 
program. Testimony was received from Representative Jay Kim; 
Representative Neil Abercrombie; Representative Barney Frank; 
Mary Ryan, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 
U.S. Department of State; Michael Cronin, Assistant 
Commissioner, Office of Inspections, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; William S. Norman, President and CEO, 
Travel Industry Association of America; Janet Thomas, Director 
of Facilitation, Air Transport Association of America; and Tami 
Overby, Executive Director, American Chamber of Commerce in 
Korea.
Institutional Hearing Program
    On July 15, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service's Institutional Hearing Program to 
remove incarcerated criminal aliens. Testimony was received 
from Norman J. Rabkin, Director, Evi Rezmovic, Assistant 
Director, Jay Jennings, Senior Evaluator, and Fred Berry, 
Senior Evaluator, Administration of Justice Issues, U.S. 
General Accounting Office; Paul Virtue, Executive Associate 
Commissioner, Programs and Lydia St. John-Mellado, IHP 
Coordinator, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Michael 
Creppy, Chief Immigration Judge and Michael McGoings, Assistant 
Chief Immigration Judge, Executive Office for Immigration 
Review; John Clark, Asst. Director, Community Corrections & 
Detention, and James Zangs, Administrator, Detention Services 
Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Joe Sandoval, Secretary, 
California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency; David Padilla, 
Chief, Management, Analysis & Evaluation Branch, California 
Department of Corrections; Kelly Tucker, Correctional Services 
Administrator, Florida Department of Corrections; Anthony J. 
Annucci, Deputy Commissioner and Counsel and David Clark, 
Program Research Specialist, New York State Department of 
Correctional Services; and Catherine McVey, Asst. Director, 
Programs & Services Division, Texas Department of Criminal 
Justice.
Temporary Agricultural Work Visa Program
    On September 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on temporary agricultural work 
visa programs. Testimony was received from Bob Vice, President, 
California Farm Bureau Federation; Jim Holt, McGuinness & 
Williams; John Hancock; and Bruce Goldstein, Executive 
Director, Farmworker Justice Fund.
Final Report of the Commission on Immigration Reform
    On November 7, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the final report of the 
Commission on Immigration Reform. Testimony was received from 
Shirley Hufstedler, Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration 
Reform, accompanied by Michael Teitelbaum, Vice Chair, Robert 
Charles Hill, Commissioner, the Honorable Bruce Morrison, 
Commissioner, and Susan Martin, Executive Director.
Immigration and the American Workforce for the 21st Century
    On April 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on immigration and the 
American workforce for the 21st century. Testimony was received 
from John Fraser, Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, 
Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; 
Carlotta Joyner, Director, Education and Employment Issues, 
Health, Education, and Human Services Division, U.S. General 
Accounting Office; Harris Miller, President, Information 
Technology Association of America; Dr. Norman Matloff, 
Department of Computer Science, University of California at 
Davis; Daniel Sullivan, Senior Vice President for Human 
Resources, QUALCOMM; William Payson, The Senior Staff; Darryl 
Hatano, Vice President for International Trade and Government 
Affairs, Semiconductor Industry Association; Peggy Taylor, 
Director, Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO; Dr. Richard 
Lariviere, Vice President of International Programs, University 
of Texas at Austin; Dr. George Borjas, John F. Kennedy School 
of Government, Harvard University; Dr. Georges Vernez, the RAND 
Corporation; and Alan Reynolds, the Hudson Institute.
Alternative Proposals to Restructure the Immigration and Naturalization 
        Service
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held an oversight hearing on alternative proposals to 
restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 
Testimony was received from Representative Harold Rogers; 
Representative Silvestre Reyes; Doris Meissner, Commissioner, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Robert L. Brown, 
Chairman, Immigration Directors' Association; Susan Martin, 
Former Director, Commission on Immigration Reform; Demetrios 
Papademetriou, Senior Associate, International Migration Policy 
Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Richard 
Gallo, First Vice-President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association; and Diana Aviv, Director, Council of Jewish 
Federations.
Alternative Technologies for Implementation of Section 110 of the 
        Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
        1996 at Land Borders
    On July 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on alternative technologies 
for implementation of section 110 of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 at land 
borders. Testimony was received from Michael J. Hrinyak, Deputy 
Assistant Commissioner for Inspections, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Ann Cohen, Vice President, Government 
Services, EDS; Paul Clark, Chief Scientist, Information 
Technology, DynCorp; Donald Brady, Vice President, Transcore; 
Robert Mocny, Former SENTRI Team Leader, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Joseph O'Gorman, National Team Leader 
for Land Border Passenger Processing, U.S. Customs Service; 
Joseph Elias, Program Manager, Calspan Operations; Anthony 
Braunscheidel, Business Development Manager, Peace Bridge 
Authority, Buffalo, New York.
Problems Related to Criminal Aliens in Utah
    On July 27, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight field hearing in Salt Lake City, Utah, 
on problems related to criminal aliens in Utah. Testimony was 
received from Mary Callaghan, Commissioner, Salt Lake County 
Commission; Aaron Kennard, Sheriff, Salt Lake County; David J. 
Schwendiman, United States Attorney, District of Utah, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Mark Reed, Regional Director, Central 
Region, Immigration and Naturalization Service, accompanied by 
Michael Comfort, Acting District Director, Denver District 
Office, and Meryl Rogers, Officer in Charge, Salt Lake City 
Suboffice.
Oversight Investigation of the Death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr.
    In June 1997, the Subcommittee began an investigation into 
the death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., an 18-year-old high 
school student who was herding goats near the border town of 
Redford, Texas, when he was shot and killed by United States 
Marines performing counter-drug border surveillance for the 
United States Border Patrol. The Subcommittee's investigation 
required the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum by Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Hyde to the U.S. Justice and Defense 
Departments.
    The Subcommittee issued a report in November 1998 that 
concluded that Hernandez' death was attributable to a series of 
failures on the part of Justice Department and Defense 
Department personnel, who were negligent in providing training 
and preparing for the border surveillance mission or who failed 
to respond adequately to an emergency situation as it 
developed. After Hernandez' death, agency personnel compounded 
their previous errors by withholding information and impeding 
investigations in an effort to avoid accountability that, 
unfortunately, was largely successful.
    The Marine Corps, to its credit, conducted a detailed 
internal investigation of the shooting and disciplined a number 
of officers in the chain of command. However, the four Marines 
in the team that killed Hernandez suffered no adverse 
consequences despite significant and disturbing evidence that 
they may have been guilty of serious wrongdoing.
    Neither the Border Patrol nor its parent agencies, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States 
Department of Justice, conducted an internal review comparable 
to that undertaken by the Marine Corps. No Justice Department 
personnel were held accountable for negligence or wrongdoing 
regarding the death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr.
    The report is available as Report of Chairman Lamar Smith 
to Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Oversight 
Investigation of the Death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., 105th 
Cong., 2nd Sess. (Ser. No. 11 1998)
Refugee Consultations
            I. Fiscal Year 1998
    On September 10, 1997, Members of the Judiciary Committee 
met with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and other 
Administration officials to discuss the Administration's 
proposal for refugee admissions in fiscal year 1998. That 
proposal was as follows:

                                                        Proposed Ceiling
Areas of Origin:
    Africa........................................................ 7,000
    East Asia.....................................................14,000
    Europe:
        Former Yugoslavia.........................................25,000
        Former Soviet Union.......................................21,000
    Latin America/Caribbean....................................... 4,000
    Near East/South Asia.......................................... 4,000
    Unallocated Reserve........................................... 3,000
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................78,000

    On September 30, 1997, President Clinton issued 
Presidential Determination No. 97-37, which put into force a 
fiscal year 1998 worldwide refugee ceiling of 83,000, including 
an additional 5,000 unfunded reserve numbers allocated to the 
former Soviet Union that were not in the original proposal.
    By letter dated June 8, 1998, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to use 
for admissions from the former Yugoslavia up to 3,000 numbers 
from the unallocated reserve, and up to 1,000 numbers from the 
unfunded reserve allocated to the former Soviet Union.
    By letter dated September 29, 1998, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to use 
over 30,000 total numbers for admissions from the former 
Yugoslavia, and over 23,000 total numbers for admissions from 
the former Soviet Union, for a total of approximately 54,000 
European admissions in fiscal year 1998. The State Department 
anticipated that this increase in European admissions would be 
offset by shortfalls in other categories, and that total 
admissions for fiscal year 1998 would be about 77,000.
            II. Fiscal Year 1999
    On September 17, 1998, Members of the Judiciary Committee 
met with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other 
Administration officials to discuss the Administration's 
proposal for refugee admissions in fiscal year 1999. That 
proposal was as follows:

                                                        Proposed Ceiling
Areas of Origin:
    Africa........................................................12,000
    East Asia..................................................... 9,000
    Europe:
        Former Yugoslavia.........................................25,000
        NIS/Baltics...............................................23,000
    Latin America/Caribbean....................................... 3,000
    Near East/South Asia.......................................... 4,000
    Unallocated Reserve........................................... 2,000
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................78,000

    On September 30, 1998, President Clinton issued 
Presidential Determination No. 98-39, which put into force a 
fiscal year 1999 worldwide refugee ceiling of 78,000. This 
final determination was identical to the Administration's 
original proposal.

                                 CLAIMS

Health Care Initiatives Pursued Under False Claims Act that Impact 
        Hospitals
    On April 28, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on health care initiatives 
pursued under the False Claims Act that impact hospitals. 
Testimony was received from Donald Stern, U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Massachusetts and Chair, Attorney General's 
Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Justice; Lewis Morris, 
Assistant Inspector General for Legal Affairs, and Dr. Robert 
Berenson, Director, Center for Health Care Plans and Providers 
Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 
Gordon Sprenger, Executive Officer, Allina Health Systems; Don 
Ritchie, Administrator, Guadalupe Valley Hospital; William 
Lane, President, Holy Family Hospital; Terry Cameron, Senior 
Vice President, Medicode; and Ruth Blacker, Member, National 
Legislative Counsel, American Association of Retired Persons.
                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

   CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, 
             Chairman

ROBERT SCOTT, Virginia               HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
MAXINE WATERS, California            BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          ED BRYANT, Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York             WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
                                     BOB BARR, Georgia
                                     ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the Subcommittee

Legislation referred to Subcommittee..............................   153
Legislation reported favorably to full Committee..................    10
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......................     1
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     2
Legislation reported to the House.................................     7
Legislation discharged from the full Committee....................     8
Legislation pending in the House..................................     1
Legislation passed the House......................................     8
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     3
Legislation failed passage by the House...........................     4
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden)..............     1
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     2
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    13
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    27

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee has legislative and oversight 
responsibility for the Civil Rights Division and the Community 
Relations Service of the Department of Justice, as well as the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Office of Government 
Ethics. General legislative and oversight jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee includes civil and constitutional rights, civil 
liberties and personal privacy, federal regulation of lobbying, 
private property rights, federal ethics laws, and proposed 
constitutional amendments.

                              LEGISLATION

Assisted Suicide
    On June 5, 1998, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Henry J. Hyde, introduced the ``Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention 
Act of 1998'' (H.R. 4006), a bill to clarify Federal law to 
prohibit the dispensing or distribution of a controlled 
substance for the purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, 
the suicide, or euthanasia, of any individual. The Subcommittee 
held a hearing on July 14, 1998. The following witnesses 
testified: Representatives Earl Blumenauer; Tom A. Coburn, 
M.D.; Peter A. DeFazio; Elizabeth Furse; Darlene Hooley; James 
L. Oberstar; Joe Pitts; Diane Coleman, President, Not Dead Yet; 
N. Gregory Hamilton, M.D., Physicians for Compassionate Care; 
Prof. Herbert Hendin, M.D., New York Medical College; John A. 
Kitzhaber, Governor, State of Oregon; Calvin H. Knowlton, 
Ph.D., Pharmacist, American Pharmaceutical Association; Thomas 
J. Marzen, General Counsel, National Legal Center for the 
Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc.; Edmund D. Pellegrino, 
M.D., Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University 
Medical Center; Dr. Douglas Pisano, Division of Pharmaceutical 
Services, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Allied Health 
Science; and Thomas R. Reardon, M.D., Chair, American Medical 
Association.
    On July 22, 1998, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported to the full Committee the bill H.R. 4006 as amended, 
by a vote of 6-5. On August 4, 1998, the full Committee ordered 
favorably reported the bill as amended to the full House by a 
voice vote. H. Rept. 105-683, part 1. On September 14, 1998, 
the Committee on Rules granted a modified open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 4006. No further action was taken 
on the measure.
    On March 11, 1997, Representative Ralph Hall introduced the 
``Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997'' (H.R. 
1003), which would clarify Federal law with respect to 
restricting the use of Federal funds in support of assisted 
suicide. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce; 
and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, the 
Judiciary, Education and the Workforce, Government Reform and 
Oversight, Resources, and International Relations. On April 2, 
1997, H.R. 1003 was referred to the Subcommittee. On April 8, 
1997, H.R. 1003 was reported to the House, amended, by the 
Committee on Commerce (H. Rept. 105-46, part 1) and the other 
committees were discharged from further consideration. H.R. 
1003 passed the House, as amended, by a vote of 398 yeas-16 
nays and then passed the Senate on April 16, 1997, by a vote of 
99 yeas-0 nays. H.R. 1003, was then signed into law on April 
30, 1997, by the President (Public Law 105-12).
Child Custody Protection Act
    On April 1, 1998, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 
introduced the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' (H.R. 3682), a 
bill to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws 
requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. On 
May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 3682. 
Testimony was received from the following witnesses: 
Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; James L. Oberstar; Nita 
Lowey; Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Sheila Jackson Lee; Christopher H. 
Smith; Joyce Farley of Dushore, Pennsylvania; Eileen Roberts, 
Mothers Against Minors' Abortion; Reverend Katherine Hancock 
Ragsdale, Episcopalian Priest; Professor Teresa Collett, 
Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law; Professor Stephen 
Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern 
University School of Law; and Mr. Robert Graci, Office of the 
Attorney General of Pennsylvania.
    On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered reported the bill H.R. 3682, as amended, by a vote of 
7-2. On June 17, and June 23, 1998, the full Committee met in 
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 3682 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a recorded 
vote of 17-10. H. Rept. 105-605. H.R. 3682 passed the House on 
July 15, 1998, by a vote of 276-150. The Senate Judiciary 
Committee reported favorably an identical bill, S. 1645, but no 
further action was taken on the measure.
Citizen Protection Act
    On February 5, 1998, Representative Asa Hutchinson 
introduced the ``Citizen Protection Act of 1998'' (H.R. 3168), 
a bill to clarify that bail bond sureties and bounty hunters 
are subject to both civil and criminal liability for violations 
of Federal rights under existing Federal civil rights law. On 
March 12, 1998, the Subcommittee held hearing. Witnesses 
testifying before the Subcommittee were Representative Asa 
Hutchinson; Sen. Robert Torricelli; Pamela Reed of Coventry, 
Rhode Island; Jrae Mason of Jackson Heights, New York; Jerry 
Gerig of Acworth, Georgia; Linda Childs of Plattsburg, 
Missouri; Edwin Soltz, Attorney at Law, Overland Park, Kansas; 
Leslie Hagin, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; 
Jerry Watson, Legal Counsel, National Association of Bail 
Insurance Companies; Armando Roche, President, Professional 
Bail Agents of the United States; Jonathan Drimmer, Attorney, 
Washington, D.C.; Frank Slaton, Bounty Hunter, Newport News, 
Virginia; and R. Gil Kerlikowske, Police Commissioner, Buffalo, 
New York.
    On April 30, 1998, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported H.R. 3168 to the full Committee, as amended, by voice 
vote. However, the bill failed in full Committee on May 6, 
1998, by a vote of 11-12.
Reform of Laws Governing Lobbying
    On January 30, 1998, S. 758, ``The Lobbying Disclosure 
Technical Amendments Act of 1997,'' which passed the Senate on 
November 13, 1997, was referred to the Subcommittee. On March 
18, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from 
further action and the House passed S. 758 under suspension of 
the rules by voice vote. S. 758 was signed into law as Public 
Law 105-166 by the President on April 6, 1998.
Fair Housing
    On April 17, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
589, the ``Fair Housing Reform and Freedom of Speech Act of 
1997'' 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. 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. H.R. 589, a bill to amend the Fair Housing 
Act regarding local and State laws and regulations governing 
residential care facilities, was introduced by Representatives 
Brian Bilbray (R-CA) and Jane Harman (D-CA). On February 25, 
1998, the Subcommittee ordered reported to the full Committee 
by a vote of 7 yeas to 5 nays H.R. 3206, the Fair Housing 
Amendments Act of 1998, a bill to amend the Fair Housing Act, 
and for other purposes, which was also introduced by 
Representatives Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Charles T. Canady (R-FL), 
and Jane Harman (D-CA). No further action was taken on the 
measure.
Racial and Gender Preferences--The Civil Rights Act
    The ``Civil Rights Act of 1997'' was introduced in the 
House of Representatives (H.R. 1909) on June 17, 1997, and in 
the Senate (S. 950) on June 23, 1997. Subcommittee Chairman 
Charles T. Canady was the lead sponsor of this legislation in 
the House. H.R. 1909 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. On June 26, 1997, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1909. Witnesses at the 
hearing were Sen. Mitch McConnell; Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton; 
Representatives Tom Campbell; Marge Roukema; Patsy Mink; Tillie 
Fowler; Tom Lamprecht, President, Atlantic Coast 
Communications; Susan Prager, Dean, UCLA School of Law; Michael 
Cornelius, Vice President, Malcolm Drilling, Inc.; Karen 
Narasaki, Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American 
Legal Consortium; Gail Heriot, Professor, University of San 
Diego School of Law; Randy Pech, Adarand Constructors, Inc.; 
Marina Laverdy, Executive Director, Latin American Management 
Association; Anita K. Blair, General Counsel, Independent 
Women's Forum.
    On July 9, 1997, the Subcommittee ordered H.R. 1909 
favorably reported, without amendments, by a voice vote. On 
November 6, 1997, the full Committee tabled the bill by a vote 
of 17-9. No further legislative activity occurred regarding 
H.R. 1909 during the 105th Congress.
Religious Freedom
    The Subcommittee held a number of hearings on the issue of 
the protection of religious freedom in the wake of the Boerne 
v. Flores Supreme Court case striking down portions of the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Subcommittee held the 
first hearing on July 14, 1997. The witnesses at this hearing 
were: Thomas C. Berg, Associate Professor of Law, Cumberland 
Law School, Samford University; Mark E. Chopko, General 
Counsel, U.S. Catholic Conference; Charles W. Colson, 
President, Prison Fellowship Ministries; Douglas Laycock, 
Associate Dean for Research, University of Texas Law School; 
Marc D. Stern, Director, Legal Department, American Jewish 
Congress; Jeff Sutton, Solicitor, State of Ohio; and Oliver 
Thomas, Special Counsel for Religious and Civil Liberties, 
National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
    On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee held a second 
hearing on ``The Need for Federal Protection of Religious 
Freedom after Boerne v. Flores.'' The witnesses at this hearing 
were: Zari Wigfall, Van Nuys, California; Reverend Richard 
Hamlin, Evangelical Reformed Church, Tacoma, Washington; 
Reverend Patrick J. Wilson III, Minister of Community 
Development, Congress of Black Churches, Inc.; Reverend John 
Wimberly, Jr., Western Presbyterian Church, Washington, D.C.; 
Evelyn Smith, Chico, California; Jason Mesiti, Brookline, New 
Hampshire; Suzanne Brown, Brookline, New Hampshire; Rabbi Chaim 
Rubin, Los Angeles, California; Dr. Richard Robb, Ypsilanti, 
Michigan; Reverend Richard Steel, Cedar Bayou Baptist Church, 
Baytown, Texas; and Reverend Donald W. Brooks, Diocese of 
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
    On March 26, 1998, the Subcommittee held a third hearing on 
``The Need for Federal Protection of Religious Freedom after 
Boerne v. Flores, II.'' The witnesses at this hearing were: 
Marc Stern, Director, Legal Department, American Jewish 
Congress; Mark Chopko, General Counsel, U.S. Catholic 
Conference; Dr. Dean Ahmed, American Muslim Council; Steve 
McFarland, Director, Center for Law and Religious Freedom; 
Isaac Jaroslawicz, Executive Director/Director of Legal 
Affairs, The Adelph Institute; Barry Fisher, Former Chairman, 
American Bar Association Subcommittee on Religious Freedom; and 
Von Keetch, Counsel, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints.
    On June 16, 1998, the Subcommittee held a fourth hearing on 
the issue of protecting religious freedom. The focus of the 
hearing was H.R. 4019, the ``Religious Liberty Protection Act 
of 1998.'' The witnesses at this hearing were: Professor 
Douglas Laycock, Associate Dean for Research, University of 
Texas Law School; Professor Thomas C. Berg, Associate Professor 
of Law, Cumberland Law School, Samford University; Professor 
Christopher L. Eisgruber, New York University School of Law; 
Professor Marci Hamilton, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 
Yeshiva University; Gene Schaerr, Attorney, Sidley & Austin, 
Washington, DC; Marc Stern, Director, Legal Department, 
American Jewish Congress; and Professor W. Cole Durham, Brigham 
Young University Law School.
    On July 14, 1998, the Subcommittee held a fifth hearing on 
protecting religious freedom, again focusing on H.R. 4019, the 
``Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998.'' The witnesses at 
this hearing were: Patrick Nolan, President, Justice 
Fellowship; William Dodson, Director, Government Relations, 
Southern Baptist Convention; Michael P. Farris, President, Home 
School Legal Defense Association; Colby M. May, Senior Counsel, 
Office of Governmental Affairs, American Center for Law and 
Justice; Steven T. McFarland, Director, Center for Law & 
Religious Freedom; Bruce D. Shoulson, Attorney at Law, 
Lowenstein Sandler, P.C.; The Reverend Elenora Giddings Ivory, 
Director, Washington Office, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); 
Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D., Legal Director, Americans United 
for Separation of Church and State; Professor Jamin Raskin, 
Washington College of Law, American University; and Professor 
Douglas Laycock, Associate Dean for Research, University of 
Texas Law School.
    On August 6, 1998, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported H.R. 4019 by voice vote, amended. No further action 
was taken on the measure.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
    On March 11, 1997, the Subcommittee held a joint oversight 
hearing with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on partial 
birth abortion. H.R. 929, the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
of 1997,'' which bans abortions in which a living baby is 
partially vaginally delivered before killing the baby and 
completing the delivery was held at full Committee and never 
referred to the Subcommittee. On March 12, 1997, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
H.R. 929 with amendments by a vote of 20-11.
    Because an agreement could not be reached on H.R. 929, H.R. 
1122, the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997'' was 
introduced by the Committee on Rules on March 19, 1997. H.R. 
1122 is identical to H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
Act of 1995, which was passed in the 104th Congress. On March 
20, 1997, the House passed H.R. 1122 by a vote of 295-136. On 
October 8, 1997, the House passed the Senate amended version of 
H.R. 1122 by a vote of 296-132. The President vetoed the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on October 10, 1997.
    On July 23, 1998, the House voted to override the 
President's veto of H.R. 1122 by a vote of 296-132. The Senate 
voted 64-36 on H.R. 1122 on September 18, 1998, failing to 
override the President's veto (two-thirds vote required).
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 July 17, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the United State Commission on Civil Rights. This 
hearing focused on repairing the Commission's management and 
fiscal controls. Witnesses testifying were: Cornelia 
Blanchette, Associate Director, Employment and Education 
Issues, General Accounting Office; Mary Frances Berry, 
Chairperson, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Carl Anderson, 
Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Wade Henderson, 
Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and 
Bill Allen, former Chairman, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
    On January 28, 1998, the Subcommittee chairman, 
Representative Canady, introduced the ``Civil Rights Commission 
Act of 1998,'' (H.R. 3117), a bill to authorize the United 
States Commission on Civil Rights. On February 4, 1998, the 
Subcommittee ordered favorably reported H.R. 3117 to the full 
Committee by a voice vote. On March 4, 1998, the full Committee 
ordered favorably reported H.R. 3117, amended, to the House by 
a voice vote. H. Rept. 105-439. The bill passed the House, as 
amended, under suspension of the rules on March 18, 1998. The 
Senate took no further action on this bill.
Displaying the Ten Commandments
    On March 3, 1997, Representative Robert B. Aderholt 
introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res. 31, expressing the sense 
of Congress regarding the display of the Ten Commandments by 
Judge Roy S. Moore, a judge on the circuit court of the State 
of Alabama. On March 3, 1997, H. Con. Res. 31 was referred to 
the Committee and to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure; and to the Subcommittee. H. Con. Res. 31 was 
discharged from the Committees on March 4, 1997, and taken up 
under suspension of the rules. The House agreed to the 
resolution by a vote of 295-125. On March 6, 1997, H. Con. Res. 
31 was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
Contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr.
    On March 19, 1998, Representative J.C. Watts introduced a 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 247, recognizing the contributions of 
the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to the civil society 
of the United States and the world. H. Con Res. 247 was 
referred to the Subcommittee on March 20, 1998. On April 1, 
1998, H. Con. Res. 247 was called up by unanimous consent 
discharging the Committee on the Judiciary and passed the House 
by voice vote. H. Con. Res. 247 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary on April 2, 1998.
Flag
    On February 12, 1998, Representative Ken Bentsen introduced 
a bill, H.R. 3216, which would amend the Act commonly known as 
the ``Flag Code'' to add the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday to 
the list of days on which the flag should especially be 
displayed. On March 11, 1998, H.R. 3216 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. On October 21, 1998, the 
Judiciary Committee was discharged by unanimous consent and the 
bill passed the House by voice vote.
Emancipation of African Slaves in Danish West Indies
    On June 25, 1998, Del. Donna M. Christian-Green introduced 
a resolution, H. Res. 495, relating to the recognition of the 
historical significance of the emancipation of African slaves 
in what is now the United States Virgin Islands, and urging all 
Virgin Islanders and Americans to maintain their unwavering 
commitment to preserve, protect, and defend human rights and 
freedom. On June 25, 1998, H. Res. 495 was referred to the 
Subcommittee, was discharged from the Committee, and was agreed 
to by the House by voice vote.

                       Constitutional Amendments

Term Limits
    On January 22, 1997, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
held a hearing on proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States limiting the terms of office for Members of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives. The witnesses were 
Representatives Joe Barton; Bill McCollum; John Dingell; Tillie 
Fowler; Bill Frenzel, guest scholar, Governmental Studies 
Program, Brookings Institution; Prof. John Hibbing, University 
of Nebraska-Lincoln; Paul Jacob, Executive Director, U.S. Term 
Limits; Thomas E. Mann, Director, Governmental Studies Program, 
Brookings Institution; Cleta Deatherage Mitchell, Director and 
General Counsel, Americans Back in Charge Foundation; Sen. Fred 
Thompson; and George Will, nationally syndicated columnist and 
television commentator.
    On January 30, 1997, H.J. Res. 2 was held at the full 
Committee. On February 4, 1997, H.J. Res. 2 was ordered to be 
reported to the House without recommendation by a 19-12 vote, 
and was reported to the House by the full Committee on February 
6, 1997. H. Rept. 105-2. On February 12, 1997, the House failed 
to approve H.J. Res. 2 by the necessary two-thirds vote, 217-
211.
Flag Protection
    On April 30, 1997, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
held a hearing on H.J. Res. 54, a joint resolution proposing an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing 
the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
of the United States. The witnesses were Representative Gary 
Ackerman; Patrick Brady, Chairman, Citizens Flag Alliance; 
Norman Dorsen, Stokes Professor of Law, New York University 
School of Law; Representative Martin Frost; Lawrence J. Korb, 
Director, Center for Public Policy Education, Brookings 
Institution; Alan G. Lance, Attorney General, State of Idaho; 
Representative William O. Lipinski; Richard D. Parker, 
Professor of Law, Harvard University; Roger Pilon, Founder and 
Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, CATO Institute; 
Maribeth Seely, Teacher, Sandystone Walpack School, Layton, NJ; 
Carole Shields, President, People for the American Way; 
Representatives John M. Shimkus; David E. Skaggs; Gerald B.H. 
Solomon; Francis J. Sweeney, Financial Secretary, Steamfitters 
Local Union 449, Pittsburgh, PA; Carol Van Kirk, Nebraska 
American Legion Auxiliary; and Representative Robert K. 
Zukowski, Wisconsin State Legislature.
    On May 8, 1997, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met in 
open session and held a markup on H.J. Res. 54, and ordered 
H.J. Res. 54 reported favorably to the full Committee, without 
amendment, by a voice vote. On May 14, 1997, the full Committee 
met in open session and ordered H.J. Res. 54 reported favorably 
to the full House, without amendment by a recorded vote of 20-
9. H. Rept. 105-121.
    The House passed H.J. Res. 54 on June 12, 1997 by a vote of 
310-114. Although reported by the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary June 24, 1998 (S. Rept. 105-298), the Senate did not 
vote on the resolution.
Religious Freedom Amendment
    In addition to numerous hearings in the 104th Congress, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on July 22, 1997 on H.J. Res. 78, 
``Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution Restoring 
Religious Freedom,'' designed to restore the right of religious 
persons to acknowledge their beliefs, heritage, and traditions 
on public property, to engage in voluntary school prayer, and 
to have an equal opportunity to participate in government 
programs, activities, or benefits. Witnesses testifying at the 
hearing were: Representatives Ernest J. Istook, Jr.; Chet 
Edwards; Tom Campbell; Walter Capps; Sanford Bishop; Craig 
Parshall, Special Legal Counsel, Concerned Women for America; 
Reverend Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United 
for Separation of Church and State; Jim Henderson, Senior 
Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice; Dr. Derek H. 
Davis, Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies; 
Prof. Mark Scarberry, Pepperdine University School of Law; 
William Murray, Americans for School Prayer; Reverend Timothy 
McDonald, Iconium Baptist Church; and Rabbi Aryeh Spero, 
Congregational Rabbi.
    On October 27, 1997, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and reported favorably H.J. Res. 78, with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hutchinson, by a vote of 
8 to 4, a reporting quorum being present.
    On March 4, 1998, the full Committee ordered favorably 
reported H.J. Res. 78, as amended, by a recorded vote of 16-11. 
H. Rept. 105-543. On June 4, 1998, the House failed to pass the 
resolution by a vote of 224-203 (two-thirds vote required).
Tax Limitation Amendment
    On March 11, 1997, Representative Joe Barton introduced the 
first resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States with respect to tax limitation, H.J. Res. 62. 
On March 18, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.J. Res. 
62. Witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee were 
Representatives John Shadegg; Charles B. Rangel; James C. 
Miller, Counsel, Citizens for a Sound Economy; Robert 
Greenstein, Executive Director, Center for Budget and Policy 
Priorities; Dr. Barry Poulson, University of Colorado; Dean 
Samuel Thompson, University of Miami School of Law; Prof. 
Michael Rappaport, University of San Diego School of Law; and 
Daniel Mitchell, McKenna Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation. On 
March 18, 1997, the Subcommittee was discharged from further 
consideration. On April 8, 1997, the full Committee ordered 
H.J. Res. 62 favorably reported to the House, amended (H. Rept. 
105-50). On April 15, 1997, H.J. Res. 62 was called up by the 
House, as amended, and failed to pass by a vote of 233-190 
(two-thirds vote required).
    On February 26, 1998, Representative Joe Barton introduced 
a related joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax 
limitations, H.J. Res. 111, which was referred to the 
Subcommittee on March 6, 1998. On April 22, 1998, the 
resolution was considered by the House but failed passage by a 
vote of 238-186 (two-thirds vote required).
Electoral College
    On September 4, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
two resolutions, H.J. Res. 28, sponsored by Representative Ray 
LaHood, and H.J. Res. 43, sponsored by Representative Tom 
Campbell, amendments to the Constitution of the United States 
that would abolish the electoral college and to provide for the 
direct popular election of the President and the Vice President 
of the United States. Witnesses testifying were Representative 
Ray LaHood; Delegate Robert A. Underwood, Guam; Becky Cain, 
President, League of Women Voters; Prof. Judith Best, State 
University of New York-Cortland; Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale 
University Law School; Curtis Gans, Director, Committee for the 
Study of the American Electorate; and Walter Berns, Resident 
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. No further action was 
taken on the measure.
Alternatives to Article V
    On March 25, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.J. 
Res. 84, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
to provide a procedure by which the States may propose 
constitutional amendments. Witnesses testifying before the 
Subcommittee were Representative Tom Bliley; George Allen, 
former Governor of Virginia; Mickey Edwards, former Member of 
Congress; Prof. Nelson Lund, acting Associate Dean of Academic 
Affairs, George Mason University School of Law. No further 
action was taken on the measure.
Campaign Spending
    On May 14, 1998, Representative Tom DeLay introduced a 
resolution, H.J. Res. 119, to the Constitution which would 
limit campaign spending. On May 21, 1998, H.J. Res. 119 was 
referred to the Subcommittee. The resolution was discharged 
from the Committee on May 21, 1998. H.J. Res. 119 was 
considered by the House June 10, 1998, and failed to pass June 
11, 1998, by a vote of 29 yeas-345 nays-51 ``present.''

                          Oversight Activities

Impeachment
    On November 9, 1998, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the ``Background and History of Impeachment,'' in 
connection with the impeachment inquiry of President William 
Jefferson Clinton, pursuant to H. Res. 581. Witnesses 
testifying were: William Van Alstyne, Professor of Law, Duke 
University School of Law; Charles J. Cooper, Esq., Cooper, 
Carvin & Rosenthal; Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor 
of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; Gary 
L. McDowell, Director of the Institute for U.S. Studies, 
University of London; Jonathan R. Turley, Shapiro Professor of 
Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law 
School; Hon. Griffin B. Bell, 72nd Attorney General of the 
United States; John O. McGinnis, Professor of Law, Yeshiva 
University, Cardozo School of Law; Forrest McDonald, 
Distinguished University Research Professor, University of 
Alabama; Richard D. Parker, Williams Professor of Law, Harvard 
University Law School; John C. Harrison, Associate Professor of 
Law, University of Virginia; Michael J. Gerhardt, Professor of 
Law, College of William & Mary School of Law; Cass R. Sunstein, 
Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, University of 
Chicago School of Law; Laurence H. Tribe, Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. 
Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard University Law School; 
Daniel H. Politt, Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus, 
University of North Carolina Law School; Matthew Holden, Henry 
L. and Grace M. Doherty Professor of Government and Foreign 
Affairs, University of Virginia; Susan Low Bloch, Professor of 
Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Father Robert F. Drinan, 
S.J., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Jack 
N. Rakove, Coe Professor of History and American Studies, 
Stanford University; and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Professor 
of History, City University of New York.
United States Commission on Civil Rights
    On July 17, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. This 
hearing focused on repairing the Commission's management and 
fiscal controls. Witnesses testifying were: Cornelia 
Blanchette, Associate Director, Employment and Education 
Issues, General Accounting Office; Mary Frances Berry, 
Chairperson, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Carl Anderson, 
Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Wade Henderson, 
Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and 
Bill Allen, former Chairman, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
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, has been a focus of the Subcommittee's oversight of 
the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. On May 
20, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the Civil Rights 
Division. Witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee were 
Isabelle Katz Pinzler, acting Assistant Attorney General of the 
United States, Civil Rights Division; Michael Carvin, Attorney, 
Cooper & Carvin; Prof. Pamela Karlon, University of Virginia 
Law School; Wayne Flick, Attorney, Latham & Watkins; Prof. 
Linda Gottfredson, University of Delaware; Weldon Latham, 
Attorney, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge; and Lawrence 
Stratton, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law School.
    On February 25, 1998, the Subcommittee held a second 
hearing on the Division's past and present role in ending civil 
rights discrimination. The witnesses at this hearing were Roger 
Clegg, General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity; Martha 
Davis, Legal Director, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; 
Charles M. Hinton, Jr., City Attorney, Garland, Texas; Michael 
Kennedy, General Counsel, Associated General Contractors of 
America; Bill Lann Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Stan Pottinger, Former Assistant 
Attorney General for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Morton Rosenberg, American Law Division, Congressional Research 
Service.
    On July 17, 1998, the Subcommittee held a third hearing on 
the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This hearing focused on the Administration's new regulations 
regarding racial preferences, as well as President Clinton's 
Executive Order adding ``sexual orientation'' to the list of 
protected classes entitled to affirmative action in federal 
employment. Witnesses included Clint Bolick, Vice President and 
Director of Litigation, Institute for Justice; Donald Devine, 
Former Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Wayne S. 
Flick, Attorney, Latham & Watkins; Kim M. Keenan, Attorney, 
Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington; Bill Lann Lee, 
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 
United States Department of Justice; Shawna Smith, Executive 
Director, National Fair Housing Alliance; and John Sullivan, 
Associate Director, Project on Civil Rights and Public 
Contracts, University of Maryland.
Respective Roles of Congress and Article III Courts
    On January 29, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
regarding Congress, the Courts and the Constitution. Witnesses 
testifying before the Subcommittee were Representatives Ron 
Lewis; John N. Hostettler; Barney Frank; Tom Campbell; Prof. 
David P. Currie, Edward H. Levi, Distinguished Service 
Professor, University of Chicago School of Law; Louis Fisher, 
Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers, Congressional 
Research Service; Prof. Neal Devins, College of William and 
Mary School of Law; Prof. Matthew Franck, Radford University; 
Prof. Neil Kinkopf, Case Western Reserve University Law School; 
Nadine Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union; and 
Prof. Robert L. Clinton, Southern Illinois University.
Private Property Rights
    On September 23, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing regarding State Approaches to Protecting Private 
Property Rights. Witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee 
were Dean Saunders, former Florida State Representative; 
Richard Russman, New Hampshire State Senator; Bob Turner, Texas 
State Representative; Jane Jayman, Deputy General Counsel, 
Florida League of Cities, Inc.; Chip Campsen, South Carolina 
State Representative; Nancie Marzulla, President and Chief 
Legal Counsel, Defenders of Property Rights; Prof. Harvey 
Jacobs, Chair, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 
University of Wisconsin at Madison; and Prof. Steven J. Eagle, 
George Mason University School of Law.
The First Amendment and Campaign Finance Reform
    The Subcommittee held two oversight hearings regarding 
campaign finance. The first hearing was held on February 27, 
1997 titled ``Free Speech and Campaign Finance Reform.'' 
Witnesses testifying were Senator Mitch McConnell; 
Representatives Richard Gephardt and Barney Frank; Ira Glasser, 
Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union; James Bopp, 
Attorney, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom; Lloyd N. Cutler, Attorney, 
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Prof. Burt Neuborne, New York 
University School of Law; Brent Thompson, Executive Director, 
Fair Government Foundation; Bradley Smith, CATO Institute; Gene 
Karpinski, U.S. Public Interest Research Group; and Dave Mason, 
fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
    A second hearing was held on September 18, 1997, titled the 
``First Amendment and Restrictions on Issue Advocacy.'' 
Witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee were James Buchen, 
Senior Vice President, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce; 
Steve Merican, Attorney, Americans for Limited Terms; George 
Dunst, Legal Counsel, State Elections Board of Wisconsin; James 
Bopp, Jr., Attorney, National Right to Life and Wisconsin Right 
to Life; Prof. Joel M. Gora, Dean, Brooklyn Law School and 
General Counsel, New York Civil Liberties Union; Josh 
Rosenkranz, Executive Director, Brennen Center for Justice, New 
York University; Prof. Bradley A. Smith, Capital University Law 
School; Norm Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute; and Don 
Simon, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Common 
Cause.
Americans with Disabilities Act
    On May 12, 1997, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to 
Medical Licensure and Judicial Officers. The Subcommittee heard 
from the following witnesses: Ray Q. Baumgarner, Federation of 
State Medical Boards and the State Medical Board of Ohio; Kay 
Jaison, Psychiatrist, John Hopkins University; Susan Spaulding, 
President, Federation of State Medical Boards; Prof. Chai 
Feldblum, Georgetown University Law Center; Stan Ingram, Board 
Attorney, Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure; D. 
Culver Smith, III, Attorney and former Chairman, Judicial 
Nominating Commission, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; 
and Richard S. Brown, Judge, Wisconsin State Court of Appeals.

                                
