[House Report 106-1048]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                 Union Calendar No. 610
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2nd Session                                                   106-1048

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



                       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                                 of the

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               during the

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                              pursuant to

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

                        House of Representatives




January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed



                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-006                     WASHINGTON : 2001

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                        House of Representatives
                       one hundred sixth congress

                 HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman \1\
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
    Wisconsin                        BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida               HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania        RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida           ZOE LOFGREN, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \3\        MAXINE WATERS, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee \5\             MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
BOB BARR, Georgia                    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana             ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama \2\
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \4\
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana \6\
         Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., Chief of Staff/General Counsel
            Jon Dudas, Staff Director/Deputy General Counsel
       Julian Epstein, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                Perry Apelbaum, Minority General Counsel

----------
\1\ Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman 
pursuant to House Resolution 6, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
Republican Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 6, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
Democratic Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 7, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
\2\ Spencer Bachus, Alabama, elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 30, approved by the House February 2, 1999.
\3\ Stephen E. Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee March 4, 
1999.
\4\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, elected to the Committee pursuant to 
House Resolution 108, approved by the House March 11, 1999.
\5\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee June 25, 1999.
\6\ David Vitter, Louisiana, elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 223, approved by the House June 25, 1999.
          Subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary \1\

                                 ------                                

                                 Crime

                    BILL MCCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \2\        ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB BARR, Georgia                    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania        ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas \3\
                                 ------                                

                   Commercial and Administrative Law

                GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ED BRYANT, Tennessee \4\             JERROLD NADLER, New York
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \2\        MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MARY BONO, California \5\
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \6\
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana \7\
                                 ------                                

                    Courts and Intellectual Property

                 HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    Wisconsin                        JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana             ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
MARY BONO, California
                         Immigration and Claims

                    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chairman
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida               SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana             ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
MARY BONO, California \5\            MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \6\
                                 ------                                

                            The Constitution

                  CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BOB BARR, Georgia                    JERROLD NADLER, New York
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

----------
\1\ Subcommittee chairmanships and assignments approved February 4, 
1999.
\2\ Stephen E. Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee effective 
the afternoon of March 4, 1999.
\3\ Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas, assigned to the Subcommittee on Crime 
March 24, 1999.
\4\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee June 25, 1999.
\5\ Mary Bono, California, reassigned from the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims to the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law March 24, 1999.
\6\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, assigned to the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims March 24, 1999.
\7\ David Vitter, Louisiana, assigned to the Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law July 20, 1999.


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Trandahl: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am transmitting 
the report on the activities of the Committee on the Judiciary 
of the U.S. House of Representatives for the 106th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                                Henry Hyde,
                                                          Chairman.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 610
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2nd Session                                                   106-1048

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



 
       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                _______
                                

January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

             Jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary is set 
forth in Rule X, 1.(k) of the rules of the House of 
Representatives for the 106th Congress:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


     Rule X.--Establishment and Jurisdiction of Standing Committees


                 THE COMMITTEES AND THEIR JURISDICTION

    1. There shall be in the House the following standing 
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and 
related functions assigned to it by this clause and clauses 2, 
3, and 4. All bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to 
subjects within the jurisdiction of the standing committees 
listed in this clause shall be referred to those committees, in 
accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as follows:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (k) Committee on the Judiciary
          (1) The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and 
        criminal.
          (2) Administrative practice and procedure.
          (3) Apportionment of Representatives.
          (4) Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and 
        counterfeiting.
          (5) Civil liberties.
          (6) Constitutional amendments.
          (7) Federal courts and judges, and local courts in 
        the Territories and possessions.
          (8) Immigration and naturalization.
          (9) Interstate compacts, generally.
          (10) Measures relating to claims against the United 
        States.
          (11) Meetings of Congress, attendance of Members and 
        their acceptance of incompatible offices.
          (12) National penitentiaries.
          (13) Patents, the Patent Office, copyrights, and 
        trademarks.
          (14) Presidential succession.
          (15) Protection of trade and commerce against 
        unlawful restraints and monopolies.
          (16) Revision and codification of the Statutes of the 
        United States.
          (17) State and Territorial boundaries.
          (18) Subversive activities affecting the internal 
        security of the United States.

                 Tabulation of Legislation and Activity

                              ----------                              


                   legislation referred to committee

Public Legislation:
    House bills...............................................       789
    House joint resolutions...................................        59
    House concurrent resolutions..............................        38
     House resolutions........................................        34
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                     920
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
    Senate bills..............................................        30
    Senate concurrent resolutions.............................         1
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                      31
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal................................................       951
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Private Legislation:
    House bills (claims)......................................        34
    House bills (copyrights)..................................         1
    House bills (criminal procedure)..........................         1
    House bills (immigration).................................        82
    House resolutions (claims)................................         3
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                     121
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
    Senate bills (claims).....................................         1
    Senate bills (immigration)................................        14
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                      15
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal................................................       136
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total...................................................     1,087
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________

            action on legislation not referred to committee

Originated for House action:
    House resolutions.........................................         1
Held at desk for House action:
    Senate bills..............................................        11
Conference appointments:
    House bills...............................................         2
    House bills...............................................         2
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................        16
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________

                              final action

House concurrent resolutions approved (public)................         2
House resolutions approved (public)...........................         9
Public legislation vetoed by the President....................         1
Public Laws...................................................        73
Private Laws..................................................        21

                                Hearings

                          Serial No. and Title

                               __________
    1. Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. October 26, 1999. (H.R. 2442).
    2. Bankruptcy Reform. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly with the 
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary. March 11, 1999.
    3. Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce (E-Sign) 
Act. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. September 30, 
1999. (H.R. 1714).
    4. Prison Industries Reform Act of 1999 and Federal Prison 
Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 1999. Subcommittee on 
Crime. August 5, 1999. (H.R. 2558 and H.R. 2551).
    5. Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act. Committee on the 
Judiciary. April 13, 1999. (H.R. 775).
    6. United States Secret Service. Subcommittee on Crime. June 24, 
1999.
    7. Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999. Committee on the 
Judiciary. September 29, 1999. (H.R. 2366).
    8. Illegal Immigration Issues. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. June 10, 1999.
    9. Trademark Amendments Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. May 5, 1999. (H.R. 1565).
    10. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. (Parts 1, 2, and 3). 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. March 16, 17, 18, 
1999. (H.R. 833).
    11. Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. October 21, 1999. (H.R. 906).
    12. Nonimmigrant Visa Fraud. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. May 5, 1999.
    13. Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act. Subcommittee on 
Crime. May 12, 1999. (H.R. 764).
    14. Operations of the Chicago District Office of the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. 
September 13, 1999.
    15. Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 15, 1999. (H.R. 2372).
    16. Child Custody Protection Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
May 27, 1999. (H.R. 1218).
    17. Law Enforcement Problems at the Border Between the United 
States and Canada: Drug Smuggling, Illegal Immigration and Terrorism. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims April 14, 1999.
    18. Impact of Immigration on Recent Immigrants and Black and 
Hispanic Citizens. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 11, 
1999.
    19. Antitampering Act of 1999. Subcommittee on the Courts and 
Intellectual Property. October 21, 1999. (H.R. 2100).
    20. Youth Culture and Violence. Committee on the Judiciary. May 13, 
1999.
    21. Miscellaneous Immigration and Claims Issues: Blackhawk Friendly 
Fire Incident Payments; Removal of Aliens Associated with Terrorists; 
Increasing Penalties for Alien Smuggling; and Asylum in Guam. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. May 18, 1999. (H.R. 456, H.R. 
1745, H.R. 238, and H.R. 945).
    22. Justice in Fair Housing Enforcement Act of 1999. Subcommittee 
on the Constitution. October 28, 1999. (H.R. 2437).
    23. Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act. Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property. February 25, 1999. (H.R. 768).
    24. Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 
1999 and Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Courts 
and Intellectual Property. June 16, 1999. (H.R. 2112 and H.R. 1752).
    25. Implementation of the ``NET'' Act and Enforcement Against 
Internet Piracy. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May 
12, 1999.
    26. Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 1999. Committee on the 
Judiciary. June 22, 1999. (H.R. 1304).
    27. Legal Services Corporation. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. September 29, 1999.
    28. Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United 
States. Subcommittee on the Constitution. March 23, 1999. (H.J. Res, 
33).
    29. Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 21, 1999. (H.R. 2436).
    30. Antitrust Aspects of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. 
Committee on the Judiciary. May 5, 1999.
    31. H-1B Temporary Professional Worker Visa Program and Information 
Technology Workforce Issues. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. 
August 5, 1999.
    32. Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. June 24, 1999. (H.R. 2260).
    33. Immigration and Naturalization Service Decisions Impacting the 
Agency's Ability to Control Criminal and Illegal Aliens. Subcommittee 
on Immigration and Claims. February 25, 1999.
    34. Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. March 4, 1999. (H.R. 
850).
    35. Benefits to the American Economy of a More Educated Workforce. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 25, 1999.
    36. Shoot-Down of the Brothers to the Rescue Planes. Subcommittee 
on Crime. July 15, 1999.
    37. Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program. 
Subcommittee on Crime. October 28, 1999.
    38. Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of 
Justice. Subcommittee on Crime. July 22, 1999.
    39. Punishing Depictions of Animal Cruelty and the Federal Prison 
Health Care Co-payment Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Crime. September 
30, 1999. (H.R. 1887 and H.R. 1349).
    40. Federal Agency Compliance Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. October 27, 1999. (H.R. 1924).
    41. States' Choice of Voting Systems Act. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. September 23, 1999. (H.R. 1173).
    42. Internet Domain Names and Intellectual Property Rights. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. July 28, 1999.
    43. Fairness in Telecommunications License Transfers Act of 1999, 
Taxpayer's Defense Act and Justice for MAS Applicants Act of 1999. 
Committee on the Judiciary. November 3, 1999. (H.R. 2533, H.R. 2636, 
and H.R. 2701).
    44. National Police Training Commission Act of 1999. Committee on 
the Judiciary. May 12, 1999. (H.R. 1659).
    45. Illegal Aliens in the United States. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. March 18, 1999.
    46. Internet Freedom Act and Internet Growth and Development Act of 
1999. (Parts 1 and 2). Committee on the Judiciary. June 30, 1999, July 
18, 2000. (H.R. 1686 and H.R. 1685).
    47. Cost of Living Adjustment in the Pay of Administrative Law 
Judges. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 27, 
1999. (H.R. 915).
    48. Reinvented Taxation and the Taxpayer's Defense Act. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 29, 1999.
    49. First Amendment and Restrictions on Politcal Speech. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 5, 1999.
    50. Consent of Congress to the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact 
and the Boundary Change Between Georgia and South Carolina. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 29, 1999. (H.J. 
Res. 54 and H.J. Res. 62).
    51. Patent Reform and the Patent and Trademark Office 
Reauthorization for Fiscal Year 2000. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. March 25, 1999.
    52. Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. February 10, 2000.
    53. Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act and Anti-Atrocity Alien 
Deportation Act. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. February 17, 
2000. (H.R. 2883 and H.R. 3058).
    54. Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property. March 18, 1999. (H.R. 354).
    55. Electronic Communication Privacy Policy Disclosure. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May 27, 1999.
    56. Violence Against Women Act of 1999, Stalking Prevention and 
Victim Protection Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Crime. September 29, 
1999. (H.R. 1248 and H.R. 1869).
    57. Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 and Workplace 
Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999. Committee on the 
Judiciary. July 21, 1999. (H.R. 1875 and H.R. 2005).
    58. Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999. 
Subcommittee on Crime. March 30, 2000. (H.R. 3380).
    59. Novel Procedures in FCC License Transfer Proceedings. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 25, 1999.
    60. Counterfeiting and Misuse of the Social Security Card and State 
and Local Identity Documents. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. 
July 22, 1999.
    61. Patent Fairness Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. July 1, 1999. (H.R. 1598).
    62. ``Know Your Customer'' Rules: Privacy in the Hands of Federal 
Regulators. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. March 4, 
1999.
    63. Immigration and Naturalization Service's Interior Enforcement 
Strategy. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. July 1, 1999.
    64. Congressional Limitation of Executive Orders. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. October 28, 1999. (H.R. 3131, H. 
Con. Res. 30, and H.R. 2655).
    65. Drug Enforcement Administration. Subcommittee on Crime. July 
29, 1999.
    66. Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 4, 2000. (H.R. 
3489).
    67. Competitive Issues in Agriculture and the Food Marketing 
Industry. Committee on the Judiciary. October 20, 1999.
    68. Final Report of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for 
the Federal Courts of Appeals. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
Property. July 22, 1999.
    69. Competitive Issues in Electricity Deregulation. Committee on 
the Judiciary. July 28, 1999.
    70. Private Property Rights and Telecommunications Policy. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. March 21, 2000.
    71. Designations of Temporary Protected Status and Fraud in Prior 
Amnesty Programs. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 4, 
1999.
    72. Criminal Fines and Restitution: Are Federal Offenders 
Compensating Victims? Subcommittee on Crime. May 6, 1999.
    73. Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. May 12, 1999. (H.R. 1691).
    74. Hate Crimes Violence. Committee on the Judiciary. August 4, 
1999.
    75. Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999. Committee on the 
Judiciary. July 1, 1999. (H.R. 1283).
    76. Immigration Reorganization and Improvement Act of 1999. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. July 29, 1999. (H.R. 2528).
    77. Consent of Congress to the Red River Boundary Compact. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. October 26, 1999. 
(H.J. Res. 72).
    78. Threat to Rural Communities from Methamphetamine Production, 
Trafficking, and Use. Subcommittee on Crime. February 25, 2000 
(Springdale, Arkansas).
    79. Intellectual Property Security Registration and the Report of 
the U.S. Copyright Office on Copyright and Digital Distance Education. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 24, 1999.
    80. Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice 
Regarding Charter Schools. Subcommittee on the Constitution. October 
14, 1999.
    81. Regulatory Fair Warning Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. June 29, 1999. (H.R. 881).
    82. Special Counsel Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. September 15, 1999. (H.R. 2083).
    83. Putting Consequences Back into Juvenile Justice at the Federal, 
State, and Local Levels. Subcommittee on Crime. March 10, 11, 1999.
    84. Pending Firearms Legislation and the Administration's 
Enforcement of Current Gun Laws. Subcommittee on Crime. May 27, 1999.
    85. Terrorist Threats to the United States. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. January 26, 2000.
    86. Reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Statute. (Parts 1 
and 2). Subcommittee on Commercial and administrative Law. March 2, 10, 
June 11 September 23, 1999.
    87. Privacy and Electronic Communications. Subcommittee on Courts 
and Intellectural Property. May 18, 2000.
    88. Limits on Regulatory Powers Under the Bankruptcy Code. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. April 11, 2000.
    89. Volunteer Organization Safety Act of 1999. Subcommittee on 
Crime. May 18, 2000. (H.R. 3410).
    90. Bankruptcy Judgeship Needs. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly with 
the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. November 2, 1999.
    91. Item Veto Constitutional Amendment. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution March 23, 2000. (H.J. Res. 9).
    92. Franchising Relationship, Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. June 24, 1999.
    93 Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection Act and Rescinding 
Consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 17, 1999. (H.R. 
1604 and H.R. 744).
    94. Fairness and Voluntary Arbitration Act. Subcommitee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. June 8, 2000. (H.R. 744).
    95. Breaches of Security at Federal Agencies and Airports. 
Subcommittee on Crime. May 25, 2000.
    96. Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to 
Private Internet Sites. Subcommittee on the Constitution. February 9, 
2000.
    97. Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 1999. (H.R. 2121). Part 1--
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims--February 10, 2000. Part 2--
Committee on the Judiciary--May 23, 2000.
    98. Religious Worker Visa Program. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. June 29, 2000.
    99. State Soveign Immunity and Protection of Intellectual Property. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. July 27, 2000.
    100. Captive Elephant Accident Prevention Act of 1999. Subcommittee 
on Crime. June 13, 2000. (H.R. 2929).
    101. Threat Posed by the Illegal Importation, Trafficking, and Use 
of Ecstasy and Other `'Club'' Drugs. Subcommittee on Crime. June 15, 
2000.
    102. Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999. Subcommittee on 
Crime. March 9, 2000. (H.R. 3125).
    103. Transportation Employee Fair Taxation Act of 1999 and Consent 
of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Culture District 
Compact. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 18, 
2000. (H.R. 1293 and H.R. 4700).
    104. Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: The Bureau of Competition of 
the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the 
Department of Justice. Committee on the Judiciary. April 12, 2000.
    105. United States Marshals Service. Subcommittee on Crime. July 
13, 2000.
    106. Internet and Federal Courts: Issues and Obstacles. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 29, 2000.
    107. Bounty Hunter Responsibility Act of 1999. Subcommittee on 
Crime. March 30, 2000. (H.R. 2964).
    108. Constitutional Amendment to Allow Foreign-Born Citizens to be 
President. Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 24, 2000 (H.J.Res. 
88).
    109. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property. March 9, 2000.
    110. Money Laundering Crisis. Subcommittee on Crime. February 10, 
2000.
    111. Federal Property Campaign Fundraising Reform Act of 2000. 
Committee on the Judiciary. July 20, 2000. (H.R. 4845).
    112. Student Athlete Protection Act. Committee on the Judiciary. 
June 13, 2000. (H.R. 3575).
    113. Status of Regulations Implementing the American 
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. May 25, 2000.
    114. Constitutional Rights and the Grand Jury. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 27, 2000.
    115. Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 12, 2000.
    116. Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 1999. Subcommittee 
on Immigration and Claims. July 20, 2000. (H.R. 3083).
    117. Antitrust Enforcement Improvement Act of 2000. Committee on 
the Judiciary. September 12, 2000. (H.R. 4321).
    118. Probation Officers' Protection Act of 2000 and Child Sex 
Crimes Wiretapping Act of 1999. Subcommittee on Crime. July 13, 2000. 
(H.R. 4423 and H.R. 3484).
    119. Copyrighted Webcast Programming on the Internet. Subcommittee 
on Courts and Intellectual Property. June 15, 2000.
    120. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 20, 2000. (H.R. 4292).
    121. Gene Patents and Other Genomic Inventions. Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property. July 13, 2000.
    122. Aimee's Law, Matthew's Law, Two Strikes and You're Out Child 
Protection Act and Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens Act. Subcommittee 
on Crime. May 11, 2000. (H.R. 894, H.R. 4045, H.R. 1989/H.R. 4047, and 
H.R. 4147).
    123. Jeremy and Julia's Law. Subcommittee on Crime. October 4, 
2000. (H.R. 469).
    124. Free Market Antitrust Immunity Reform (FAIR) Act of 1999. 
Committee on the Judiciary. March 22, 2000. (H.R. 3138).
    125. Justice Department Inspector General's Investigation of 
Citizenship USA. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. September 7, 
2000.
    126. State of Competition in the Airline Industry. Committee on the 
Judiciary. June 14, 23, 2000.
    127. Solutions to Competitive Problems in the Oil Industry. 
Committee on the Judiciary. March 29, April 7, June 28, 2000.
    128. Investigation of Misconduct and Mismanagement at ICITAP, OPDAT 
and Criminal Division's Office of Administration. Committee on the 
Judiciary. September 21, 2000.
    129. Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. April 13, 2000. (H.R. 3485).
    130. CT-43A Federal Employee Settlement Act and Federal Tort Claims 
Arising Outside the United States. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. June 8, 2000 (H.R. 3295 and H.R. 1371).
    131. Agricultural Opportunities Act. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims. June 15, 2000. (H.R. 4548).
    132. Compensation for Illnesses Realized by Department of Energy 
Workers Due to Exposure to Hazardous Materials. Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims. September 21, 2000. (H.R. 675, H.R. 3418, H.R. 
3478, H.R. 3495, H.R. 4263, and H.R. 4398).
    133. Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability Act of 2000. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. September 28, 2000. (H.R. 
5285).
    134. Rights of Crime Victims Constitutional Amendment. Subcommittee 
on the Constitution. February 10, 2000 (H.J. Res. 64).
    135. Fourth Amendment and the Internet. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. April 6, 2000.
    136. ADA Notification Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 
18, 2000. (H.R. 3590).
    137. Fourth Amendment Issues Raised by the FBI's ``Carnivore'' 
Program. Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 24, 2000.
    138. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2000, Digital Privacy 
Act of 2000 and Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution. September 6, 2000. (H.R. 5018, H.R. 4987, and H.R. 
4908).
    139. Internet Denial of Service Attacks and the Federal Response. 
Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary jointly 
with the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight of the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary. February 29, 2000.
    140. Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999, DNA Backlog 
Elimination Act and Convicted Offender DNA Index System Support Act. 
Subcommittee on Crime. March 23, 2000. (H.R. 2810, H.R. 3087, and H.R. 
3375).
    141. Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000. 
Subcommittee on Crime. April 6, 2000. (H.R. 4051).
    142. Innocence Protection Act of 2000. Subcommittee on Crime. June 
20, 2000. (H.R. 4167).
    143. Impact of Mentally Ill Offenders on the Criminal Justice 
System. Subcommittee on Crime. September 21, 2000.
    144. Preventing and Fighting Crime: What Works? Subcommittee on 
Crime. October 2, 2000.
    145. United States Copyright Office and Sound Recordings as Work 
Made for Hire. Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. May 
25, 2000.
    146. Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act of 2000, Internet Tax 
Simplification Act of 2000 and Fair and Equitable Interstate Tax 
Compact Simplification Act of 2000. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. May 17, June 29, 2000. (H.R. 4267, H.R. 4460, and 
H.R. 4462).
    147. Fair Justice Act of 2000. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 27, 2000. (H.R. 4105).
    148. Threat Posed by the Convergence of Organized Crime, Drug 
Trafficking, and Terrorism. Subcommittee on Crime. December 13, 2000.

                            Committee Prints

                          Serial No. and Title

                               __________
    1. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 1999.
    2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 1999.
    3. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 1999.
    4. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 1999.
    5. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 2000.
    6. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 2000.
    7. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 2000.
    8. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 2000.

                            House Documents

                         H. Doc. No. and Title

                               __________
    106-53. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 
Procedure as adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2075. April 
29, 1999. (Executive Communication No. 1786).
    106-54. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Communications from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedures adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. April 29, 
1999. (Executive Communication No. 1787).
    106-55. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. April 29, 
1999. (Executive Communication No. 1788).
    106-114. Central American and Haitian Parity Act of 1999. Message 
from the President of the United States transmitting the Central 
American and Haitian Parity Act of 1999. August 6 (legislative day of 
August 5), 1999. (Presidential Message No. 50).
    106-123. Legislative Proposal--the Cyberspace Electronic Security 
Act of 1999. Message from the President of the United States 
transmitting a legislative proposal to protect the privacy, security 
and safety of the people of the United States through support for the 
widespread use of encryption, protection of the security of 
cryptographic keys, and facilitation of access to the plain text of 
data for legitimate law enforcement purposes. September 21, 1999. 
(Presidential Message No. 53).
    106-197. How Our Laws Are Made. January 31, 2000.
    106-208. National Money Laundering Strategy for 2000. Message from 
the President of the United States transmitting the National Money 
Laundering Strategy for 2000. March 8, 2000. (Presidential Message No. 
90).
    106-214. The Constitution of the United States of America. January 
31, 2000.
    106-225. Amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence. Communication 
from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States, 
transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that have been 
adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. May 2, 2000. 
(Executive Communication No. 7333).
    106-226. Amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy. Communication 
from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States, 
transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 
that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2075. May 2, 
2000. (Executive Communication No. 7334).
    106-227. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Communication from 
the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting 
amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure adopted by the 
Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. May 2, 2000. (Executive 
Communication No. 7335).
    106-228. Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. May 2, 
2000. (Executive Communication No. 7336).
    106-250. The Report of the National Commission on Terroism. 
Communication from the Commissioners, the National Commission on 
Terrorism, transmitting a report entitled, ``Countering the Changing 
Threat of International Terrorism'', pursuant to Public Law 105-277. 
Referred jointly to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
International Relations. June 6, 2000. (Executive Communication No. 
8031).

        Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary

                      Legislation Enacted Into Law

                              ----------                              

    A variety of legislation within the Committee's 
jurisdiction was enacted into law during the 106th Congress. 
The public and private laws are listed below and are more fully 
detailed in the subsequent sections of this report recounting 
the activities of the Committee and its individual 
subcommittees.

                              public laws

    Public Law 106-5.--To extend for 6 additional months the 
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States 
Code is reenacted. (H.R. 808) (Approved March 30, 1999).
    Public Law 106-37.--To establish certain procedures for 
civil actions brought for damages relating to the failure of 
any device or system to process or otherwise deal with the 
transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other 
purposes. ``Y2K Act''. (H.R. 775) (Approved July 20, 1999; not 
applicable to first-time violations caused by a Y2K failure 
occurring after December 31, 2000).
    Public Law 106-42.--To authorize funds for the payment of 
salaries and expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office, and 
for other purposes. ``Patent Fee Integrity and Innovation 
Protection Act of 1999''. (S. 1258) (Approved August 5, 1999; 
effective date October 1, 1999).
    Public Law 106-43.--To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 
relating to dilution of famous marks, and for other purposes. 
``Trademark Amendments Act of 1999''. (S. 1259) (Approved 
August 5, 1999).
    Public Law 106-44.--To make technical corrections in title 
17, United States Code, and other laws. (S. 1260) (Approved 
August 5, 1999).
    Public Law 106-49.--To amend the Miller Act, relating to 
payment protections for persons providing labor and materials 
for Federal construction projects. ``Construction Industry 
Payment Protection Act of 1999''. (H.R. 1219) (Approved August 
17, 1999).
    Public Law 106-54.--For the relief of Global Exploration 
and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-
McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical 
Corporation), and for other purposes. (Includes public 
legislative language relating to explosive devices; and 
additional private legislative language relating to settlement 
of claims of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin). (S. 606) 
(Approved August 17, 1999).
    Public Law 106-65.--To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such 
fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''. 
``Troops-to-Teachers Program Act of 1999''. ``Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''. 
``Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999''. ``Department of 
Energy Facilities Safeguards, Security, and Counterintelligence 
Enhancement Act of 1999''. ``National Nuclear Security 
Administration Act''. ``Panama Canal Commission Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000''. ``Maritime Administration 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''. (S. 1059) (Approved 
October 5, 1999; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 106-70.--To extend for 9 additional months the 
period for which chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is 
reenacted. (S. 1606) (Approved October 9, 1999).
    Public Law 106-80.--To amend title 4, United States Code, 
to add the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday to the list of days 
on which the flag should especially be displayed. (S. 322) 
(Approved October 25, 1999).
    Public Law 106-90.--To grant the consent of Congress to the 
boundary change between Georgia and South Carolina. (H.J. Res. 
62) (Approved November 8, 1999).
    Public Law 106-95.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act with respect to the requirements for the 
admission of nonimmigrant nurses who will practice in health 
professional shortage areas. ``Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged 
Areas Act of 1999''. (H.R. 441) (Approved November 12, 1999).
    Public Law 106-101.--Granting the consent of Congress to 
the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact. (H.J. Res. 54) 
(Approved November 12, 1999).
    Public Law 106-102.--To enhance competition in the 
financial services industry by providing a prudential framework 
for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, insurance 
companies, and other financial service providers, and for other 
purposes. ``Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act''. ``Federal Home Loan Bank 
System Modernization Act''. ``ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999''. 
``Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999 
(PRIME Act)''. (S. 900) (Approved November 12, 1999; effective 
dates vary).
    Public Law 106-104.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to extend for an additional 2 years the period 
for admission of an alien as a nonimmigrant under section 
101(a)(15)(S) of such Act, and to authorize appropriations for 
the refugee assistance program under chapter 2 of title IV of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act. (H.R. 3061) (Approved 
November 13, 1999).
    Public Law 106-110.--To amend part G of title I of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow 
railroad police officers to attend the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation National Academy for law enforcement training. 
(S. 1235) (Approved November 24, 1999).
    Public Law 106-130.--To provide for the holding of court at 
Natchez, Mississippi in the same manner as court is held at 
Vicksburg, Mississippi, and for other purposes. (S. 1418) 
(Approved December 6, 1999).
    Public Law 106-139.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to provide that an adopted alien who is less 
than 18 years of age may be considered a child under such Act 
if adopted with or after a sibling who is a child under such 
Act. (H.R. 2886) (Approved December 7, 1999).
    Public Law 106-152.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to punish the depiction of animal cruelty. (H.R. 1887) 
(Approved December 9, 1999).
    Public Law 106-160.--To amend statutory damages provisions 
of title 17, United States Code. ``Digital Theft Deterrence and 
Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999''. (H.R. 3456) 
(Approved December 9, 1999; effective with respect to any 
action brought on or after December 9, 1999, regardless of the 
date on which the alleged activity that is the basis of the 
action occurred).
    Public Law 106-172.--To amend the Controlled Substances Act 
to direct the emergency scheduling of gamma hydroxybutyric 
acid, to provide for a national awareness campaign, and for 
other purposes. ``Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape 
Drug Prohibition Act of 2000''. (H.R. 2130) (Approved February 
18, 2000; deadlines vary).
    Public Law 106-177.--To reduce the incidence of child abuse 
and neglect, and for other purposes. ``Child Abuse Prevention 
and Enforcement Act''. ``Jennifer's Law''. (H.R. 764) (Approved 
March 10, 2000).
    Public Law 106-185.--To provide a more just and uniform 
procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, and for other 
purposes. ``Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000''. (H.R. 
1658) (Approved April 25, 2000; effective date August 23, 
2000).
    Public Law 106-197.--To exempt certain reports from 
automatic elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal 
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, and for other 
purposes. (S. 1769) (Approved May 2, 2000).
    Public Law 106-207.--To facilitate the naturalization of 
aliens who served with special guerrilla units or irregular 
forces in Laos. ``Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000''. 
(H.R. 371) (Approved May 26, 2000).
    Public Law 106-215.--To amend section 110 of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 
and for other purposes. (H.R. 4489) (Approved June 15, 2000).
    Public Law 106-229.--To facilitate the use of electronic 
records and signatures in interstate or foreign commerce. 
``Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act''. 
(S. 761) (Approved June 30, 2000; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 106-245.--To amend the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act, and for other purposes. ``Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act Amendments of 2000''. (S. 1515) (Approved July 
10, 2000).
    Public Law 106-252.--To amend title 4 of the United States 
Code to establish sourcing requirements for State and local 
taxation of mobile telecommunication services. ``Mobile 
Telecommunications Sourcing Act''.(H.R. 4391) (Approved July 
28, 2000; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 106-254.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to provide penalties for harming animals used in Federal law 
enforcement. ``Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act of 
2000''. (H.R. 1791) (Approved August 2, 2000).
    Public Law 106-274.--To protect religious liberty, and for 
other purposes. ``Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 
Persons Act of 2000''. (S. 2869) (Approved September 22, 2000).
    Public Law 106-276.--To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the retroactive eligibility 
dates for financial assistance for higher education for spouses 
and dependent children of Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement officers who are killed in the line of duty. (S. 
1638) (Approved October 2, 2000; effective date October 1, 
1999).
    Public Law 106-279.--To provide for implementation by the 
United States of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children 
and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and for 
other purposes. ``Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000''. (H.R. 
2909) (approved October 6, 2000; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 106-287.--To grant the consent of the Congress 
to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Culture District 
Compact. (H.R. 4700) (Approved October 10, 2000).
    Public Law 106-288.--Granting the consent of the Congress 
to the Red River Boundary Compact. (H.J. Res. 72) (Approved 
October 10, 2000; effective date August 31, 2000).
    Public Law 106-294.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to combat the overutilization of prison health care services 
and control rising prisoner health care costs. ``Federal 
Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act of 2000''. (S. 704) 
(Approved October 12, 2000).
    Public Law 106-297.--To amend the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to ensure that certain information 
regarding prisoners is reported to the Attorney General. 
``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000''. (H.R. 1800) 
(Approved October 13, 2000).
    Public Law 106-311.--To increase the amount of fees charged 
to employers who are petitioners for the employment of H-1B 
non-immigrant workers, and for other purposes. (H.R. 5362) 
(Approved October 17, 2000; effective with respect to petitions 
that are filed on or after December 17, 2000).
    Public Law 106-313.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens. 
``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 
2000''. (S. 2045) (Approved October 17, 2000).
    Public Law 106-314.--To improve the administrative 
efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation's abuse and neglect 
courts and for other purposes consistent with the Adoption and 
Safe Families Act of 1997. ``Strengthening Abuse and Neglect 
Courts Act of 2000''. (S. 2272) (Approved October 17, 2000).
    Public Law 106-367.--To improve academic and social 
outcomes for youth and reduce both juvenile crime and the risk 
that youth will become victims of crime by providing productive 
activities conducted by law enforcement personnel during non-
school hours. ``National Police Athletic League Youth 
Enrichment Act of 2000''. (H.R. 3235) (Approved October 27, 
2000).
    Public Law 106-378.--To provide for the adjustment of 
status of certain Syrian nationals. (H.R. 4681) (Approved 
October 27, 2000).
    Public Law 106-379.--To make certain corrections in 
copyright law. ``Work Made For Hire and Copyright Corrections 
Act of 2000''. (H.R. 5107) (Approved October 27, 2000).
    Public Law 106-386.--To combat trafficking in persons, 
especially into the sex trade, slavery, and involuntary 
servitude, to reauthorize certain Federal programs to prevent 
violence against women, and for other purposes. ``Victims of 
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000''. (H.R. 3244) 
(Approved October 28, 2000).
    Public Law 106-395.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to modify the provisions governing acquisition 
of citizenship by children born outside the United States, and 
for other purposes. ``Child Citizenship Act of 2000''. (H.R. 
2883) (Approved October 30, 2000).
    Public Law 106-396.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to make improvements to, and permanently 
authorize, the visa waiver pilot program under section 217 of 
such Act. ``Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act''. (H.R. 3767) 
(Approved October 30, 2000).
    Public Law 106-398.--To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such 
fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. 
``Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001''. `Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001''. Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act of 2000''. (H.R. 4205) (Approved 
October 30, 2000).
    Public Law 106-404.--To improve the ability of Federal 
agencies to license federally owned inventions. ``Technology 
Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000''. (H.R. 209) (Approved 
November 1, 2000).
    Public Law 106-406.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to authorize a 3-year pilot program under which 
the Attorney General may extend the period for voluntary 
departure in the case of certain nonimmigrant aliens who 
require medical treatment in the United States and were 
admitted under the visa waiver pilot program, and for other 
purposes. ``International Patient Act of 2000''. (H.R. 2961) 
(Approved November 1, 2000).
    Public Law 106-409.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to extend for an additional 3 years the special 
immigrant religious worker program. ``Religious Workers Act of 
2000''. (H.R. 4068) (Approved November 1, 2000).
    Public Law 106-415.--To amend the Hmong Veterans' 
Naturalization Act of 2000 to extend the applicability of that 
Act to certain former spouses of deceased Hmong veterans. (H.R. 
5234) (Approved November 1, 2000).
    Public Law 106-420.--To enhance protections against fraud 
in the offering of financial assistance for college education, 
and for other purposes. ``College Scholarship Fraud Prevention 
Act of 2000''. (S. 1455) (Approved November 1, 2000).
    Public Law 106-448.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the oath of renunciation 
and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having certain 
disabilities. (S. 2812) (Approved November 6, 2000).
    Public Law 106-451.--To provide for the preparation of a 
Government report detailing injustices suffered by Italian 
Americans during World War II, and a formal acknowledgment of 
such injustices by the President. ``Wartime Violation of 
Italian American Civil Liberties Act''. (H.R. 2442) (Approved 
November 7, 2000).
    Public Law 106-468.--To authorize the Attorney General to 
provide grants for organizations to find missing adults. 
``Kristen's Act''. (H.R. 2780) (Approved November 9, 2000).
    Public Law 106-474.--To establish the National Recording 
Registry in the Library of Congress to maintain and preserve 
sound recordings that are culturally, historically, or 
aesthetically significant, and for other purposes. ``National 
Recording Preservation Act of 2000''. (H.R. 4846) (Approved 
November 9, 2000).
    Public Law 106-483.--Recognizing that the Birmingham Pledge 
has made a significant contribution in fostering racial harmony 
and reconciliation in the United States and around the world, 
and for other purposes. (H.J. Res. 102) (Approved November 9, 
2000).
    Public Law 106-484.--To provide for the granting of refugee 
status in the United States to nationals of certain foreign 
countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or American 
Korean War POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist 
in the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs alive. 
``Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000''. (S. 484) (Approved 
November 9, 2000).
    Public Law 106-489.--To amend title 46, United States Code, 
to provide equitable treatment with respect to State and local 
income taxes for certain individuals who perform duties on 
vessels. (S. 893) (Approved November 9, 2000).
    Public Law 106-515.--To provide grants to establish 
demonstration mental health courts. ``America's Law Enforcement 
and Mental Health Project''. (S. 1865) (Approved November 13, 
2000).
    Public Law 106-517.--To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify the procedures and 
conditions for the award of matching grants for the purchase of 
armor vests. ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 
2000''. (S. 2413) (Approved November 13, 2000).
    Public Law 106-518.--To make improvements in the operation 
and administration of the Federal courts,and for other 
purposes. ``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000''. (S. 2915) 
(Approved November 13, 2000).
    Public Law 106-523.--To establish court-martial 
jurisdiction over civilians serving with the Armed Forces 
during contingency operations, and to establish Federal 
jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the United States by 
former members of the Armed Forces and civilians accompanying 
the Armed Forces outside the United States. ``Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000''. (S. 768) (Approved 
November 22, 2000).
    Public Law 106-534.--To protect seniors from fraud. 
``Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act''. (S. 3164) (Approved 
November 22, 2000.
    Public Law 106-536.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act provide special immigrant status to certain 
United States international broadcasting employees. (S. 3239) 
(Approved November 22, 2000).
    Public Law 106-544.--To amend section 879, United States 
Code, to provide clearer coverage over threats against former 
Presidents and members of their families, and for other 
purposes. ``Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000''. (H.R. 
3048) (Approved December 19, 2000).
    Public Law 106-546.--To make grants to States for carrying 
out DNA analyses for use in the Combined DNA Index System of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to provide for the 
collection and analysis of DNA samples from certain violent and 
sexual offenders for use in such system, and for other 
purposes. ``DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000''. 
(H.R. 4640) (Approved December 19, 2000).
    Public Law 106-547.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
to prevent the entry by false pretenses to any real property, 
vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any 
airport, to prevent the misuse of genuine and counterfeit 
police badges by those seeking to commit a crime, and for other 
purposes. ``Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000''. (H.R. 
4827) (Approved December 19, 2000).
    Public Law 106-559.--To provide technical and legal 
assistance for tribal justice systems and members of Indian 
tribes, and for other purposes. ``Indian Tribal Justice 
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000''. (S. 1508) 
(Approved December 21, 2000).
    Public Law 106-560.--To provide protection against the 
risks to the public that are inherent in the interstate 
transportation of violent prisoners. ``Interstate 
Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of 2000''. ``Jeanna's 
Act''. (S. 1898) (Approved December 21, 2000).
    Public Law 106-561.--To improve the quality, timeliness, 
and credibility of forensic science services for criminal 
justice programs. ``Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences 
Improvement Act of 2000''. (S. 3045) (Approved December 21, 
2000).
    Public Law 106-572.--To establish a grant program to assist 
State and local law enforcement in deterring, investigating, 
and prosecuting computer crime. ``Computer Crime Enforcement 
Act''. (H.R. 2816) (Approved December 28, 2000).
    Public Law 106-578.--To strengthen the enforcement of 
Federal statues relating to false identification and for other 
purposes. ``Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 
2000''. (S. 2924) (Approved December 28, 2000).

                              Private Laws

    Private Law 106-3.--For the relief of Suchada Kwong. (H.R. 
322) (Approved December 3, 1999).
    Private Law 106-4.--For the relief of Belinda McGregor. (S. 
452) (Approved May 15, 2000.
    Private Law 106-6.--For the relief of Akal Security, 
Incorporated. (H.R. 3363) (Approved October 10, 2000).
    Private Law 106-7.--For the relief of Kerantha Poole-
Christian. (S. 302) (Approved October 13, 2000).
    Private Law 106-8.--For the relief of certain Persian Gulf 
evacuees. (H.R. 3646) (Approved November 7, 2000).
    Private Law 106-9.--For the relief of Ruth Hairston by 
waiver of a deadline for appeal from a ruling relating to her 
application for a survivor annuity. (H.R. 660) (Approved 
November 9, 2000).
    Private Law 106-10.--For the relief of Sepandan Farnia and 
Farbod Farnia. (H.R. 848) (Approved November 9, 2000).
    Private Law 106-11.--For the relief of Zohreh Farhang 
Ghahfarokhi. (H.R. 3184 (Approved November 9, 2000).
    Private Law 106-12.--For the relief of Luis A. Leon-Molina, 
Ligia Padron, Juan Leon Padron, Rendy Leon Padron, Manual Leon 
Padron, and Luis Leon Padron. (H.R. 3414) (Approved November 9, 
2000).
    Private Law 106-13.--For the relief of Saeed Rezai. (H.R. 
5266) (Approved November 9, 2000).
    Private Law 106-14.--For the relief of Wei Jingsheng. (S. 
11) (Approved November 22, 2000).
    Private Law 106-15.--For the relief of Marina Khalina and 
her son, Albert Mifakhov. (S. 150) (Approved November 22, 
2000).
    Private Law 106-16.--For the relief of Sergio Lozano, 
Faurico Lozano and Ana Lozano. (S. 276) (Approved November 22, 
2000).
    Private Law 106-17.--For the relief of Frances 
Schochenmaier. (S. 785) (Approved November 22, 2000).
    Private Law 106-18.--For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash. 
(S. 869) (Approved November 22, 2000).
    Private Law 106-19.--For the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth Eka 
Bassey and her children, Emmanuel O. Paul Bassey, Jacob Paul 
Bassey, and Mary Idongesit Paul Berry. (S. 1078) (Approved 
November 22, 2000).
    Private Law 106-20.--For the relief of Jacqueline Salinas 
and her children Gabriela Salinas, Alejandro Salinas, and Omar 
Salinas. (S. 1513) (Approved November 22, 2000).
    Private Law 106-21.--For the relief of Guy Taylor. (S. 
2000) (Approved November 22, 2000).
    Private Law 106-22.--For the relief of Tony Lara. (S. 2002) 
(Approved November 22, 2000).
    Private Law 106-23.--For the relief of Malia Miller. (S. 
2019) (Approved November 22, 2000).
    Private Law 106-24.--For the relief of Jose Guadalupe 
Tellez Pinales. (S. 2289) (Approved November 22, 2000).

                        Conference Appointments

    Members of the Committee were named by the Speaker as 
conferees on the following bills which contained legislative 
language within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction:

H.R. 2415

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 2415, 
the ``American Embassy Security Act of 1999.'' The conference 
committee substituted the language of S. 3186, the ``Bankruptcy 
Reform Act of 2000'' as introduced in the House. H.R. 2415 was 
pocket vetoed by the President on December 19, 2000.

H.R. 4205

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 4205, 
the ``Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001.'' H.R. 4205 became law on October 30, 2000, 
as Public Law 106-398.

S. 900

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on S. 900, the 
``Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.'' S. 900 became 
law on November 12, 1999, as Public Law 106-102.

S. 1059

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on S. 1059, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000.'' S. 1059 became law on October 5, 1999, as Public Law 
106-65.
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

     HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, 
            Chairman\1\

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

----------
\1\ Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman 
pursuant to House Resolution 6, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
Republician Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 6, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
Democratic Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 7, approved by the House January 6, 1999.
\2\ Spencer Bachus, Alabama, elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 30, approved by the House February 2, 1999.
\3\ Stephen E. Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee March 4, 
1999.
\4\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, elected to the Committee pursuant to 
House Resolution 108, approved by the House March 11, 1999.
\5\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee June 25, 1999.
\6\ David Vitter, Louisiana, elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 223, approved by the House June 25, 1999.

Tabulation of activity on legislation held at the full Committee

Legislation held at the full Committee............................   104
Legislation reported to the House.................................    12
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................    12
Legislation pending in the House..................................     5
Legislation failed passage by the House...........................     1
Legislation passed by the House...................................    19
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     7
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another measure....     1
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     3
House resolutions approved........................................     4
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    17
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    26

                       Full Committee Activities

    During the 106th Congress, the full Judiciary Committee 
retained original jurisdiction with respect to a number of 
legislative and oversight matters. This included exclusive 
jurisdiction over antitrust and liability issues. In addition, 
a number of specific legislative issues were handled 
exclusively by the full Committee, including civil asset 
forfeiture reform, a ban on partial birth abortion, and the 
Student Athlete Protection Act.

                         Legislative Activities


                               Antitrust

H.R. 1304, the ``Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 1999''

    Summary.--In recent years, health insurers and health 
maintenance organizations (HMOs) have increasingly asserted 
control over health care decisions that doctors and patients 
once made. The insurers and HMOs contend that these kinds of 
controls are necessary to keep prices low and to keep health 
insurance coverage affordable. Doctors contend that these kinds 
of controls invade the traditional doctor-patient relationship 
and that keep prices so low that doctors cannot practice 
economically. Doctors further contend that in negotiating 
contracts that establish these controls the insurers have much 
greater bargaining power than do individual doctors.
    H.R. 1304 arises from this last point. Proponents argue 
that doctors will be able to get a fair deal in these 
negotiations only if the law allows them to band together to 
negotiate with insurers and HMOs. They argue that doctors 
cannot engage in these kinds of joint negotiations without an 
antitrust exemption. They also believe that patients will be 
better served because the doctors will use their greater 
bargaining power to seek contracts that allow the insurers less 
control over patient care.
    Critics argue that the bill would harm consumers because it 
would allow doctors to fix prices and engage in group boycotts 
thereby driving up the cost of insurance. To the extent that 
health insurance premiums do rise, critics argue that this 
would cause a corresponding drop in federal tax revenue because 
of the deductibility of such premiums. The bill places no 
limits on the percentage of providers in a market that could 
band together. Thus, doctors, particularly in smaller markets, 
could exercise high degrees of market power. They also contend 
that under current guidelines issued by the Federal Trade 
Commission and the Department of Justice, doctors are free to 
band together in group practices and negotiate directly with 
employers if they do not like the deals they get with insurers. 
Ultimately, they argue that the bill will end the ability of 
competitive forces to control health care costs and to improve 
efficiency.
    Legislative History.--Representative Campbell introduced 
H.R. 1304 on March 25, 1999, and it was referred to the 
Committee. On June 22, 1999, the Committee held a hearing at 
which the following witnesses appeared: Honorable Tom Campbell, 
United States Representative, 15th District of California; 
Honorable John Cooksey, United States Representative, 5th 
District of Louisiana; Honorable Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, 
Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.; Honorable Joel 
Klein, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United 
States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Edgar Anderson, 
M.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, 
American Medical Association, Chicago Illinois Gary Dennis, 
M.D., President, National Medical Association, Washington, 
D.C.; Robert Weinmann, M.D., President, Union of American 
Physicians and Dentists, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Oakland California; 
Ms. Holly Henry, Legislative Chairperson, National Community 
Pharmacists Association, Seattle, Washington; Don Young, M.D, 
Chief Operating Officer and Medical Director, Health Insurance 
Association of America, Washington D.C.; Mr. Bill Jones, 
President, Materials Transportation Company, Temple, Texas on 
behalf of the Antitrust Coalition and the Texas Association of 
Business and Chambers of Commerce; Jan Stewart, C.R.N.A., 
A.R.N.P, President-Elect, Association of Nurse Anesthetists, 
Seattle, Washington; and Mr. Stuart Bascomb, Executive Vice 
President, Express Scripts, Inc., Maryland Heights, Missouri. 
On March 16 and 30, 2000, the Committee conducted markup 
sessions on H.R. 1304. On March 30, 2000, the Committee ordered 
H.R. 1304 reported by a vote of 26-2. The Committee filed its 
report, H. Rept. 106-625, on May 18, 2000. On June 29 and 30, 
2000, the House considered H.R. 1304. On June 30, 2000, the 
House passed H.R. 1304 by a vote of 276-136.

H.R. 1686, the ``Internet Freedom Act,'' and H.R. 1685, the ``Internet 
        Growth and Development Act of 1999''

    Summary.--Before 1984, America had one dominant telephone 
company--the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (``AT&T''). 
AT&T provided almost all local and long distance service 
throughout the United States, except that in some isolated 
areas independent phone companies provided local service. 
During the AT&T era, local service rates were kept artificially 
low, and the substantial differences in costs of providing 
local service in urban and rural areas were not reflected in 
local service rates. AT&T kept long distance rates, which were 
paid primarily by business, artificially high in order to 
subsidize low local rates. The policy, known as universal 
service, was that all Americans should have access to a 
telephone at an affordable rate regardless of the cost of 
providing the service. Because AT&T was one company, it was 
relatively easy to administer this system of subsidies.
    In 1974, the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice sued AT&T for violating the antitrust laws in a number 
of ways--most importantly, not letting potential long distance 
competitors hook up to its local networks. In 1982, the parties 
settled the lawsuit, and Judge Harold Greene of the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a 
consent decree known as the Modification of Final Judgment or 
MFJ. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, 
552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). 
Beginning in 1984, the MFJ broke up AT&T into a new smaller 
AT&T, which was to provide long distance service in competition 
with other companies, and seven regional Bell operating 
companies (``RBOCs'')--Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, 
Nynex, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell (now known as SBC 
Communications), and US West. There was also one preexisting 
independent phone company, GTE Corporation, which was of a 
comparable size. These seven regional RBOCs were to provide 
local service where AT&T had previously been doing so.
    At the time, the general consensus was that long distance 
service could be provided competitively, but that local service 
remained a natural monopoly. Based on that assumption, the MFJ 
prohibited the RBOCs from entering long distance service and 
other lines of business without prior court approval. The 
court's procedures under the MFJ required companies seeking 
that approval to negotiate with the Department of Justice 
before filing for the approval. As a practical matter, DOJ 
approval was required to get court approval.
    In addition, policymakers wanted to maintain the universal 
service system. To do so, they required the long distance 
companies to pay ``access charges'' to the local companies for 
completing long distance calls. The local companies used these 
access charges to maintain low local rates in all geographical 
areas.
    This system lasted from 1984 through 1996, when Congress 
passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the ``1996 Act''), 
Pub. L. No. 104-104. The Act set up a new statutory framework 
governing the industry and ended the MFJ. Under the Act, the 
RBOCs were to be allowed into long distance service within 
their region. However, they first had to open up their local 
networks to allow competitors to provide local service. The Act 
also required the FCC to set up a new process to deal with 
universal service issues.
    Local competition is progressing, albeit slowly. To date, 
only two RBOCs have gotten into long distance service--one in 
New York and one in Texas. RBOCs may provide long distance 
service outside their region, and some have done so. RBOCs may 
compete for local service outside their regions, and some have 
done so on a limited basis. Some RBOCs have also made efforts 
to get into other businesses like cable television.
    Cable television first began to appear in this country in 
the late 1940s. In the early days, state and local governments 
made some attempts to regulate cable through a patchwork of 
laws, but there was no national policy. In 1984, Congress 
responded to numerous complaints that rates were too high and 
that local governments were making unreasonable demands on 
cable companies by passing the Cable Communications Policy Act 
(the ``1984 Act''), Pub. L. No. 98-549. On its face, the 1984 
Act allowed local governments to regulate rates if their local 
operator did not face effective competition. However, the FCC 
defined effective competition so broadly that the Act 
essentially deregulated most cable rates. The 1984 Act did 
little to encourage new entrants to build competing systems. In 
fact, it codified FCC rules prohibiting broadcasters and 
telephone companies from operating cable systems.
    Eight years of experience with the 1984 Act led to mounting 
complaints. In 1992, Congress passed the Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the ``1992 
Act''), Pub. L. No. 102-385. At that time, the types of cable 
competition we see today were just beginning to emerge. Because 
of the relative lack of competition existing then, the 1992 Act 
reregulated cable rates. Local goverments were allowed to 
regulate rates for the basic tier and for cable equipment. The 
FCC would regulate rates for the expanded basic tier (what most 
subscribers choose). Rates for premium channels like HBO and 
Cinemax were left unregulated. In addition, the FCC would 
regulate the rates for the basic tier and equipment if a local 
government chose not to do so. Rate regulation was to end if 
there was effective competition, which under the statute had a 
new, much narrower definition. The effect of the new definition 
was that almost all cable systems faced rate regulation.
    The story of rate regulation by the FCC and the local 
governments under the 1992 Act is far too long and complicated 
to go into here. Suffice it to say that none of the parties to 
this experience has found it entirely satisfactory. The 1996 
Act made some changes to the process of rate regulation under 
the 1992 Act, but it was not a major overhaul. The far more 
important substantive change was that it ended rate regulation 
of the expanded basic tier as of March 31, 1999. Since most 
cable subscribers have the expanded basic tier, as a practical 
matter, this means that cable rates are now largely 
unregulated. This action reflects that underlying philosophy of 
the 1996 Act that the market was moving towards real 
competition. Another important part of the 1996 Act was to 
remove the prohibition on telephone companies getting into 
cable although few have done so.
    President Clinton signed the 1996 Act on February 8, 1996. 
At the time, the Internet was in its infancy, and it was barely 
mentioned in the 1996 Act. Most observers thought that the 
RBOCs would remain separate companies, that they would begin 
competing in long distance quickly, and that they might enter 
the cable business. By the same token, most observers thought 
that the long distance companies would remain separate 
companies, that they would begin competing in local service 
quickly, and that they probably would not enter the cable 
business. As for the cable companies, most observers thought 
that they would remain separate companies, that they might 
enter the telephone business, and that they would face 
substantial competition in the cable business from satellite 
companies and telephone companies. Hardly anyone thought of the 
Internet or other data traffic as an important part of the 
picture.
    In the nearly five years since the 1996 Act was signed, the 
Internet has changed everything. At that time, it was a 
technological marvel that was just becoming available to 
ordinary people and was hardly used for commerce. Since then, 
it has become almost a necessity for ordinary people and a 
means for conducting a substantial and ever growing amount of 
commerce.
    In 1996, data traffic was not a substantial portion of the 
long distance business. Estimates vary as to what the 
percentage was, but it was probably less than 10%. Today, it is 
probably more than 50%. The demand keeps exploding. As a 
result, being a carrier of voice (i.e. traditional telephone 
calls) has become relatively less important and being a carrier 
of data has become relatively more important.
    As anyone who has used the Internet knows, it can be 
frustratingly slow depending on what technology one is using. 
The details of that technology are too complicated to get into 
in much detail here. The most important thing to know is that 
cable technology (known as broadband) is much faster than 
telephone technology and it has more capacity. Telephone 
companies are upgrading their networks in many areas, but even 
this upgraded technology (known as Digital Subscriber Line or 
DSL) has limitations and is not as fast as cable technology. At 
the same time that both of these technologies are getting 
better and faster, they are also becoming capable of carrying 
voice (i.e. telephone calls), video (i.e. programming), anddata 
(i.e. Internet content) through the same pipe.
    Most telecommunications companies, irrespective of whether 
they started as RBOCs, long distance companies, cable 
companies, or something else, now think that their future lies 
in being capable of providing a package of all of these 
services on a global basis. Because getting into a new part of 
this business from scratch requires massive investment, many 
companies have decided to buy another company rather than build 
from scratch. That has led to a wave of mergers.
    First, the RBOCs began to merge with each other. Bell 
Atlantic bought Nynex and GTE. SBC Communications bought 
Pacific Telesis and Ameritech. Then, new competitors began to 
buy existing companies. WorldCom, a relatively new local 
competitor, bought MCI, one of the major long distance 
companies. Qwest, a relatively new long distance competitor, 
bought USWest, and RBOC.
    Finally, AT&T, the biggest of the old line long distance 
companies, has bought TCI and MediaOne. TCI and MediaOne are 
two of the largest cable companies in the nation. These mergers 
will give AT&T ownership of many cable lines going into 
American homes. At the same time, Microsoft has purchased a 
stake in AT&T as part of an effort to accelerate the deployment 
of broadband services across the country.
    The debate on this issue revolves around two separate, but 
closely related issues: (1) whether those who do not own cable 
broadband lines will be able to access them on the same terms 
as those who do; and (2) whether the RBOCs will be able to 
transport data over long distance lines within their regions.
    Proponents of H.R. 1686 and H.R. 1685 argue that cable 
broadband lines are, as a practical matter, an essential 
facility. (An essential facility is an antitrust term of art 
meaning a necessary means of doing business that cannot be 
practically reproduced by competitors.) Internet service 
providers (e.g. Erol's) and online service providers (e.g. 
Earthlink) cannot possibly reproduce the existing cable 
systems. Therefore, they argue that they should be granted 
access to those lines on the same terms that the owner of the 
lines grants to its own competing services. They maintain that 
this is the only way to preserve competition in the ISP and OSP 
markets. They raise the fear that a company like AT&T may 
eventually not only control the lines, but the content as well 
by striking preferential deals with content providers for space 
on their own OSP service.
    Critics of the bills argue that government regulation of 
the cable broadband lines is not necessary. AT&T argues that 
its lines are open to all and that users can access any content 
provider through AT&T's @home service. They contend that those 
who have invested in the cable broadband lines should reap the 
benefits of their investments and that the bills would stifle 
the investment necessary to make these services available. They 
also argue that there are any number of alternative routes to 
reach the home including telephone, satellite, and wireless. 
They argue that simply because cable technology is faster than 
telephone it is not a separate market, but rather a gradation 
of the same market in which consumers can pick the speed that 
they need.
    Proponents of the bills argued that allowing the RBOCs into 
the long distance data market would increase competition in the 
market and help it meet the ever growing demand for long 
distance data capacity. They contend that the regulatory scheme 
set up by the 1996 Act is overly burdensome and that it 
discourages investment. They argue that it is slowing the 
deployment of the telephone DSL technology throughout the rural 
areas of the country. They believe that the Internet would grow 
faster without the regulation.
    Critics of the bills say that the 1996 Act is working 
exactly as it was intended and that Congress should leave it 
alone. They argue that the long distance prohibitions is the 
only thing motivating the RBOCs to open their local markets to 
competitions as the 1996 Act envisioned. They believe that 
giving the RBOCs date relief would greatly undermine their 
incentives to open their networks and thereby slow the growth 
of local competition in telephone service. They believe that 
such a charge would be disastrous for the new competitor local 
telephone companies.
    Because cable broadband technology has made cable such an 
important part of the convergence issue, some local governments 
have hit upon the idea of using their power over cable 
franchises to impose regulations on cable companies providing 
cable broadband services. In one recent case, a federal 
district judge ruled that such regulations were legal and not 
preempted by federal law. AT&T Corp v. City of Portland, 43 
F.Supp.2d 1146 (D. Ore. 1999). In other cities, local 
governments have rejected such regulations. See, e.g., Victory 
for Los Angeles Cable Providers, The New York Times, June 19, 
1999, at C-2.
    As the Committee delved into this issue, a number of new 
developments affected the debate. On December 6, 1999, AT&T 
announced a voluntary statement of principles under which it 
would allow Mindspring to provide content over its cable lines. 
(Mindspring has subsequently merged with Earthlink.) However, 
that agreement would not take effect until 2002 when an 
exclusive contract with Excite@Home expires.
    AT&T believes that this agreement is the first step towards 
opening its cable lines to other content providers. It argues 
that it is continuing to work out similar agreements with other 
providers. Critics say that this agreement is an unenforceable 
``agreement to agree.'' They further argue that there is no 
need to delay because AT&T owns a majority stake in Excite@Home 
and could abandon the exclusive contract at any time.
    Originally, one of the principal proponents of open access 
was America Online (``AOL''). At the time, AOL was a major 
content provider, but is had no access to the means of 
distributing that content. On January 10, 2000, AOL announced 
that it would merge with Time Warner, a major cable company and 
the owner of a great deal of content. This proposed merger is 
currently under review by the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Federal Communications Commission. To date, neither agency has 
reached any conclusion.
    If the merger is consummated, it will place the newly 
merged company in much the same position as AT&T--i.e., a 
company that owns cable lines that is also a content provider. 
On February 29, 2000, the two companies announced that they had 
signed a memorandum ofunderstanding setting forth principles 
under which Time Warner's cable companies would allow open access to 
their lines.
    Like AT&T, these two companies believe that this memorandum 
of understanding is a first step towards providing open access. 
Critics argue that it is nonenforceable. They further argue 
that the merger should not be allowed because the temptations 
for the new company to discriminate in favor of its own content 
will simply be too strong.
    In addition, a number of local governments were trying to 
address the open access issue by requiring open access as a 
condition the local cable franchise agreement. The leading case 
had been taking place in Portland, Oregon. On June 22, 2000, 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's 
decision holding that the Communications Act prohibited local 
governments from placing these conditions on cable franchise 
agreements. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871 (9th 
Cir. 2000). Originally, Chairman Kennard of the Federal 
Communications Commission had been publicly saying that he did 
not see the need for the FCC to regulate in this area. However, 
in response to the Ninth Circuit's decision, he announced that 
the FCC would begin a formal proceeding on the issue.
    As noted above, the consent decree that broke up the old 
AT&T and created the regional Bell operating companies 
prevented the Bells from entering long distance in their 
regions without court approval. That court approval was never 
obtained. The telecommunications Act of 1996 provided that the 
Bells could get into long distance in their regions if they met 
a series of stringent requirements about opening up their local 
networks to competing local service providers. This process was 
to occur state by state.
    At the time, many thought that the Bells would meet these 
requirements fairly easily and soon be into long distance. The 
actual experience proved more difficult. Nonetheless, after 
many fits and starts, two Bell companies have finally cleared 
this hurdle. On December 22, 1999, the FCC approval Verizon's 
(then known as Bell Atlantic) application to provide long 
distance service in New York. On June 30, 2000, SBC 
Communications won approval for its application to provide long 
distance service in Texas. More applications are currently 
pending.
    On October 5, 1999, WorldCom and Sprint announced their 
intent to merge. These two companies are the second and third 
largest long distance phone companies, respectively. In 
addition, the two companies combined control approximately 53% 
of the Internet backbone traffic. (If you think of the Internet 
as similar to the our national system of roads and highways, 
the ``backbone'' of the Internet is analogous to the interstate 
highways.)
    This proposed merger raised significant concerns in several 
markets, including long distance phone service and the Internet 
backbone. Both the Justice Department and the European 
Commission raised these concerns. On January 27, 2000, the 
Justice Department brought suit to block the merger. On July 
13, 2000, the companies announced that they had agreed to 
terminate their merger agreement.
    Legislative History.--Congressman Goodlatte introduced H.R. 
1686 on May 5, 1999. Congressman Boucher introduced H.R. 1685 
on May 5, 1999. Both bills were referred to the Committee. On 
June 30, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1686 and 
H.R. 1685 at which the following witnesses appeared: Honorable 
William Barr, Executive Vice-President and General Counsel, GTE 
Corporation, Washington, D.C.; Mr. George Vradenburg, Senior 
Vice President, America Online, Dulles, Virginia; Mr. Ken 
Wasch, President, Software and Information Industry 
Association, Washington, D.C.; Honorable Erik Sten, 
Commissioner of Public Works, City of Portland, Oregon; Mr. 
Scott Cleland, Managing Director, Legg Mason Precursor Group, 
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Mark Rosenblum, Vice President for Law, 
AT&T Corporation, Basking Ridge, New Jersey; Mr. Mike Salsbury, 
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, MCI WorldCom, 
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Tim Boggs, Senior Vice President for 
Public Policy, Time Warner, Inc., Washington, D.C.; Mr. John 
Windhausen, President, Association for Local Telecommunications 
Services, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Tod Jacobs, Senior 
Telecommunications Analyst, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Inc., 
New York, New York; and Mr. Gene Kimmelman, Co-Director, 
Washington Office, Consumers Union, Washington, D.C.
    On July 18, 2000, the Committee held a second hearing on 
H.R. 1686 and H.R. 1685 at which the following witnesses 
appeared: Honorable Billy Tauzin, United States Representative, 
3rd District of Louisiana; Honorable Anna Eshoo, United States 
Representative, 14th District of California; Honorable William 
Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 
Washington, D.C.; Honorable Tom Tauke, Senior Vice President 
for Public Policy and External Affairs, Verizon Communications, 
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Mike McCurry, Co-Chair, iAdvance, 
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Randy Lowe, Executive Vice President and 
Chief Legal Officer, Prism Communications Services, Inc., 
Washington, D.C.; Honorable Glenn Ivey, Chairman, Maryland 
Public Service Commission, Baltimore, Maryland, on behalf of 
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; 
Mr. Scott Cleland, Chief Executive Officer, the Precursor 
Group, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Preston Padden, Executive Vice 
President, The Walt Disney Company, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Dave 
Baker, Vice President for Law and Public Policy, EarthLink, 
Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of the openNET Coalition; Mr. Len 
Cali, Vice President for Federal Government Affairs, AT&T, 
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Tom Wolzien, Senior Media Analyst, 
Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., New York; Mr. Robert Sachs, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cable 
Television Association, Washington, D.C.

H.R. 1801, the ``Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 1999''

    The ``Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 1999'' makes 
four miscellaneous technical corrections to our antitrust laws. 
Three of these corrections repeal outdated provisions of the 
law and one clarifies a long existing ambiguity regarding the 
application of the law to the District of Columbia and the 
territories. The Committee informally consulted the antitrust 
enforcement agencies, the Antitrust Division of the Department 
of Justice and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade 
Commission, and the agencies have indicated that they did not 
object to any of these changes. In response to written 
questions following the Committee's November 5, 1997 oversight 
hearing on the antitrust enforcement agencies, the Department 
of Justice recommended two of the repeals and the clarification 
contained in this bill.
    The Act of March 3, 1913 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 30) requires that 
all depositions taken in antitrust cases brought by the 
government be conducted in public. In the early days, the 
courts conducted such cases by deposition without any formal 
trial proceeding. Thus, Congress required that the depositions 
be open as a trial would be. Under the modern practice of broad 
discovery, depositions are generally taken in private and then 
made public if they are used at trial. Under our system, 
Sec. 30 causes three problems: (1) it sets up a special rule 
for a narrow class of cases when the justification for that 
rule has disappeared; (2) it makes it hard for a court to 
protect proprietary information that may be at issue in an 
antitrust case; and (3) it can create a circus atmosphere in 
the deposition of a high profile figure. In an appeal in the 
Microsoft case, the D.C. Circuit invited Congress to repeal 
this law. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 165 F.3d 952, 958 
(D.C. Cir. 1999). H.R. 1801 repeals this provision.
    Section 11 of the Panama Canal Act provides that no vessel 
owned by someone who is violating the antitrust laws may pass 
through the Panama Canal. The Committee has not been able to 
determine why this provision was added to the Act or whether it 
has ever been used. However, with the return of the Canal to 
Panamanian sovereignty at the end of 1999, it is appropriate to 
repeal this outdated provision. The Committee consulted 
informally with the House Committee on Armed Services, which 
has jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Act, and they indicated 
that they had no objection to this repeal. H.R. 1801 repeals 
this provision.
    Two of the primary provisions of antitrust law are Section 
1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 prohibits 
conspiracies in restraint of trade, and Section 2 prohibits 
monopolization, attempts to monopolize, and conspiracies to 
monopolize. Section 3 of the Sherman Act was intended to apply 
these provisions to the District of Columbia and the various 
territories of the United States. Unfortunately, however, 
ambiguous drafting in Section 3 leaves it unclear whether 
Section 2 applies to those areas. The Committee is aware of at 
least one instance in which the Department of Justice declined 
to bring an otherwise meritorious Section 2 claim in a Virgin 
Islands case because of this ambiguity. H.R. 1801 clarifies 
that both Section 1 and Section 2 apply to the District and the 
Territories. All of the congressional representatives of the 
District and the Territories are cosponsors of the bill.
    In 1955, Congress modernized the jurisdictional and venue 
provisions relating to antitrust suits by amending Section 4 of 
the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15). 69 Stat. 282. At that 
time, it repealed the redundant jurisdictional provision in 
Section 7 of the Sherman Act, but not the one contained in 
Section 77 of the Wilson Tariff Act. Id. It appears that this 
was an oversight because Section 77 was never codified and has 
rarely been used. Repealing Section 77 will not diminish any 
substantive rights because Section 4 of the Clayton Act 
provides any potential plaintiff with broader rights of 
jurisdiction and venue than does Section 77. Rather, the repeal 
of this provision in H.R. 1801 simply rids the law of a 
confusing, redundant, and little used provision.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 1801 on 
May 13, 1999, and it was referred to the Committee. On October 
13, 1999, the Committee ordered H.R. reported by voice vote. 
The Committee filed its report on October 25, 1999, H. Rept. 
No. 106-411, Part 1. On November 2, 1999, the House suspended 
the rules and passed H.R. 1801 by voice vote. The Senate 
Judiciary Committee reported companion legislation S. 1764 on 
October 28, 1999, but it was not brought up on the Senate 
floor.

H.R. 2533, the ``Fairness in Telecommunications License Transfers Act 
        of 1999''

    Summary.--H.R. 2533 addresses the FCC's review of license 
transfers. As a starting point, it is helpful to state the 
obvious. The governing statutes empower the FCC to review the 
transfer of licenses or lines--not to review mergers as such. 
The transfer of licenses or lines may be integral to a merger, 
but they are not coextensive with it.
    The FCC reviews the transfer of telephone lines under 
Sec. 214(a) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 214(a). 
That section provides that: ``[n]o carrier shall * * * acquire 
or operate any line, * * * unless and until there shall first 
have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the 
present or future public convenience and necessity require * * 
*'' the acquisition. The FCC reviews the transfer of radio 
licenses under Sec. 310(d) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 
Sec. 310(d). These radio licenses are not only commercial radio 
station licenses. They also cover radio licenses that are 
important in the transmission of telephone traffic. Thus, a 
telephone company merger is likely to include applications 
under both sections. Section 310(d) provides that: ``[n]o * * * 
station license * * * shall be transferred * * * to any person 
except upon application to the Commission and upon finding by 
the Commission that the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity will be served thereby.''
    These provisions and the experiences that companies have 
had under them since 1996 raise two questions. First, what is 
the proper scope of the inquiry under these provisions? Second, 
does the FCC use fair procedures in reviewing these 
applications?
    With respect to the substantive question, it seems clear 
that these provisions authorize only an inquiry into the 
circumstances surrounding the license transfer itself--not the 
entire merger. In the recent merger between SBC Communication 
and Ameritech, the FCC leveraged this authority into a wide 
scale review of every aspect of these companies' businesses 
resulting in their agreement to dozens of conditions on their 
merger. These conditions were largely directed toward forcing 
the companies to open their markets to local competitors. Such 
conditions may or may not otherwise be good policy--the 
question here is whether they are authorized under the license 
transfer review authority. As our colleague, Representative 
John Dingell, put it: ``If the Commission is concerned that any 
local exchange company is not acting in a manner consistent 
with its obligations under [the market opening provisions of 
the Act], the proper course of action is to commence an 
enforcement proceeding to compel that company to do so. Any 
such action taken by the Commission should be wholly 
independent of the merger approval process which requires a 
qualitatively different standard of review.'' Letter from Hon. 
John Dingell to Hon. William Kennard dated April 15, 1999 at 1.
    The FCC's procedural processes in these matters also raise 
questions. In short, the FCC has no written rules governing 
these proceedings. In a recent letter to Subcommittee Chairman 
Gekas, Chairman Kennard referred to the Commission's rules 
governing these proceedings, but did not provide any citations 
to these rules. Letter from Hon. William Kennard to Hon. 
GeorgeGekas dated October 15, 1999 at 1.
    At our May 25, 1999 hearing before the Subcommittee, FCC 
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth testified at length on this 
point:

          Nor does the Commission have any established 
        procedures for the handling of applications for license 
        transfers. Any particular application on any particular 
        day could be: adopted at a Commission meeting; voted by 
        the Commission on circulation: processed with or 
        without a formal hearing; processed with or without so-
        called ``public fora''; handled with or without 
        additional private ``talks'' between the companies, 
        interested parties, Commission staff, and individual, 
        especially interested, members of the Commission; 
        granted with or without conditions; finalized after 90 
        days or 90 weeks, etc. The list goes on almost 
        indefinitely.
          Section 1.1 of the Practice and Procedure subpart of 
        the Commission's rules, entitled ``Proceedings before 
        the Commission,'' does nothing to remedy the open-ended 
        nature of Commission processes. It states that ``[t]he 
        Commission may on its own motion or petition of any 
        interested party hold such proceedings as it may deem 
        necessary from time to time'' and ``[p]rocedures to be 
        followed by the Commission shall * * * be such as in 
        the opinion of the Commission will best serve the 
        purposes of such proceedings.'' 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1 This 
        rule, written by the Commission, establishes only that 
        the Commission can do essentially whatever it wants. 
        There is nothing constraining or useful about this 
        section.

May 25, 1999 Testimony of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth 
at 4-5.
    Again, the experience of SBC and Ameritech illustrates the 
point. Their applications were filed in July 1998. They were 
not approved until 15 months later. After the parties went 
through a complete pleading cycle, Chairman Kennard sent the 
parties a letter setting forth a whole new procedure for 
working out his concerns about the merger. Shortly after he 
sent that letter, Representative Dingell commented on that move 
saying:

          I am deeply troubled over the course you have chosen 
        to pursue regarding the pending applications * * *. I 
        strongly caution you against proceeding in this 
        fashion. It has no basis in law, and will eviscerate 
        the provisions of administrative law that Congress 
        enacted in order to guarantee all parties fairness of 
        treatment and due process.

           *         *         *         *         *

          Additionally, and just as important, by conditioning 
        the approval of the applications in the manner 
        suggested in your letter, the Commission would be 
        circumventing the fundamental principles of due process 
        and fairness guaranteed by the Administrative Procedure 
        Act (``APA''). The APA requires the Commission to 
        address the industry-wide issues, and formulate 
        industry-wide remedies, in the context of a rulemaking 
        proceeding. In this instance you appear to be embarked 
        on the dangerous and antithetical precedent of imposing 
        conditions uniquely on one company in an industry, and 
        to do so utilizing a procedure that you have invented 
        just for this occasion.

Letter from Hon. John Dingell to Hon. William Kennard dated 
April 15, 1999 at 1, 3. As Representative Dingell rightly 
points out, the FCC's failure to provide neutral procedural 
rules implicates the Administrative Procedure Act, a matter 
within the Committee's jurisdiction.
    H.R. 2533 does not attempt to dictate the FCC's rules. It 
simply requires the FCC to promulgate some rules relating to 
license transfers and to follow them.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 2533 on 
July 15, 1999 and it was referred to the Committee. On November 
3, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 2533 and two 
other telecommunications bills. The witnesses who appeared at 
the hearing who testified about H.R. 2533 were: Honorable David 
McIntosh, United States Representative, 2nd District of 
Indiana; Honorable William Kennard, Chairman, Federal 
Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Roy Neel, 
President, United States Telecom Association, Washington, D.C.; 
Mr. Richard Weening, Executive Chairman, Cumulus Media Inc., 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Mr. Ronald Binz, President, 
Competition Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.

H.R. 2701, the ``Justice for MAS Applicants Act of 1999''

    Summary.--Congress has authorized the FCC to award licenses 
to use electromagnetic spectrum since the FCC's inception in 
1934. See generally 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309. For many years, this 
was done through a competitive application process. The FCC 
would go through applications and try to determine which of the 
applicants was best qualified to use the license.
    In 1981, Congress first authorized the FCC to award 
licenses to use spectrum through lotteries. Budget 
Reconciliation Act for FY 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-35, Sec. 1242, 
95 Stat. 357, 736-37. In 1993, Congress recognized the 
potential that a system based on the market might allocate 
spectrum more efficiently, and it gave the FCC discretionary 
authority to conduct auctions of spectrum. Budget 
Reconciliation Act for FY 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-66, 
Sec. 6002(a), 107 Stat. 312, 387. In 1997, Congress went 
further mandating that the FCC use auctions for spectrum that 
was to be used for services that would have paying subscribers. 
Budget Reconciliation Act for FY 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 
Sec. 3002, 111 Stat. 251.
    Electromagnetic spectrum has numerous uses. All kinds of 
applicants have tried to obtain licenses in various lottery and 
auction proceedings over the last two decades. Many of them are 
unhappy with the process for any number of reasons. Chairman 
Hyde introduced H.R. 2701 to right one particular wrong that 
occurred in one of these proceedings.
    In 1989, the FCC allocated a certain portion of the 
spectrum for multiple address system, or MAS, applications. 4 
FCC Rcd 2012 (1989). MAS generally involves some form of system 
in which there is one central point and a number of outlying 
points which communicate back and forth. Common examples of 
such systems would be credit card verification systems or alarm 
monitoring systems.
    In 1991, the FCC announced that it would open filing 
windows for these applications during January and February 
1992. 6 FCC Rcd 7242 (1991). Pursuant to the authority granted 
in 1981, the FCC anticipated holding a lottery to distribute 
these licenses. In response to its announcement, the FCC 
received more than 50,000 applications from hundreds of 
applicants. The number of applicants was in the neighborhood of 
1500 to 2500. Obviously, many applicants filed numerous 
applications. Each application required a $155 filing fee. In 
addition, an applicant had to incur substantial legal and 
engineering costs to prepare an application.
    Apparently, the FCC then took no further action for a year 
and a half until the passage of the FY 1994 Budget 
Reconciliation Act in August 1993. As described above, that Act 
gave the FCC discretionary authority to conduct auctions of 
certain licenses. Rather than proceed with the lottery 
proceeding it had initiated more than a year earlier and for 
which it had collected filing fees, the FCC decided to conduct 
a rulemaking to decide whether these applications should be 
auctioned. 8 FCC Rcd 7635 (1993).
    That rulemaking ended in 1994, and the FCC concluded that 
it could proceed with a lottery for the MAS licenses because 
they were not primarily for subscriber based services. 9 FCC 
Rcd 2348 (1994). For three years, apparently nothing happened. 
In 1997, the FCC reanalyzed the applications and realized that, 
in fact, 95% of them were for subscriber based services. As a 
result, it should auction the MAS licenses. 12 FCC Rcd 7973 
(1997).
    In the summer of 1997 while that rulemaking was pending, 
the FY 1998 Budget Reconciliation Act passed prohibiting the 
FCC from using lottery procedures for subscriber based 
services. More than a year after that law passed, the FCC 
finally concluded the rulemaking deciding that it could not now 
award these licenses in a lottery. 13 FCC Rcd 17954 (1998). It 
dismissed the MAS applications and refunded the original filing 
fee.
    This dry recitation of the facts does not adequately 
address the human cost of this extraordinary delay on the MAS 
applicants. Mr. Bob Ryan of Glen Ellyn, Illinois, was a MAS 
applicant. Mr. Ryan saw the opportunity to supplement his 
retirement income by applying for MAS licenses. Along with some 
partners, he intended to use this spectrum to set up a business 
that would perform credit card verifications through wireless 
means, a cheaper method than the current wireline technology. 
He would have set up this business in the 100 top markets 
around the country. To enter the lottery, he paid a filing fee 
of $155 per license, or $15,500. In addition, he incurred 
approximately $12,000 in engineering and legal costs to prepare 
the application.
    The net result for Mr. Ryan of the lengthy process 
described above is that the government held his $15,500 in 
filing fees from February 1992 until November 1998, more than 
80 months. He received no interest for the use of that money. 
In addition, the additional $12,000 in costs that he incurred 
is a complete loss through no fault of his. When the government 
imposes this kind of loss on citizens through bureaucratic 
delay, they are entitled to some form of redress. H.R. 2701 
would allow Mr. Ryan and the other MAS applicants that redress.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 2701 on 
August 4, 1999 and it was referred to the Committee. On 
November 3, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 2701 and 
two other telecommunications bills. The witnesses who appeared 
at the hearing who testified about H.R. 2701 were: Honorable 
William Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 
Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Robert Ryan, Multiple Address System 
Applicant, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

H.R. 3138, the ``Free Market Antitrust Immunity Reform (FAIR) Act of 
        1999''

    Summary.--To understand the discussion below, one must 
first understand the terms applied to the various participants 
in the ocean shipping industry. The businesses who own ships 
and who sell the service of transporting cargo on those ships 
are known as carriers. All of the major carriers operating in 
and out of the United States now are foreign owned. The 
businesses who want to have their goods transported in the 
ships are known as shippers. The shippers range in size from 
large retail operations like J.C. Penney or Wal-Mart to the 
smallest of businesses.
    Carriers generally sell cargo space on their ships in 
relatively large units, and larger units generally receive 
lower rates. As a result, smaller shippers use several methods 
to consolidate their cargo into larger shipments so that they 
can obtain lower rates. One of the methods that smaller 
shippers use is to ship through a non-vessel operating common 
carrier (known as an ``NVOCC'' or simply an ``NVO'').
    NVOs contract with carriers for large volumes of space, and 
then they fill that space by consolidating numerous small 
shipments into one large shipment and thereby obtaining a lower 
rate. NVOs are generally independent from the shippers who use 
their services. They vary in size although they tend to be 
relatively small businesses. NVOs compete with carriers for 
business from shippers. However, at the same time, NVOs depend 
on carriers for cargo space on ships so that the NVO can 
fulfill its contracts with shippers.
    Another method that small shippers use is known as a 
shippers' association. A shippers' association performs 
essentially the same function as an NVO, but it is generally 
operated cooperatively by the shippers who use it rather than 
as an independent business.
    Some shippers use businesses known as freight forwarders or 
customs brokers. These businesses simply help the shipper with 
the paperwork involved in import and export shipping. However, 
they do not help the shipper obtain a lower rate as NVOs and 
shippers' associations do.
    All of these businesses conduct this activity through 
ports, which are more formallyknown as marine terminal 
operators. Most ports that are open to the public are owned by local 
governments. Some local governments operate the ports themselves, and 
some have a private contractor operate it. Many businesses also have 
their own private marine terminal operations, but these operations are 
generally for the use of that business alone and are not open to the 
general public.
    Another interest group in this debate are independent 
truckers. The truckers deliver cargo between ports and inland 
points. They believe that they are at a disadvantage when 
negotiating with the carriers because the carriers use their 
antitrust immunity to present a united front while each trucker 
must negotiate independently.
    A number of statutes govern the ocean shipping industry. 
Their details are far too complex and arcane to cover 
comprehensively here. The discussion below gives a thumbnail 
sketch of the history of the Shipping Act with a particular 
focus on the antitrust issues involved.
    Chronic overcapacity has plagued the ocean shipping 
industry since its inception in the mid-1800s. This 
overcapacity arises for several reasons. Building an ocean 
liner is an expensive proposition. Liners tend to last a long 
time, and their owners cannot easily convert them to some other 
use in times of low demand. Thus, once a ship is built, it 
tends to remain part of the total available capacity for many 
years.
    In addition, many governments have exacerbated the problem 
by subsidizing their own liners. This subsidization has 
occurred in some cases through government ownership of the 
liners or in other cases through payments or other favorable 
policies for private owners. Governments subsidize liners 
because of national pride, the need not to depend on other 
countries for transportation in a time of war, and the need to 
convert ships to military use in time of war. This 
subsidization has further contributed to the overcapacity 
problem.
    At the outset, overcapacity led to rate wars and vigorous 
competition among carriers. As early as 1875, carriers began to 
form conferences to set rates jointly and avoid the rate wars. 
From that time until the time of World War I, the United States 
did not regulate these conferences.
    In the early 1910s, Congress began to investigate these 
arrangements. Ultimately, Congress concluded that the 
conference system served the public interest by providing 
stability to international commerce. Accordingly, it passed the 
Shipping Act of 1916 (``the 1916 Act''). Shipping Act of 1916, 
ch. 451, 39 Stat. 728 (1916) (Those parts of the 1916 Act that 
have not been subsequently repealed are codified at 46 U.S.C. 
App. Sec. 801 et seq.).
    The 1916 Act gave the conference antitrust immunity to set 
rates jointly. It also gave similar antitrust immunity to the 
ports. In exchange, however, the 1916 Act established the 
United States Shipping Board, a predecessor of today's Federal 
Maritime Commission, to regulate the industry. The Board had to 
approve the rates set by the conferences before they could take 
effect. The 1916 Act also placed a common carrier obligation on 
the carriers requiring them to carry the cargo of shippers on 
nondiscriminatory terms overseen by the Board.
    In cases under the 1916 Act, the Supreme Court gave broad 
deference to the jurisdiction of the Board and its successors 
holding that the carriers and their conferences could not be 
sued under the antitrust laws even when they failed to file 
their agreements with the agency. Far East Conference v. United 
States, 342 U.S. 570 (1952); United States Navigation Co. v. 
Cunard Steamship Co., 284 U.S. 474 (1932).
    In 1961, Congress substantially amended the 1916 Act. Among 
other things, it created the Federal Maritime Commission that 
we have today. See Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 75 Stat. 
840 (1961). In a separate act, Congress made important 
substantive changes to the 1916 Act. Act of October 3, 1961, 
Pub. L. No. 87-346, 75 Stat. 762 (``the 1961 Amendments''). 
Most importantly, the 1961 Amendments required the FMC to 
disapprove any conference agreement that it found to be 
contrary to the public interest. The 1961 Amendments also 
instituted a mandatory public tariff filing system.
    The FMC subsequently decided that the public interest test 
required it to disapprove agreements that were contrary to the 
policies of the antitrust laws, and the Supreme Court began to 
narrow the antitrust protection of the conferences. Federal 
Maritime Commission v. Aktiebol Svenska Amerika Linien, 390 
U.S. 238 (1968); Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 
383 U.S. 213 (1966). Carriers believed that this new policy 
substantially eroded their antitrust immunity and thereby 
undermined the purposes of the 1916 Act. They also felt that 
the FMC's consideration of antitrust policies delayed its 
consideration of the agreements for too long.
    In 1984, Congress took another crack at the industry 
passing a complete overhaul of the 1916 Act known as the 
Shipping Act of 1984 (``the 1984 Act''). Shipping Act of 1984, 
Pub. L. No. 98-237, 98 Stat. 67 (codified at 46 U.S.C. App. 
Sec. 1701 et seq.). The 1984 Act maintained the basic tradeoff 
of the 1916 Act--i.e. antitrust immunity for joint ratesetting 
in return for common carrier obligations and heavy regulation.
    The major innovation of the 1984 Act was to allow carriers 
to attempt to weaken the unity of conferences by entering into 
contracts with individual shippers at rates discounted from the 
conference rates. It also allowed them to enter into service 
contracts. Service contracts are contracts in which the shipper 
gets a discounted rate in return for guaranteeing that it will 
ship a minimum amount of cargo with a particular carrier. 
However, if a carrier entered into such service contracts, it 
had to offer them to all similarly situated shippers and they 
had to be made public.
    Apart from those changes, the 1984 Act made several other 
major changes. It further strengthened the antitrust immunity 
by providing that there could not be any antitrust relief under 
the Clayton Act for conduct that violated the provisions of the 
Act. For the first time, it recognized the existence of NVOs 
and shippers' associations, and gave them rights under the 
regulatory scheme. Finally, the 1984 Act set up an Advisory 
Commission to begin a study of its provisions after it was 
effective for five and a half years.
    Since the passage of the 1984 Act, the traditional 
conferences have declined. To some extent, they have been 
replaced by broader groups of carriers commonly known as 
``discussionagreements.'' These broader groups are not 
officially recognized in either the statute or the FMC regulations, but 
some believe that they are included within the statutory term 
``cooperative working agreements.'' At any rate, they have included 
traditional conference carriers as well as traditional independents. 
They are supposed to be voluntary bodies without joint ratemaking 
authority, but some industry observers believe that, as a practical 
matter, they do set rates jointly.
    This Committee played a substantial role in the passage of 
the 1984 Act. See generally H. Rept. No. 98-53, Part 2 (1983). 
Several Members of the Committee served as conferees in the 
Conference Committee.
    The Advisory Commission from the 1984 Act filed its report 
in April 1992. Although it did not come to a consensus, it did 
document a number of concerns by the various participants in 
the industry. These concerns ultimately led to the passage of 
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. Ocean Shipping Reform 
Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-258, 112 Stat. 1902 (``the 1998 
Act'').
    The major innovation of the 1998 Act is allow carriers to 
enter into service contracts with individual shippers on a 
confidential basis. In addition, the carriers are no longer 
required to provide the same rates to other similarly situated 
shippers. The 1998 Act does not afford the same rights to NVOs. 
NVOs may enter into confidential service with carriers when 
they buy space, but they must still make their contracts with 
their shippers public through a public tariff filing system. In 
addition, the 1998 Act allowed the carriers to jointly 
negotiate rates for inland transportation.
    In 1998, this Committee did not have as large a role as it 
did in 1984. The leadership desired to move the Senate version 
of the bill to the floor quickly and without amendment. Because 
of that leadership desire, the Committee did not request a 
referral of the bill, but it did make known its intention to 
hold oversight hearings in the 106th Congress. The changes in 
the law made by the 1998 Act took effect on May 1, 1999, and 
the Committee held its first oversight hearing on May 5, 1999.
    Against this backdrop, another important development was 
the investigation of the conditions in the transpacific trade 
in 1998. The peak shipping season in this trade runs from 
approximately June through November. During the 1998 season, 
the Asian economic crisis changed the normal conditions of the 
market. As usual, there was overcapacity in the trade running 
from the United States to Asia. However, there was a shortage 
of space in the trade running from Asia to the United States.
    By September, the FMC had received numerous complaints 
about the practices that carriers were using to exploit this 
shortage situation. The gist of the complaints was that the 
carriers had abandoned their common carrier obligations. 
Instead, they were simply auctioning their space to the highest 
bidder and favoring the biggest shippers. On September 21, 
1998, the Commission ordered a fact finding investigation of 
the charges, and its designated Commissioner Delmond Won to 
conduct it. ``Fact-Finding Investigation No. 23--Ocean Common 
Carrier Practices in Transpacific Trades,'' 63 Fed. Reg. 51356 
(September 25, 1998).
    Commissioner Won made his report to the Commission on 
January 13, 1999, and the Commission released a summary of it 
on March 9, 1999. The summary and the report find that the 
charges that led to it were generally true--i.e., that the 
carriers did abandon their common carrier obligations and 
exploit the shortage. It should be noted that this report 
represents only the findings of Commissioner Won acting as the 
Investigative Officer and not necessarily the views of the FMC 
as a whole.
    On April 20, 1999, the Commission assigned its Bureau of 
Enforcement to continue the investigation begun by Commissioner 
Won. See 64 Fed. Reg. 19359. On October 18, 1999, the Bureau of 
Enforcement recommended that the investigation be discontinued, 
and on December 29, 1999, the Commission voted to do so. The 
Commission did impose some punishments on carriers as a result 
of the investigation. However, they were relatively minor.
    Because of concerns about these practices, Chairman Hyde 
introduced H.R. 3138. Chairman Hyde believes that OSRA has 
moved the shipping industry towards a freer market. Things are 
better than they were.
    On the other hand, that is no excuse not to make them even 
better. Chairman Hyde believes that there simply is no 
justification for continuing antitrust immunity for the 
carriers, who are largely foreign-owned, to raise prices that 
Americans must pay. Notwithstanding the lengthy history of the 
exemption set forth above, the exemption makes no sense in 
today's world. An easy way to think about it is to imagine that 
we were trying to pass this exemption as new law today. It 
would be difficult to find many Members to vote for it. In 
addition, there are increasing signs that at least some of our 
major partners are moving in the same direction.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 3138 on 
October 25, 1999, and it was referred to the Committee. On 
March 22, 2000, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 3138 at 
which the following witnesses appeared: Honorable Harold Creel, 
Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C.; 
Honorable Delmond Won, Commissioner, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, D.C.; Honorable John Nannes, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Alan Baer, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ocean World Lines, Inc.; 
New York, New York, on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Play in 
Ocean Shipping; Mr. Bob Coleman, President, TLR-Total Logistics 
Resource, Inc.; Portland, Oregon, on behalf of the Pacific 
Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders 
Associations, the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders 
Association of America, and the New York/New Jersey Foreign 
Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association; Mr. Bill MacDonald, 
President, KMJ International, Inc., Edmonds, Washington, on 
behalf of the Pacific Northwest Asia Shippers' Association; Mr. 
George Cashman, Port Division Director, International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Boston, Massachusetts; Ms. Janet 
McDavid, Partner, Hogan & Hartson, L.P., Washington, D.C., on 
behalf of the Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar 
Association; Mr. John Clancey, Chairman of the Board, Maersk 
Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina; Mr. Timothy Rhein, Chairman, 
American President Lines, Ltd., Oakland California; Mr. Hugh 
Welsh, Deputy General Counsel, The Port Authority of New York 
and New Jersey, New York, New York, on behalf of the American 
Association of Port Authorities; Mr. Frank Pecquex, Executive 
Secretary Treasurer, Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO, 
Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Daniel Smith, Senior Consultant, Mercer 
Management Consulting, Inc., El Cerrito, California.

H.R. 4194, the ``Small Business Merger Fee Reduction Act of 2000''

    Summary.--Section 7 of the Clayton Act, first passed in 
1914, governs the antitrust review of mergers and acquisitions. 
It prohibits mergers or acquisitions the effect of which ``may 
be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a 
monopoly.'' 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18. The Department of Justice, the 
Federal Trade Commission, or a private party may bring an 
action to enjoin a merger which violates Sec. 7.
    However, once a merger is consummated, it is difficult to 
unscramble it. Moreover, as a practical matter, very few 
private parties can afford to bring a private lawsuit to 
restrain an anticompetitive merger or acquisition, In 1976, 
Congress responded to these two problems by passing the Hart-
Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 18A (Sec. 7A of the Clayton Act). The H-S-R Act ensures 
that the antitrust enforcement agencies can review mergers for 
antitrust problems before they are consummated.
    Under current law, a merger or asset acquisition must meet 
two tests to require an H-S-R filing. First, one of the 
companies involved must have total annual net sales or total 
assets of $100 million and the other must have $10 million. 
This is known as the ``size of company'' test. Second, the 
asset or company being acquired must be worth $15 million. This 
is known as the ``size of asset'' test.
    When a new filing comes in, the agencies decide through a 
process of comity which agency will review the filing. Filings 
are not reviewed by both agencies. Generally speaking, this 
process of comity divides mergers up by industry. For example, 
the oil industry has traditionally been in the FTC's area of 
expertise, and the airline industry has been within the DOJ's 
area of expertise.
    When first enacted, the H-S-R Act did not require a filing 
fee. In 1989, the deficit loomed large, and Congress was 
searching for additional funds. As a result, Congress enacted a 
filing fee system for H-S-R filings. See Sec. 605 of Title VI 
of Public Law 101-162 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 18A note). That system 
has been amended since that time, and the current filing fee 
for review of all mergers or acquisitions under H-S-R is 
$45,000. The Division and the Bureau divide the money taken in 
through these filing fees equally, and it cannot be spent for 
any other purpose. However, these agencies may not spend it 
unless it is appropriated to them. Traditionally, they have not 
received the full amount and some is held back each year and 
appropriated the following year. These fees now fund the entire 
budget of both agencies.
    Some critics have suggested that these fees are merely a 
tax on mergers. Whatever the merits of that argument, these 
fees do allow the agencies to be self-funding. The Committee is 
not enthusiastic about funding these vital agencies through 
these fees. However, as a practical matter, the fee structure 
is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
    Some reforms are in order, and they are likely to be 
achieved this year. Aside from the broader philosophical point 
about funding the agencies through fees, there are two basic 
complaints about H-S-R as it exists today: that the agencies' 
discovery requests are overly burdensome and that the filing 
thresholds are too low. The agencies announced reforms to the 
discovery requests in early 2000. These administrative changes 
are good faith efforts at reform and should be given a chance 
to work before any legislative changes are made. Generally 
speaking the business community views these changes as positive 
steps, but there is some concern as to whether they will be 
sufficiently institutionalized.
    With respect to filing thresholds and fees, the vast 
majority of transactions that are filed are cleared within 20 
days. Only about 3% receive the searching examination involved 
in a second request for documents. Moreover, the filing 
thresholds have not been adjusted since the original enactment 
in 1976. In real terms, smaller and smaller transactions 
require filings because of the steady creep of inflation. For 
that reason, a general consensus has developed that we need to 
raise the filing and fee thresholds.
    President Clinton has recommended that Congress raise the 
fee threshold, but not the filing threshold, in this budget 
submission for FY 2001. The President's budget request raises 
the fee threshold from a $15 million ``size of asset'' to a $35 
million ``size of asset.'' Under his proposal, the fee would 
remain $45,000 for transactions involving an asset worth $35-
$100 million. For transactions involving an asset worth $100-
$200 million, the fee would rise to $100,000. For transactions 
involving an asset worth more than $200 million, the fee would 
rise to $200,000. His proposal does not raise the filing 
threshold at all. Thus, for transactions involving an asset 
worth $15-$35 million, there would be no fee, but they would 
still have to file. The Committee on Appropriations included 
this language within the Commerce, Justice, State, and the 
Judiciary appropriations bill that it reported this spring.
    H.R. 4194 as introduced differs slightly from the 
President's proposal. It would raise the ``size of asset'' test 
to $50 million. It would also eliminate the ``size of company'' 
test altogether. Thus, the only test for filing would be 
whether the asset was $50 million or greater. Its fee structure 
is similar to the President's proposal, and it yields 
approximately the same amount of money. Under H.R. 4194, for 
transactions involving an asset worth $50-$100 million, the fee 
would remain $45,000. For transactions involving an asset worth 
$100-$200 million, the fee would rise to $100,000. For 
transactions involving an asset worth more than $200 million, 
the fee would rise to $225,000.
    On July 11, 2000, the Committee passed H.R. 4194 by voice 
vote with a consensus substitute. As reported, H.R. 4194 would 
raise the ``size of asset'' test to $50 million. It would also 
eliminate the ``size of company'' test altogether for mergers 
in which the asset is worth more than $200 million. Its fee 
structure is similar to the President's proposal, and it yields 
approximately the same amount of money. Under H.R. 4194, for 
transactions involving an asset worth $50-$100 million, the fee 
would remain $45,000. For transactions involving an asset worth 
$100-$500 million, the fee would rise to $125,000. For 
transactions involving an asset worth more than $500 million, 
the fee would rise to $250,000. The Appropriations Committee 
has agreed to include the reported version of H.R. 4194 in the 
conference report on this year'sCommerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill with the fee on the top tier raised to $280,000.
    Legislative History.--Representative Rogan introduced H.R. 
4194 on April 5, 2000, and it was referred to the Committee. On 
July 11, 2000, the Committee ordered H.R. 4194 reported by 
voice vote with a substitute amendment. Subsequent to that 
markup, the Committee on Appropriations agreed to include the 
text of H.R. 4194 as reported by the Committee with minor 
modifications within the Commerce, Justice, State, and the 
Judiciary appropriations conference report. The Committee on 
Appropriations included this language as section 630 of H.R. 
5548, a bill that was incorporated by reference in the 
conference report on H.R. 4942, the Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill for FY 2001, and it became law as part of 
that package during December, 2000.

H.R. 4321, the ``Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2000''

    Summary.--Agricultural processing businesses directly 
affect the livelihoods of agricultural producers and farmers 
because these businesses buy the producers' and farmers' 
products in the first instance. These industries are fairly 
highly concentrated. For example, according to some estimates, 
the four largest meat packing companies control almost 80% of 
the market for packing beef. The recent merger of Cargill, Inc. 
and Continental Grain Company has also focused attention on 
concentration in the grain processing industry.
    Agricultural producers and farmers complain that this 
concentration gives the processors too much market power 
thereby allowing them to pay lower prices to producers and 
farmers. The producers and farmers argue that their share of 
the food dollar has been dropping precipitously while the 
packers and processors gain an ever larger share. Because of 
these low prices, producers and farmers, particularly smaller 
operators, complain that they cannot stay in business. They 
argue for more vigorous antitrust enforcement and also for more 
vigorous enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
    Processors argue that their businesses are now necessarily 
global. They argue that recent mergers are essential to cutting 
costs so that they can compete with foreigners. They argue that 
low prices for these commodities arise not because of 
concentration, but because of oversupply. They also argue that 
producers are increasingly concentrated with larger operators 
taking an ever larger market share. They acknowledge that this 
tends to disadvantage smaller operators, but they argue that 
this is not a result of concentration of the processors. They 
believe the solution lies in producers responding to the market 
signals of low prices rather than in government action.
    Several agencies have responsibility for this area and 
several statutes bear on the agricultural concentration issue. 
Both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission 
enforce the antitrust laws. With respect to large mergers or 
acquisitions, one or the other of the agencies will review the 
transaction under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 18A. Through a process of comity, the agencies have 
traditionally divided these reviews and other enforcement 
issues by industry with the Justice Department specializing in 
certain industries and the Federal Trade Commission 
specializing in others. The Justice Department has 
traditionally reviewed agricultural mergers. On the other hand, 
the Federal Trade Commission has traditionally dealt with 
grocery store issues.
    The Agriculture Department does not have any jurisdiction 
to enforce the antitrust laws. However, it does have 
jurisdiction to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act and the 
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, both of which are 
discussed below.
    At least two of the antitrust laws are relevant to the 
issues here. With respect to concentration in meat packing, 
grain processing, or grocery stores, Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 18, prohibits mergers or acquisitions that 
substantially lessen competition in a particular line of 
commerce. As noted above, either the Justice Department or the 
Federal Trade Commission will review a large transaction under 
the H-S-R Act. If they determine that there are competitive 
problems, they are most often resolved with the merging 
companies voluntarily agreeing to divest various assets. 
However, in relatively rare instances, the agencies may bring a 
lawsuit to block a transaction. Ultimately, a court decides if 
the transaction violates Sec. 7. An agency's decision not to 
bring a lawsuit does not constitute ``approval'' of the merger 
nor does it confer antitrust immunity on the transaction. 
Rather, it is simply an indication that the government will not 
bring an enforcement action. Private parties may sue to block a 
transaction irrespective of what the government agency does.
    Several agricultural laws have some bearing on these 
issues. First, the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. 
Sec. 181 et seq., generally empowers the Secretary of 
Agriculture to prevent unfair practices by meat packers and 
stockyard dealers. The Secretary may impose civil money 
penalties for violations of the Act, and packers may be 
criminally prosecuted for violations of the Secretary's orders 
under the Act.
    Second, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 
U.S.C. Sec. 499a et seq., generally empowers the Secretary of 
Agriculture to license and regulate dealers and brokers in 
perishable agricultural commodities. The Secretary may impose 
civil money penalties for violations of the Act.
    Two other agricultural statutes deserve passing reference. 
The Capper-Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 291-92, and the 
Cooperative Marketing Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 455, specifically 
authorize joint marketing efforts by produce growers. They 
provide limited antitrust protection for these arrangements.
    H.R. 4321 has three items that are directed at 
concentration in agriculture. First, it adds language to the 
antitrust laws and the agriculture laws to clarify that the 
words ``commerce'' and ``competition'' include not only trade 
or commerce among sellers, but also among wholesale purchasers. 
Many believe that such commerce is already included within 
those terms. However, some agricultural producers and farmers 
believe that antitrust places too much emphasis on the harm to 
consumers from antitrust violations. They believe that 
antitrust does not place enough emphasis on the harm to small 
sellers, like them, who must sell to a concentrated group of 
large buyers whom they believe may be violating antitrust laws. 
This amendment seeks to redirect attention toward that harm.
    Second, H.R. 4321 sets up a study commission that would 
study agricultural antitrust and concentration issues for a 
year and report back to the President and the Congress. Third, 
it establishes an office of special counsel for agriculture in 
the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. In that 
connection, it should be noted that in January 2000, the 
Antitrust Division established such a post administratively. 
Although this post does not have a specific statutory 
authorization, it is intended to perform the same function as 
that proposed by the bill.
    Section 4 of the Clayton Act provides that ``any person * * 
* who is injured in his business or property'' by an antitrust 
violation may bring suit to claim damages. The statute does not 
specifically address how far down a distribution chain this 
right to sue goes. For example, in the recent vitamin price 
fixing case, the conspiring vitamin manufacturers sold the 
vitamins mainly to food companies like cereal manufacturers. 
Those cereal manufacturers overpaid for the vitamins and then 
presumably passed the cost of these overpayments on to 
consumers. Thus, as far as the statute goes, it is unclear 
whether only the cereal manufacturers could sue or whether the 
consumers might also be able to sue. The Supreme Court decided 
in 1977 that only the first purchaser--the cereal manufacturer 
in this example--could sue. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 
U.S. 720 (1977).
    Some felt that this decision was a reasonable limit on the 
reach of the antitrust laws and helped to hold down the number 
of lawsuits with extremely complex proof problems. Others felt 
that it was unfair to prevent overcharged consumers form 
recovering despite their position in the chain of distribution. 
This decision led to a lot of legislative ferment during the 
late 1970s and 1980s. Several bills to overturn the result of 
Illinois Brick made progress in Congress, but none ever became 
law. Also, some states have effectively overturned the result 
of Illinois Brick for purposes of their state antitrust laws. 
During the 1990s, the issue has been relatively quiet. H.R. 
4321 would overturn the result of Illinois Brick for purposes 
of federal law and allow those further down the distribution 
chain to sue.
    H.R. 4321 also contains a similar approach on merger filing 
fees as that in H.R. 4194 described above, but it does not 
change the filing thresholds. Under H.R. 4321, for transactions 
involving an asset worth $15-$100 million, the fee would drop 
to $25,000. For transactions involving an asset worth $100-$250 
million, the fee would rise to $50,000. For transactions 
involving an asset worth $250 million-$1 billion, the fee would 
rise to $100,000. For transactions involving an asset worth 
more than $1 billion, the fee would rise to $150,000.
    H.R. 4321 makes two other minor changes to H-S-R. First, it 
gives a short extension to the government to examine documents 
filed under a second request. A similar change was included in 
H.R. 4194 as reported by the Committee. Second, under current 
law, filings with the FTC or the DOJ are exempt from Freedom of 
Information Act disclosure. Representative Minge's bill applies 
that exemption to similar filings with state attorneys general. 
In some cases, the parties voluntarily allow an attorney 
general from a concerned state to review their H-S-R filing.
    Under current law, a person or a company convicted of a 
criminal antitrust violation under Sec. Sec. 1-3 of the Sherman 
Act may be fined the greater of $10 million or twice the gross 
gain or loss caused by the criminal violation. See 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1-3; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3571. The Justice Department has 
supported increasing the Sherman Act limit from $10 million to 
$100 million. The double gain or loss provision can often yield 
fines of greater than $10 million, e.g., the recent vitamin 
price fixing case. However, in many circumstances, proving the 
gross gain or loss can be quite difficult. Thus, erasing the 
Sherman Act limit would afford greater flexibility in punishing 
these crimes.
    Legislative History.--Representative Minge introduced H.R. 
4321 on April 13, 2000, and it was referred to the Committee. 
On September 12, 2000, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 
4321 at which the following witnesses appeared: Honorable David 
Minger, United States Representative, 2nd District of 
Minnesota; Honorable Howard Metzenbaum, Chairman, Consumer 
Federation of America, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Bert Foer, 
President, American Antitrust Institute, Washington, D.C.; and 
Mr. Leland Swenson, President, National Farmers Union, 
Washington, D.C.

                            liability issues

The Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act--H.R. 775 (Public Law 
        106-37)
    As the millennium neared, the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer 
problem posed a critical challenge to our economy. Tremendous 
investments were being made to fix Y2K problems, with United 
States companies expected to spend more than $50 billion. 
However, those efforts were being hampered by the fear of 
potential lawsuits, which was keeping some businesses from 
effectively engaging in Y2K remediation efforts. It was also 
anticipated that future litigation over Y2K failures could clog 
our courts and impose a large economic burden on our society.
            The Year 2000 computer technology problem
    The Y2K technology problem started as an innocuous short 
term solution to the oppressively high cost of computer memory 
in the 1950's and 1960's. Programmers represented four-digit 
years with only two digits. For instance, 1968 would be 
represented as 68, with the number 19 (indicating years in the 
1900s) being implicitly understood. This worked smoothly until 
users started to input dates occurring after December 31, 1999. 
Computers started running into problems when required to 
calculate a number based on the difference in two dates, such 
as the interest due on a mortgage loan. Computers continued to 
assume that the prefix 19 was implied in any date, so they 
would incorrectly read 00 (input for 2000) or 01 (input for 
2001) as 1900 or 1901. Consequently, computers could not 
correctly calculate the difference between years in the 20th 
and 21st centuries.
    Another Y2K problem occurs in the storage of data. Many 
kinds of data are organized and processed by date, such as 
driver's license records and credit card accounts. Computers 
have had problems processing credit cards that have expiration 
dates after December 31, 1999, because computers read the cards 
as having expired almost a century ago.
    Although programmers and managers knew in the 1950's and 
1960's that they had builtsoftware with latent defects in it, 
no one thought that software written then would survive to the year 
2000. Compounding that problem, newer software had to interface and 
share data with older software. Although the new software could have 
handled dates internally in four-digit formats and swapped data in two-
digit formats with the older software, to do so added complexity and 
hence added cost to new software. The net result was that the two-digit 
standard for representing years continued much longer than anyone would 
have guessed.
            The need for a proactive approach to Y2K-related litigation
    In 1999, some technical analysts were predicting that 
widespread failures in systems across the country, including 
power outages, stalled assembly lines, and halted international 
transactions could result in a major nationwide or even 
worldwide, recession. Others contended that the efforts already 
underway or completed at that time would ensure a nearly 
disruption-free transition into 2000. History has shown that 
only minor problems occurred as we range in the new millennium, 
but at the time of the Committee hearings in 1999, the 
projected cost of Y2K litigation was as high as $1 trillion. 
The transaction costs associated with these potential lawsuits 
were also projected to be unprecedented: in August 1998, at the 
American Bar Association annual convention, a panel of experts 
predicted that the legal costs associated with Y2K would exceed 
that of asbestos, breast implants, tobacco, and Superfund 
litigation combined. That is more that three times the total 
annual estimated cost of all civil litigation in the United 
States.
    In fact, eight months before the year 2000 began, over 50 
Y2K lawsuits had already been filed. The Committee was told 
that the threat of litigation had resulted in a climate of fear 
and reluctance by many companies to acknowledge the potential 
problems which may be caused by their products. This atmosphere 
was counterproductive to the cooperative efforts necessary to 
ensure a seamless transition from 1999 to 2000, and was 
becoming disruptive to the stability of the nation's interstate 
commerce. The potential for litigation to overwhelm the 
nation's judicial system, and to cause severe damage to the 
nation's economy required incentives for proactive solutions to 
the problems before they could occur, and a system for prompt 
resolution of those failure which do occur.
    The magnitude of this problem demanded solutions which 
would reduce litigation whenever possible without limiting the 
rights of aggrieved parties. One way was to provide clear legal 
rules and then encourage parties to find solutions to fix the 
problem without resorting to the courts. If potential litigants 
know how the courts will allocate responsibility for Y2K 
compliance, many disputes will settle rather than being 
litigated to an inevitable conclusion. Clear rules would also 
reduce the potential for frivolous lawsuits which might be 
filed when non-avoidable Y2K problems occur, thereby clearing 
the courts for the legitimate cases which deserve adjudication. 
Clear rules would also increase the likelihood that the entity 
who bears responsibility for Y2K compliance will work quickly 
to fix the problem and reduce damages.
            H.R. 775, the ``Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility 
                    Act''
    In response to these issues, Congress enacted the Year 2000 
Readiness and Responsibility Act to create a legal framework by 
which Y2K-related disputes would be resolved. It was 
specifically designed to help consumers by creating incentives 
for businesses to address the Y2K computing crisis, thereby 
avoiding Y2K problems and eliminating the need for litigation. 
It also established clear, uniform rules for determining the 
rights and responsibilities of contracting parties in Y2K 
disputes. In addition, the Act gives companies as long as 90 
days to fix any problems before a lawsuit can be brought, 
limits punitive damages for firms with fewer than 50 employees, 
generally holds companies liable only for their share of blame 
for any Y2K damage, and requires that class action suits 
involving 100 or more plaintiffs and $10 million or more in 
claims be tried in federal, instead of state, courts.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 775 was introduced by 
Congressman Davis on February 23, 1999; it ultimately garnered 
98 cosponsors. The full committee held a hearing on H.R. 775 on 
April 13, 1999. On April 29 and May 4, 1999, it was considered 
by the full committee and ordered reported to the House, as 
amended, by a recorded vote of 15 ayes to 14 nays. The report 
was filed on May 7, 1999. House Report 106-131, part 1. The 
House passed the bill on May 12, 1999 by a vote of 236 ayes to 
190 nays, after defeating a motion to recommit by a vote of 184 
ayes to 246 nays. The Senate version of the bill (S. 96) was 
approved by that body on June 15, 1999. On June 24, 1999, the 
House appointed Congressmen Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, 
Conyers and Lofgren as conferees on the bill, with Congressmen 
Bliley, Oxley and Dingell appointed as conferees for section 18 
of the Senate amendment. Also on June 24, 1999, the House 
agreed to instruct the conferees by vote of 426 ayes to 0 nays. 
A conference report was filed on June 29, 1999 (House Report 
106-212), and on July 1, 1999, the House agreed to the 
conference vote by a vote of 404 ayes to 24 nays. Also on July 
1, 1999, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote 
of 81 ayes to 18 nays. On July 20, 1999, H.R. 775 was signed by 
the President (Public Law 106-37).

The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 2000--H.R. 1283

    Summary.--H.R. 1283 establishes a comprehensive asbestos 
compensation program pertaining to asbestos-related personal 
injury lawsuits. The purpose of H.R. 1283 is to provide all 
asbestos victims with efficient and fair compensation by 
ensuring that claimants suffering from an asbestos-related 
impairment will be given priority over other asbestos related 
claims.
    The heart of the bill's administrative compensation program 
is a non-adversarial determination of medical eligibility by an 
Office of Asbestos Compensation (OAC), established within the 
United States Department of Justice. Claimants that are 
determined to be medically eligible may assert their claim by 
proceeding to state or federal court at anytime, or electing 
non-adversarial settlement offers or an administrative 
adjudication. In addition, a determination of medical 
eligibility creates a presumption that the claimant has an 
asbestos related illness, this presumption may only be rebutted 
by ``clear and convincing'' evidence.
    H.R. 1283 also contains a comprehensive set of rules 
pertaining to asbestos litigation. These rules eliminate 
practices that may diminish an individual's claim and hold 
major asbestos manufacturers and distributors to a higher 
standard of liability. In addition, a legal assistanceprogram 
would assure that asbestos victims receive representation for a 
reasonable fee, which would be determined by Administrator of the 
Office of Asbestos Compensation.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1283 was introduced by the 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Henry J. Hyde, on 
March 25, 1999, and ultimately garnered 75 cosponsors. H.R. 
1283 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary where it 
was held at the Full Committee. Accordingly, on July 1st, 1999, 
the Committee held an extensive hearing on H.R. 1283. The 
hearing consisted of ten witnesses on two panels. Witnesses on 
the first panel included Professor Christopher F. Edley Jr. of 
Harvard University School of Law; Louis W. Sullivan, President 
of the Morehouse School of Medicine and former Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services; Richard H. Middleton, 
President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; 
Samuel J. Heyman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the 
GAF Corporation; Dr. Christine Oliver, Associate Physician at 
Massachusetts General Hospital; and Dr. Gary Epler, Associate 
Physician at Brigham & Women's Hospital. The second panel 
included Maura J. Abeln Smith, Senior Vice President and 
General Counsel of Owens Corning; Thomas J. Donohue, President 
of the United States Chamber of Commerce; Johnathan Hiatt, 
General Counsel of the AFL-CIO; and Conrad L. Mallett Jr., 
former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. On March 
9th, 15th, and 16th, 2000 the Committee met in open session to 
consider H.R. 1283. On March 16th, 2000, H.R. 1283 was ordered 
favorably reported with a single amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. On July 24th, 2000 H.R. 1283 was reported to the 
Full House, House Report 106-782, and placed on the Union 
Calendar.

The Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999--H.R. 1875

    Summary.--H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action 
Jurisdiction Act of 1999, expands federal diversity 
jurisdiction to permit most interstate class actions to be 
brought in or removed to federal court.
    The class action device is a necessary and important part 
of our legal system. It promotes efficiency by allowing 
plaintiffs with similar claims to adjudicate their cases in one 
proceeding; it also leads to the adjudication of claims where 
there are small harms to a large number of people, which would 
otherwise go unaddressed because the cost to individuals of 
suing would far exceed any possible benefit to the individual. 
However, in recent years class actions have been used with an 
increasing frequency and in ways that do not promote the 
interests they were intended to serve.
            Class action certification rules
    Class actions were initially created in state courts of law 
and equity, and in 1849 became statutory with the advent of the 
Field Code, which several states adopted. In 1938, a federal 
class action rule was first enacted in the form of Federal Rule 
of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23 was substantially amended in 
1966, and granted courts more flexibility in certifying class 
actions. The Field Code, the original federal Rule 23 and 
amended federal Rule 23 remain the three models for present-day 
state class action rules: 36 states have adopted amended 
federal Rule 23; seven still use rules modeled on the original 
federal Rule 23; and four still use Field Code-based class 
rules. Three states still permit class actions at common law 
and have no formal class rules.
    As a result of the adoption of different class action 
certification standards in the various states, the same class 
might be certifiable in one state and not another, or 
certifiable in state court but not in federal court. This 
creates the potential for abuse of the class action device, 
particularly when the case involves parties from multiple 
states and/or requires the application of the laws of many 
states. For example, some state courts routinely certify 
classes before the defendant is even served with a complaint 
and given a chance to defend itself. Other state courts employ 
very lax class certification criteria, rendering virtually any 
controversy subject to class action treatment. There are 
instances where a state court, in order to certify a class, has 
determined that the law of that state applies to all claims, 
including those of purported class members who live in other 
jurisdictions. This has the effect of making the law of that 
state applicable nationwide.
    The existence of state courts which broadly apply class 
certification rules encourages plaintiffs to forum shop for the 
court which is most likely to certify a purported class. In 
many instances, the fact that a class is certified will 
determine the outcome of the case. Because the cases are 
brought on behalf of thousands (and sometimes millions) of 
claimants, the potential exposure for a defendant is enormous. 
Plaintiffs' counsel can use this potential exposure to coerce 
settlements that offer minimal benefits to the class members, 
but which result in hefty attorneys' fees.
    Another problem created by the ability of state courts to 
certify class actions which adjudicate the rights of citizens 
of many states is that often times more than one case involving 
the same class is certified at the same time. In the federal 
court system, those cases involving common questions of fact 
may be transferred to one district for coordinated or 
consolidated pretrial proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. 1407. When 
these class actions are pending in state courts, however, there 
is no corresponding mechanism for cogently adjudicating the 
competing suits. Instead, a settlement or judgment in any of 
the cases makes the other class actions moot. This creates an 
incentive for each class counsel to obtain a quick settlement 
of the case, and opportunity for the defendant to play the 
various class counsel against each other and drive the 
settlement value down. Again, the loser is the putative class 
member whose claim is extinguished by the settlement, at the 
expense of counsel seeking to be the one entitled to recovery 
of fees.
    H.R. 1875 is intended to prevent these abuses by allowing 
large interstate class action cases to be heard in federal 
court. It would expand the statutory diversity jurisdiction of 
the federal courts to allow class action cases involving 
minimal diversity--that is, when any plaintiff and any 
defendant are citizens of different states--to be brought in or 
removed to federal court.
            Federal diversity jurisdiction
    Article III of the Constitution empowers Congress to 
establish federal jurisdiction over diversity cases--cases 
``between citizens of different States.'' The grant of 
diversity jurisdiction was premised on concerns that state 
courts might discriminate against out of state defendants. 
Since 1806, with some exceptions, the federal courts have 
followed the rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 
267 (1806), which states that federal jurisdiction lies only 
where all plaintiffs are citizens of states different than all 
defendants. This is known as the ``complete diversity'' rule. 
In a class action, only the citizenship of the named plaintiffs 
is considered for determining diversity, which means that 
federal diversity jurisdiction will not exist if the named 
plaintiff is a citizen of thesame state as the defendant, 
regardless of the citizenship of the rest of the class. See Snyder v. 
Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969). And, since the early days of the country, 
Congress has imposed a monetary threshold--now $75,000--for federal 
diversity claims. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). However, the amount in controversy 
requirement is satisfied in a class action only if all of the class 
members are seeking damages in excess of the statutory minimum. See 
Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973).
    These jurisdictional statutes were originally enacted years 
ago, well before the modern class action arose, and they lead 
to perverse results. For example, under current law a citizen 
of one state may bring in federal court a simple $75,001 slip-
and-fall claim against a party from another state. But if a 
class of 25 million product owners living in all 50 states 
brings claims collectively worth $15 billion against the 
manufacturer, the lawsuit usually must be heard in state court. 
The current statutes also allow attorneys to game the system to 
keep class actions out of federal court. Attorneys often name 
irrelevant parties to their class actions in an effort to 
``destroy diversity''--that is, to keep the case from 
qualifying for federal diversity jurisdiction. Further, counsel 
make other statements about the case to keep the defendant from 
removing the case to federal court (e.g., ``plaintiffs seek 
only a very small amount of money in this case''). After one 
year, however, the attorneys recant those statements, since at 
that point, current statutes bar removal of the case to federal 
court.
            The act
    H.R. 1875 would amend the diversity jurisdiction and 
removal statutes applicable to class actions to allow federal 
jurisdiction where there is a substantial risk of 
discrimination against out of state defendants. It amends 28 
U.S.C. 1332 to grant original jurisdiction in the federal 
courts to hear interstate class actions where any member of the 
proposed class is a citizen of a state different from any 
defendant. An interstate class action would not include:
          (1) Intrastate cases--cases in which a ``substantial 
        majority'' of the class members and defendants are 
        citizens of the same state and the claims will be 
        governed primarily by that state's law.
          (2) Limited scope cases--cases involving fewer than 
        100 class members or where the aggregate amount in 
        controversy is less than $1 million.
          (3) State action cases--cases where the primary 
        defendants are states or state officials, or other 
        governmental entities against whom the district court 
        may be foreclosed from ordering relief.
    If a case is filed in state court where the federal court 
has original jurisdiction under the amended section 1332, H.R. 
1875 would allow its removal using the existing procedures 
contained in Chapter 89 of Title 28, with three new features:
          (1) Unnamed class members (plaintiffs) may remove to 
        federal court class actions in which their claims are 
        being asserted within 30 days after formal notice. 
        Under current rules only the defendants are allowed to 
        remove. See 28 U.S.C. 1446.
          (2) Removal of class actions to federal court would 
        be available to (a) any defendant without the consent 
        of all defendants or (b) any plaintiff class member 
        without the consent of all members. Current removal 
        rules--which apply only to defendants--require the 
        consent of all defendants.
          (3) Section 1446 of Title 28 requires that a notice 
        of removal be filed within 30 days of the receipt by 
        the defendant of a copy of the pleading which gives 
        notice of grounds for removal. However, that section 
        bars the removal of cases to federal court after one 
        year, even if the basis for removal does not occur 
        until after that time. H.R. 1875 would eliminate the 
        bar to removal of class actions after one year, and 
        would apply the same removal notice rules to 
        plaintiffs.
    Under H.R. 1875, if a removed class action is found not to 
meet the requirements for proceeding on a class basis, the 
federal court would dismiss the action without prejudice. 
Plaintiffs would then be permitted to refile their claims in 
state court, presumably in a form amended either to fall within 
one of the types of cases not considered interstate class 
actions, or to be maintainable as a class action under federal 
Rule 23. The statute of limitations on individual class 
members' claims in such a dismissed class action would not run 
during the period the action was pending in federal court.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1875 was introduced by 
Congressmen Bob Goodlatte, Rick Boucher, and 30 co-sponsors on 
May 19, 1999. The full committee held a hearing on the bill on 
July 21, 1999; the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
Property had held a hearing on a similar bill introduced in the 
105th Congress--H.R. 3789--on June 18, 1998. Following two days 
of markup on July 27 and August 3, 1999, the full committee 
ordered the bill reported to the House, as amended, by a vote 
of 15 ayes to 12 nays. House Report 106-320, filed September 
14, 1999. By a vote of 222 ayes to 207 nays, the House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 1875 on September 23, 1999. 
Companion legislation--S. 353--was reported from the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary on September 26, 2000 (Senate Report 
106-420), but it was not considered by the Senate.
The Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999--H.R. 
        2005
    Summary.--H.R. 2005, introduced by Congressman Steve 
Chabot, is premised on the notion that a product which is used 
safely for a substantial period of time is not likely to be 
defective at the time of manufacture, sale, or delivery. Thus 
any injury it causes after some reasonably long period of time 
is likely to have been due to either misuse or improper 
maintenance by someone other than the manufacturer. However, 
the passage of time increases a manufacturer's difficulty in 
disproving the existence of a defect at the time of 
manufacture. Although manufacturers often win cases based on 
injuries from old products, the litigation costs of defending 
these cases--where witnesses have died or disappeared, memories 
have faded, and evidence has been lost--may be enormous and can 
divert resources from job creation, research and development.
    H.R. 2005 addressed this problem by creating a uniform 
federal statute of repose for cases involving injuries caused 
by durable goods. This statute of repose would bar a cause of 
action against the manufacturer of such a product after 18 
years from the date the product was placed in thestream of 
commerce, regardless of when the injury occurred.
    President Clinton recognized the value of a statute of 
repose when he signed the General Aviation Revitalization Act 
of 1994 (GARA), which provides an 18-year statute of repose for 
small general aviation aircraft. As a result of GARA, domestic 
aircraft manufacturers, which previously were failing and 
losing market share to foreign competitors, have been 
revitalized. Since the enactment of GARA, over 25,000 jobs have 
been created in the general aviation industry, and the piston-
driven planes now rolling off the production line are the 
safest ever. Investment in research and development by general 
aviation companies has grown by more than 150 percent, leading 
to a host of new general aviation products.
    As least 20 states have enacted products liability statutes 
of repose, ranging from 6 years to 15 years. Statutes of repose 
(or the equivalent) exist in the following states: Arkansas 
(``anticipated life'' of product); Colorado (7 years for new 
equipment, presumption that product is not defective after 10 
years); Connecticut (10 years if covered by worker 
compensation, otherwise after ``useful safe life of the 
product''); Florida (12 years); Georgia (10 years); Idaho 
(``useful safe life'' of product); Illinois (12 years from date 
of first sale, or 10 years from date of sale to first user, 
whichever is shorter); Indiana (10 years); Iowa (15 years); 
Kansas (``useful safe life'' of product); Kentucky (presumption 
that product not defective if harm occurred more than 5 years 
after sale of product to first consumer or more than 8 years 
after date of manufacture); Michigan (if product in use for 10 
years, plaintiff must prove prima facie case without benefit of 
any presumption); Minnesota (``useful life'' of product); 
Nebraska (10 years); North Carolina (6 years); North Dakota (10 
years from date of first sale, or 11 years from date of 
manufacture); Oregon (8 years); Tennessee (10 years); Texas (15 
years for non-agricultural manufacturing equipment); Washington 
(``useful safe life'' of product). However, for the many 
manufacturers whose products are found in virtually every 
state, protection through existing state statutes of repose is 
uneven. Furthermore, the European Community, Japan, and 
Australia each has a 10-year statute of repose for all 
products. The absence of a nationwide uniform standard in the 
United States has placed American manufacturers at a 
significant disadvantage relative to their foreign 
manufacturers.
    H.R. 2005 is very narrow in scope. It covers only cases 
involving a ``durable good,'' which is defined as one which 
either has a normal life expectancy of 3 or more years or is 
subject to depreciation under the IRS code, and is either used 
in a trade or business, held for the production of income, or 
sold or donated to an entity for the production of goods, etc. 
Where the injury involves death or personal injury, the reach 
of the statute of repose would be limited to cases where the 
claimant has received or is eligible to receive workers 
compensation. Furthermore, in a claim for death or personal 
injury, the statute of repose would not apply if the injury 
involves a toxic harm.
    H.R. 2005 would not apply to motor vehicles, vessels, 
aircraft or trains that are used primarily to transport 
passengers for hire. Neither would it affect the limitations 
period established under GARA (which is 18 years). It would 
supercede any existing state statute of repose governing 
durable goods, thereby increasing the period of time within 
which an injured party could sue in the 20 states where shorter 
statutes of repose currently exist.
    Procedural History.--H.R. 2005 was introduced by 
Congressman Steve Chabot on June 7, 1999. The full committee 
held a hearing on July 21, 1999, and on September 22, 1999, 
ordered the bill favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 
16 ayes to 14 nays. House Report 106-410, Part 1 was filed on 
October 21, 1999. On February 2, 2000, H.R. 2005 was passed by 
the House of Representatives by a vote of 222 ayes to 194 nays. 
The bill was not considered by the Senate.

The Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999--H.R. 2366, and the 
        Rental Fairness Act of 1999, H.R. 1954

    Summary.--H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform 
Act of 1999, contained four discrete reforms to address 
problems that the Committee had found to exist in the current 
civil justice system. The first two--limitations on punitive 
damage awards and the imposition of a fair share limitation on 
non-economic damages--would apply only to small business 
defendants. The third would eliminate the liability of products 
sellers in products liability cases where they were not the 
manufacturer and where the manufacturer is subject to suit. 
Finally, the bill would eliminate the doctrine of vicarious 
liability, which currently allows persons in the business of 
renting or leasing a product to be liable for the conduct of 
others simply because they own the product that is involved in 
causing injury. A similar version of this final provision was 
also contained in H.R. 1954, the Rental Fairness Act of 1999.
    Small businesses with twenty-five or fewer full-time 
workers employ nearly 60% of the American workforce, yet over 
60% of these small business owners make an annual salary of 
less than $50,000. One lawsuit--frivolous or not--could put a 
small business out of business. There is evidence that 
particularly the smallest of the nation's small businesses 
operate in fear that they will be named defendant in a lawsuit, 
be found minimally responsible for the claimant's harm, and be 
financially crushed under the weight of all the damages as a 
result of the application of joint liability. In many cases, 
small businesses settle out of court for significant award 
amounts, even if the claim is unwarranted, because of the fear 
of exposure to unlimited punitive damages. According to a 
Gallup survey, one out of five of every small businesses 
decides not to hire more employees, expand its business, 
introduce a new product, or improve an existing product out of 
fear of litigation.
    Title I of H.R. 2366 was designed to mitigate the negative 
and disproportionate impact that certain current liability 
rules have on small businesses--defined as those which employ 
25 persons or less. However, the protections of the title would 
not apply to cases involving the misconduct of a defendant 
which constitutes a crime of violence, an act of international 
terrorism, or a hate crime; which involves a sexual offence or 
a violation of a civil rights law; which results in damages 
described in the Oil Pollution Act or CERCLA (Superfund); or 
where the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol 
at the time of the injury.
    Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are intended to be 
quasi-criminal in nature. They are not designed to compensate 
victims, but are awarded in civil suits to punish for 
intentional harm to others or for acting in wanton disregard 
with respect to the safety of others. In addition to punishing 
wrongdoers, they are intended to deter such anti-social conduct 
in the future.
    Title I imposed two distinct requirements on the imposition 
of punitive damages awards against a small business. First, it 
required a plaintiff to establish ``by clear and convincing 
evidencethat conduct carried out by that defendant through 
willful misconduct or with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the 
rights or safety of others was the proximate cause of the harm that is 
the subject of the action.'' Second, it limited the award of punitive 
damages against a small business defendant to three times the total 
amount awarded for economic and noneconomic losses, or $250,000, 
whichever is lesser.
    Title I also prohibited the imposition of joint and several 
liability on a small business defendant. Under the traditional 
rule of joint and several liability, where more than one 
defendant is found liable in a case, each defendant found 
liable may be held responsible for paying 100% of the damages 
awarded. While the plaintiff cannot recover more than once, it 
can choose the defendant from whom to seek recovery. A 
defendant who pays more than its proportionate share of the 
damages can in turn seek contribution from other defendants or 
can sue another defendant for indemnification of its costs. 
Thus, in an automobile accident case where the other driver and 
the auto manufacturer are co-defendants, if a jury finds the 
other driver 75% responsible for the accident and the 
manufacturer 25% responsible, the plaintiff may recover 100% of 
its damages from the manufacturer (which may be considered a 
``deep pocket''). In turn, the manufacturer is left to seek 
contribution from the other driver (or its insurance company) 
for 75%.
    By enabling a plaintiff to recover immediately all its 
damages from the ``deep pocket'' defendant, joint and several 
liability makes it more likely that the plaintiff will obtain 
full recovery in the event that one defendant does not have the 
assets to pay part of the judgment. The result, however, may be 
that a defendant who is minimally responsible for an injury, 
perhaps only 1% responsible, may be held liable for virtually 
all compensation damages--both economic and non-economic. Also, 
very often those more responsible for the harm are not even 
parties to the action. They may have settled with the plaintiff 
out of court, they may be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, 
or they may simply be lacking in sufficient assets to pay the 
award (i.e. bankrupt).
    The Small Business Liability Reform Act would have 
eliminated joint and several liability of small business 
defendants for non-economic damages (pain and suffering), but 
would have retained it for economic damages (such as medical 
expenses). This would partially relieve the situation where a 
small business defendant is held liable for damages far in 
excess of its actual responsibility. Consequently, any small 
business defendant found liable would be liable for pain and 
suffering only in proportion to its percentage of 
responsibility for the plaintiff's injury and no more. Under 
this rule, the liability of defendants who do not fall within 
the definition of a small business would continue to be 
governed with the existing state liability rule.
    Title II of H.R. 2366 was aimed at restoring legal fairness 
to product sellers and reducing costs to consumers. In a 
majority of the states, product sellers are liable for harms 
caused by a product as if they were the manufacturer. 
Ultimately, product sellers are held liable in less than five 
percent of product liability actions; nevertheless, they are 
drawn into the overwhelming majority of product liability 
cases. This is because thirty-one states treat product sellers 
as if they manufactured the product--they are made liable for a 
manufacturer's mistakes. The seller, however, rarely pays the 
judgment because it is able to show in over ninety-five percent 
of the cases where any liability is present that the 
manufacturer is the partly who actually caused, and is 
responsible for, the harm. Based on this showing, the seller 
gets contribution of indemnity from the manufacturer, and the 
manufacturer ultimately pays the damages.
    The current state of the law generates substantial, 
unnecessary legal costs. Many product sellers are small 
wholesalers and retailers. The provision contained in Title II 
of H.R. 2366 would have prevented wasted time and effort for 
these small businesses and also, wasted expenses on attorneys. 
These costs are currently passed on to the consumer in the form 
of unnecessary higher prices for products and services. Thus, 
the provision would also help consumers by cutting the hidden 
``litigation tax.'' It would be much more efficient for the 
claimant to sue the manufacturer directly and to sue the 
product seller only if it has done something wrong.
    The Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999 would have 
remedied this situation. Under the bill, product sellers would 
no longer be subject to strict liability; they would be liable 
only for their own negligence or fault, breach of their own 
warranty, or intentional wrongdoing. Thus, the legislation 
would have eliminated product sellers being needlessly brought 
into product liability lawsuits.
    To protect consumers, the bill contained two key exceptions 
to the general rule: (1) where a manufacturer cannot be brought 
into court in the state; or, (2) if a manufacturer lacks the 
funds to pay a judgment. In those circumstances, the product 
seller would have to bear responsibility for the manufacturer's 
conduct. There is a sound social policy behind this provision--
it will encourage product sellers to deal with responsible 
(often domestic) manufacturers who do business in the state and 
have assets.
    Companies that rent or lease products, such as car and 
truck rental firms, are currently subject in ten states and the 
District of Columbia to liability for the tortious acts of 
their renters and lessees, even though the rental company is 
not negligent and there is no defect in the product. In these 
states, by imposition of this theory of vicarious liability, 
the rental company is held liable for the injuries and damages 
caused by the negligence of its customers simply because it 
owns the product and has given permission for its use by the 
customer.
    Title II of H.R. 2366 provided that a person engaged in the 
business of renting or leasing a product may not be liable to a 
claimant for the tortious act of another, solely because that 
person owns the product that caused the injury. The bill would 
have eliminated the theory of vicarious liability under those 
circumstances.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2366 was introduced by 
Congressman Jim Rogan on June 25, 1999. The full committee held 
a hearing on the bill on September 29, 1999. It was considered 
by the full committee on October 19, 1999, November 2, 1999, 
and February 1, 2000, and was ordered reported, as amended, by 
voice vote. House Report 106-494, Part 1, filed February 7, 
2000. On February 16, 2000, the H.R. 2366 passed the House of 
Representatives with additional amendments, by a vote of 221 
ayes and 193 nays. The bill was not considered by the Senate. 
H.R. 1954, a bill containing matters also included in H.R. 
2366, was discharged from further consideration by the 
Committee on the Judiciary on September 15, 2000 but was not 
considered by the House.

                     Matters Held at Full Committee


Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999--H.R. 417

    Summary.--On January 19, 1999, Representatives Christopher 
Shays and Martin Meehan introduced H.R. 417, the ``Bipartisan 
Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999.'' Among other things, H.R. 
417 would rewrite campaign finance laws to increase individual 
``hard money'' contributions, regulates independent 
expenditures by express advocacy groups, bans political party 
soft money, regulates the expenditures of non-party soft money, 
regulates issue advocacy, and enhances the power of the Federal 
Election Commission.
    Legislative History.--On January 19, 1999, Representatives 
Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan introduced H.R. 417, the 
``Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999,'' and was 
referred to the Committee. On August 5, 1999, the Committee 
discharged the bill without taking any action. The bill passed 
the House on September 14, 1999, by a vote of 252-177.

H.R. 808 and H.R. 2922, bills extending the period of time for which 
        chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted

    During the 106th Congress, there were various bills 
introduced to extend chapter 12, a specialized form of 
bankruptcy relief available to a ``family farmer with regular 
annual income'' as defined in the Bankruptcy Code. H.R. 808 was 
introduced on February 23, 1999 by Representative Nick Smith 
(R-MI) (for himself, Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law Chairman George W. Gekas (R-PA), and 
Representatives David Minge (D-MN), Ronnie Shows (D-MS), Bill 
Barrett (R-NE), James Leach (R-IA), J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK), 
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), and John McHugh (R-NY)) to extend 
chapter 12 for three additional months.
    Chapter 12 permits eligible family farmers, under the 
supervision of a bankruptcy trustee, to reorganize their debts 
pursuant to a repayment plan. The special attributes of chapter 
12 make it better suited to meet the particularized needs of 
family farmers in financial distress than other forms of 
bankruptcy relief, such as chapter 11 and chapter 13.
    This form of bankruptcy relief was enacted on a temporary 
seven-year basis as part of the Bankruptcy Judges, United 
States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 in 
response to the farm financial crisis of the 1980's. Chapter 12 
was subsequently extended on August 6, 1993 to September 30, 
1998. During the 105th Congress, it was further extended until 
April 1, 1999 as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.
    In light of the imminent April 1, 1999 sunset date for 
chapter 12, H.R. 808 was held at the full Committee for markup. 
On March 2, 1999, the Committee met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill with amendment by a voice vote (H. 
Rpt. 106-45, filed March 9, 1999). As amended, the bill 
extended chapter 12 to October 1, 1999. On March 11, 1999, the 
House passed H.R. 808 under suspension of the rules by a vote 
of 418 to 1. On March 24, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 808 
without amendment by unanimous consent. The bill was 
subsequently signed into law on March 30, 1999 (Public Law 106-
5).
    H.R. 2922, a bill to further extend chapter 12 was 
introduced on September 23, 1999 by George W. Gekas, Chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (for 
himself and Representative Nick Smith (R-MI)). The bill would 
have extended chapter 12 for six additional months until April 
1, 2000. There was no further action on this bill as it was 
superseded by H.R. 2942, a subsequently introduced bill. For 
the status of H.R. 2942 and other bills extending chapter 12, 
consult the section in this report pertaining to the activities 
of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

H.R. 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000

            Background

I. Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Statutes

    Civil asset forfeiture is based on a legal fiction from 
medieval times that an inanimate object could itself be 
``guilty'' of wrongdoing and forfeitable by the king, 
regardless of whether the object's owner was blameworthy in any 
way. Today, there are scores of federal forfeiture statutes. 
The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 
made civil forfeiture a weapon in the war against drugs. The 
Act provides for the forfeiture of:

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

    In 1978, the Act was amended to provide for civil 
forfeiture of:

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

    In 1984, the Act was amended to provide for the forfeiture 
of:

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

    Before the enactment of H.R. 1658, the government was 
required to make an initial showingof probable cause that 
property was subject to forfeiture if a property owner went to federal 
court to challenge the seizure of property under a federal civil 
forfeiture law. The property owner then had to establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the property was not subject to 
forfeiture. The government could meet its burden without having 
obtained a criminal conviction or even having charged the owner with a 
crime since it is the property itself that has done the misdeed. Since 
the government didn't need the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required 
for a criminal conviction, even the acquittal of the owner did not bar 
forfeiture of the property allegedly used in a crime. This contracts 
with criminal forfeiture, which can only follow upon the property 
owner's conviction of the underlying offense.
II. The Success--and Abuse--of Forfeiture
    The monies realized from federal forfeitures go to the 
Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund and the 
Department of the Treasury's Forfeiture Fund. The money is used 
for forfeiture-related expenses and various law enforcement 
purposes. Federal forfeiture has proven to be a great monetary 
success. The amount deposited in Justice's Assets Forfeiture 
Fund (from both civil and criminal forfeitures) increased from 
$27 million in fiscal year 1985 to $556 million in 1993 and 
then decreased to $449 million in 1998.
    The purposes of federal forfeiture were set out by Stefan 
Cassella, Assistant Chief, Asset Forfeiture and Money 
Laundering Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, in testimony before the Judiciary Committee:

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

    These goals are all laudable and civil asset forfeiture has 
indeed become a valuable weapon in the war on crime and illicit 
drugs. However, a number of years ago, concerns began to be 
raised about abuses of civil forfeiture laws. Newspaper and 
television exposes appeared alleging that apparently innocent 
property owners unfortunate enough to match drug courier 
``profiles'' through such acts as carrying large amounts of 
cash or by purchasing airline tickets with cash were having 
their property taken by federal and local law enforcement 
officers with nothing that could be called due process.
    Federal courts began to echo these concerns. The Second 
Circuit stated that ``[w]e continue to be enormously troubled 
by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of 
the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process 
that is buried in those statutes.'' United States v. All Assets 
of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F.2d 896, 905 (2nd Cir. 
1992). The Seventh Circuit issued a decision containing a 
stinging rebuke of the federal government's use of civil 
forfeiture. In United States v. $506,231 in U.S. Currency, 125 
F.3d 442, 454 (7th Cir. 1997), the court found the need to 
remind a U.S. Attorney that ``the government may not seize 
money, even half a million dollars, based on its bare 
assumption that most people do not have huge sums of money 
lying about, and if they do, they must be involved in narcotics 
trafficking or some other sinister activity.'' The court also 
found the need to say that ``[w]e are certainly not the first 
court to be `enormously troubled by the government's increasing 
and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes 
and the disregard for due process that is buried in those 
statutes.' '' And Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has 
stated that, ``[i]mproperly used, forfeiture could become more 
like a roulette wheel employed to raise revenue from innocent 
but hapless owners whose property is unforeseeably misused, or 
a tool wielded to punish those who associate with criminals, 
than a component of a system of justice.'' Bennis v. Michigan, 
516 U.S. 442, 456 (1996) (Thomas, J., concurring).
    Civil forfeiture statutes must contain safeguards against 
abuse and give property owners innocent of any wrongdoing the 
means to recover their property and make themselves whole after 
wrongful government seizures. These are the goals that H.R. 
1658 was designed to meet.
            The act
    H.R. 1658 amends the rules governing all civil forfeitures 
under federal law except those contained in the Tariff Act of 
1930, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and a number of other 
statutes. It contains eight principal reforms:
     Burden of Proof.--Before enactment of H.R. 1658, 
when a property owner went to federal court to challenge a 
seizure of property, all the government needed to do was to 
make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is 
subject to civil forfeiture. The property owner then had to 
establish that the property was ``innocent'', or not subject to 
forfeiture. The probable cause the government needed to show is 
the lowest standard of proof in the criminal law. It is the 
same standard required to obtain a search warrant and can be 
established by evidence with a low indicia of reliability such 
as hearsay.
    One federal judge stated that:

          [T]he current allocation of burdens and standards of 
        proof requires that the [owner] prove a negative, that 
        the property was not used in order to facilitate 
        illegal activity, while the government must prove 
        almost nothing. This creates a great risk of erroneous, 
        irreversible deprivation. * * * The government, under 
        the current approach, need not produce any admissible 
        evidence and may deprive citizens of property based on 
        the rankest of hearsay and the flimsiest evidence. This 
        result clearly does not reflect the value of private 
        property in our society, and makes the risk of an 
        erroneous deprivation intolerable.

United States v. $12,390, 956 F.2d 801, 811 (8th Cir. 1992) 
(Beam, J., dissenting).
    The Act would require the government to prove by the 
customary civil suit standard--preponderance of the evidence--
that property is subject to forfeiture.
     Facilitating Property.--The Act provides that if 
the government's theory of forfeiture is that property was used 
to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime or was 
involved in the commission of a crime (which often occurs with 
homes, bank accounts and conveyances such as cars and 
airplanes), the government must show that there was a 
substantial connection between the property and the crime. It 
is intended that this test require that facilitating property 
have a connection to the underlying crime significantly greater 
than just ``incidental or fortuitous.'' In one area in 
particular, courts have been much to liberal in finding 
facilitation. An especially high standard should have to be met 
before a person or family is dispossed of their home. A primary 
residence should be accorded far greater protection than mere 
personal property.
     Release of Property Pending Final Disposition of a 
Case.--Even should a property owner prevail in a civil 
forfeiture proceeding, irreparable damage may have been done to 
the owner's interests. For instance, if property is used as a 
business, its lack of availability for the time necessary to 
win a victory in court could have forced its owner into 
bankruptcy. If the property is a car, the owner might not have 
been able to commute to work until it was won back. If the 
property is a house, the owner may have been left temporarily 
homeless.
    The Act provides that property can be released by a federal 
court pending final disposition of a case if continued 
possession by the government would cause the property owner 
substantial hardship (such as preventing the functioning of a 
business or leaving an individual homeless) and the likely 
hardship outweighs the risk that the property will be 
destroyed, damaged, lost, concealed or transferred if returned 
to the owner. The court may place conditions on the release of 
the property necessary to ensure its availability for 
forfeiture should the government eventually prevail.
     Attorney's Fees for Prevailing Property Owners and 
the Appointment of Counsel.--Before enactment of H.R. 1658, 
property owners who successfully challenge the seizure of their 
property almost never were awarded attorney's fees. In 
addition, indigents had no Sixth Amendment right to appointed 
counsel in civil forfeiture cases since imprisonment was not 
threatened. The Act provides that property owners who 
substantially prevail in civil forfeiture proceedings will 
receive reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, it allows a 
court to provide counsel for indigents who are represented by 
appointed counsel in related criminal cases.
     Elimination of Cost Bond.--Before enactment of 
H.R. 1658, a property owner wanting to contest a civil 
forfeiture in federal court had to provide a bond of the lesser 
of $5,000 or 10% of the value of the property seized (but not 
less than $250). The bond was unconstitutional in cases 
involving indigents, because it would deprive such claimants of 
hearings simply because of their inability to pay. However, 
even in cases not involving indigents, the bond should not be 
required as it serves as a deterrent to the challenge of 
meritless forfeitures. The Act would eliminate this 
requirement. The Act does provide that it a court finds that a 
claimant's assertion of an interest in property was frivolous, 
the court may impose a civil fine.
     Innocent Owner Defense.--A meaningful innocent 
owner defense is required by fundamental fairness. The act sets 
out a uniform innocent owner defense for all federal civil 
forfeitures. For an owner to be ``innocent'', the owner must 
either (1) not have known of the illegal conduct giving rise to 
the forfeiture of his or her property, or (2) upon learning of 
the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, must have done what 
reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to 
terminate the illegal use by others.
    To do what can reasonably be expected, the owner is not 
required to take steps that the owner reasonably believes would 
be likely to subject him or her to physical danger. An owner 
can show that he or she has done what can be reasonably 
expected if he or she (1) has given timely notice to the police 
and (2) has in a timely fashion revoked or made a good faith 
attempt to revoke permission to use the property from those 
engaging in the illegal conduct, or has taken reasonable action 
in consultation with a law enforcement agent to discourage the 
illegal use. Thus, a safer harbor is created for an owner who 
notifies police and revokes or attempts to revoke (to the 
extent permitted by law) permission to use the property by 
those who are using it in the course of criminal activity. The 
owner's obligations end there--property owners should not have 
to assume the role of police officers in stopping crime.
     Remedy for Property Damaged While in Government 
Custody.--The federal government is exempted from liability 
under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damage to property caused 
during its handling or storage by federal law enforcement 
officers. Property can be damaged by searches, lack of care, 
inadequate storage, and other factors. The Act would allow 
property owners to sue the government for compensation for 
damage unless forfeiture is successful.
     Uniform Definition of Proceeds.--The Act provides 
that in cases involving illegal goods or services, unlawful 
activities and telemarketing and health care fraud schemes, 
forfeitable proceeds are property obtained directly or 
indirectly as the result of the commission of theoffense giving 
rise to forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, and is not 
limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense. In cases 
involving lawful goods or services that are sold or provided in an 
illegal manner, forfeitable proceeds are money acquired through the 
illegal transactions less the direct costs incurred in providing the 
goods or services.
    The Act also contains measures designed to enhance the 
effectiveness of civil and criminal forfeiture statutes, 
including:
     Availability of Criminal Forfeiture and Proceeds 
Forfeiture.--The Act provides that wherever federal law allows 
for civil forfeiture of property involved in a specific crime, 
criminal forfeiture will also be available. It also provides 
that the proceeds of specified money laundering predicate 
offenses will be subject to civil forfeiture.
     Statute of Limitations.--Under current law, the 
federal government must bring a civil forfeiture action within 
five years after the date of the alleged crime involving the 
property. The Act provides that the statute of limitations is 
the later of this date or two years after the time when the 
involvement of the property in the alleged crime is discovered.
     Fugitive Disentitlement.--The Act provides that a 
court may in a civil forfeiture action dismiss a claim brought 
by a property owner if the property owner is a fugitive from 
the United States.
     Enforcement of Foreign Forfeiture Judgments.--The 
Act sets up a procedure whereby federal courts can enforce 
forfeiture judgments of foreign nations in conformity with 
international agreements.
     Access to Records in Bank Secrecy Jurisdictions.--
The Act provides that if a property owner who has filed a claim 
in a civil forfeiture case refuses to provide the government 
with access to potentially material financial records in a 
foreign country, the court can impose sanctions, up to and 
including dismissal of the owner's claim.
     Civil Restraining Orders.--The Act provides that a 
federal court can issue a civil restraining order, require a 
performance bond, appoint a conservator, or take other actions 
to preserve the availability of property for forfeiture where 
there is a substantial probability the government will prevail 
in the forfeiture and failure to enter the order will result in 
the property being destroyed or otherwise made unavailable for 
forfeiture.
            Procedural history
    On May 4, 1999, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde 
introduced H.R. 1658. The bill as introduced was composed of 
reforms of federal civil asset forfeiture law. Its reforms 
differed from those in the bill as enacted in a number of ways. 
The bill as introduced required the federal government to prove 
by clear and convincing evidence that property was subject to 
forfeiture. It did not award attorney's fees to prevailing 
property owners but did allow a judge to appoint counsel for 
indigents. It did not address the standard for forfeiture of 
facilitating property or the definition of forfeitable 
proceeds.
    On June 15, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 1658 
reported by a vote of 27-3. On June 18, 1999, the Judiciary 
Committee reported H.R. 1658 to the House (H. Rept. 106-192). 
On June 24, 1999, the House passed the House Rules Committee 
resolution (H. Res. 216) by a voice vote. On June 24, 1999, the 
House passed H.R. 1658 as amended by a vote of 375-48. A 
substitute offered by Representative Asa Hutchinson was 
defeated by a vote of 155-268. On March 23, 2000, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 1658 favorably reported with 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. On March 27, 2000, 
the Senate passed H.R. 1658 by unanimous consent. On April 11, 
2000, the House passed H.R. 1658 as amended by the Senate under 
suspension of the rules by a voice vote. On April 25, 2000, the 
President signed H.R. 1658 into law (Public Law 106-185).

H.R. 1659--National Police Training Commission Act of 1999

    On May 12, 1999, the Full Committee held a hearing on H.R. 
1659, the ``National Police Training Commission Act of 1999.'' 
The focus of the hearing was the establishment of a federal 
commission that would study and produce a report on police 
training, recruitment and hiring and oversight issues and to 
authorize funding for four metropolitan police departments--
District of Columbia, City of New York, and cities of Chicago 
and Los Angeles--to engage in training relating to the use of 
force which will be the subject of the study.
    Significant controversy has surrounded the use of force by 
law enforcement at the local, state and national levels. ``Use 
of force'' issues can arise during a variety of police/
community contacts: use of weapons (guns, night sticks and 
other objects); use of physical force to restrain; use of non-
lethal force (i.e. pepper spray and like technologies); verbal 
communication; tactical and defensive tactical strategies; 
arrests, searches and handcuffing; and vehicle use. All of 
these tactics are integral and necessary to an effective 
policing strategy and to ensuring the protection of the police 
and the community. In implementing these strategies 
ineffectively or inappropriately, both police and members of 
the public have needlessly lost their lives. Further, members 
of various police departments across the country have been 
indicted and convicted on manslaughter and murder charges after 
using their weapons. In some cases, it appears that the police 
officers' ongoing training with their weapons is inadequate. In 
some major police departments, weapons training is less over a 
full career than one year of weapons training received by 
agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    Police/community relations are central to the public 
safety, impacting on the cooperation of the community members 
with the police and in turn the success rate the police may 
have in curbing and preventing crime. These relations include 
having police officers of varying races and ethnic diversity 
who are knowledgeable about and sensitized to members of 
diverse communities. Without effective police/community 
relations, the policing function and the safety of our 
communities are at risk. One retired police officer, who 
himself had experienced verbal assault charges while on the 
job, started a program called ``Verbal Judo'' in which he 
instructs police officers in effective verbal communication 
and, particularly, in confrontational situations. Also, African 
American police officers in New York have taken it upon 
themselves to go out into the community to acquaint community 
members and youth with the requirements of policing and 
effective means of interacting with the police so as to avoid 
unnecessary confrontations. In addition, the U.S. Civil 
RightsCommission has recommended that police officers undergo mediation 
training to more effectively resolve conflicts they encounter. 
Accordingly, police/community relations have a direct impact on use of 
force issues.
    In New York, immigrant Amadou Diallo was the target of 41 
bullets shot by four police officers in New York City. This 
incident refocused the nation's attention on the use of force 
by law enforcement. While some members of the New York 
community claim that it was a racial incident--four white 
police officers fired at a black immigrant, others have 
concluded that race is not at the heart of the incident but, 
rather, the training of the particular police officers. The 
particulars of the incident raised a number of questions in the 
minds of many Americans: How is it that four officers shot at 
one unarmed man? Why is it that 41 bullets were discharged? 
What factors contributed to the public reaction to the incident 
and the ensuing outcry?
    Although individual incidents of excessive use of force can 
be addressed through the criminal and civil court systems, this 
avenue of redress does not provide overarching, long term 
solutions. In addition, the court system has a significant 
delay in addressing these matters and does not produce 
solutions designed to remedy the root causes of the excessive 
or inappropriate use of force. Focusing on the training, 
hiring, recruitment, oversight and discipline of officers, 
however, can address the underlying causes.
    H.R. 1659, the Police Training Commission Act of 1999, is 
designed to be one of the solutions to the occurrences of 
excessive and inappropriate uses of force, to recruiting and 
hiring issues that may be related thereto, and to oversight and 
discipline of officers who engage in inappropriate or excessive 
use of force. The bill has two components. The first component 
consists of a grant of seed money to some of the nation's 
largest and more diverse police departments for the purposes of 
training, hiring and recruiting, and oversight. The second 
component provides a congressional oversight mechanism; that 
is, a Commission to study these departments' use of the grant 
monies and the effectiveness of the training programs and 
policing strategies, the hiring and recruiting practices and 
policies, and oversight policies and practices. The bill calls 
for the Commission to then report its findings to Congress and 
to make recommendations concerning the continued involvement of 
the federal government in these areas--both in terms of 
oversight as well as funding.
    The selection of the police departments was not based on 
determinations that they had particular excessive use of force 
issues. Rather, in recognition that all police departments 
around the country have and are experiencing use of force 
issues, the bill identifies four of the larger more diverse 
police departments to receive grant monies--the District of 
Columbia, city of New York and the cities of Chicago and Los 
Angeles. Most of these departments have embraced the bill, have 
been and will continue to be engaged in improved initial and 
ongoing training for police officers, and have agreed to make 
their training and policing programs and hiring, recruiting and 
oversight policies and practices available to the Commission 
for study.
    It is expected that because these larger departments 
experience a wide range of contacts between police and 
citizens, their activities will provide better insight into a 
wider range of effective training programs in the use of force 
areas identified in the bill. In turn, this diversity will 
offer greater assistance to Congress and police departments for 
future consideration of effective training programs and 
policing strategies, hiring, recruiting, and oversight policies 
and practices.
    The Commission is to be a bipartisan Commission comprised 
of knowledgeable professionals with policing, sociological, 
organizational and other relevant law enforcement experience. 
Four Commission members will be selected by the Speaker of the 
House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader 
and the Senate Minority Leader. Those four members will then 
select the fifth member and together they will determine the 
Chairman of the Commission. The Commission will have the 
ability to call upon appropriate experts and knowledgeable 
persons and resources both inside and outside of government in 
performing its oversight study. At the conclusion of the 
Commission, a report will be forwarded to Congress detailing 
the findings of the study and its recommendations as to further 
Congressional involvement and funding of these programs.
    Legislative History.--The Full Committee held a hearing on 
H.R. 1659 on May 12, 1999. The witnesses were: Congressman Jose 
Serrano (New York), Congressman Gregory W. Meeks (New York), 
Congressman James T. Walsh (New York), Deputy Chief Julius 
Davis, Human Resources, Los Angeles Police Department, Chief 
Edward A. Flynn, Police Executive Research Forum, Chairman of 
the Legislative Committee and Chief of Arlington County Police 
Department, Assistant Chief Terrance W. Gainer, District of 
Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, Clarence N. Wood, 
President, Human Relations Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, 
Martin L. Pfeifer, Trustee, National Fraternal Order of Police, 
Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police Memorial Committee, 
Sergeant District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department 
Callie L. Baird, Administrator In Charge, Office of 
Professional Standards, Chicago Police Dept. Charles B. 
Roberts, Assistant Deputy Superintendent, Training Division, 
Chicago Police Department. The Committee amended the bill and 
ordered it favorably reported to the House on May 19, 1999. H. 
Rept. 106-190 was filed on June 18, 1999.

Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999--H.R. 1858

    On May 19, 1999, Representative Bliley introduced H.R. 
1858, the ``Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 
1999.'' The legislation was referred sequentially to the 
Committee on the Judiciary on September 30, 1999. Although the 
bill was held at the Full Committee for the purpose of floor 
consideration and was discharged without action, the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property held hearings 
on the issue of database protection. Those hearings and the 
legislative history of H.R. 354 are detailed in the 
Subcommittee section later in this report.

A bill to prohibit a state from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax 
        on nonresidents--H.R. 2014

    H.R. 2014 provides that states must tax residents and 
nonresidents in a substantially equal manner. It was intended 
to codify the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in 
Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656 (1974). That standard is 
a ``rule of substantial equality of treatment for the citizens 
of the taxing state and the non-resident taxpayers.'' The case 
law, and the bill, are based on the Privileges and Immunities 
Clause of the United States Constitution (article IV, section 
2), which provides that ``citizens of each state shall be 
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
several states.''
    The legislation was introduced on June 7, 1999 by Mr. 
Franks, after the state of New York passed a law exempting New 
York state residents from New York City's commuter tax. On June 
23, 1999, the full committee ordered the bill reported by a 
vote of 17 ayes to 7 nays. House Report 106-203. At the time of 
committee consideration, there were several lawsuits pending 
which challenged the tax's constitutionality. Because that 
litigation resulted in an invalidation of the statute, no 
further action was taken on the bill.

A bill to exempt certain reports from automatic elimination--H.R. 3111 
        (S. 1769)

    The committee ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 
3111, a bill to exempt certain reports from automatic 
elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal Reports 
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, as amended. The Federal 
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 provided that all 
periodic reports provided to Congress will sunset on December 
21, 1999, unless reauthorized by Congress. The intent of the 
act was to spur Congress to reexamine all the periodic reports 
it receives and eliminate the obsolete reports. After careful 
review, the Committee in conjunction with the Senate determined 
that about 56 reports, out of thousands of reports subject to 
sunset, are necessary for the committee to perform its 
legislative and oversight duties. Examples include the U.S. 
Department of Justice's annual report on crime statistics and 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service's annual statistical 
report. The text of the bill was included in S. 1769, relating 
to reporting requirements under section 2519 of title 18, 
United States Code. For further information about S. 1769, see 
the discussion in the Subcommittee on Crime's section of this 
report. S. 1769 became law on May 2, 2000, as Public Law 106-
197.

The Student Athlete Protection Act--H.R. 3575

    Summary.--H.R. 3575 would establish a gambling on Olympic, 
college, and high school athletic events, or gambling on any 
competition in which a college, or high school athlete is 
competing. This ban is a response to recommendation 3.7 of the 
National Gambling Impact Study Commission's (NGISC) Final 
Report, issued in June 1999. The NGISC was established on June 
3, 1996 by Public Law 104-169. Recommendation 3.7 states ``that 
the betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events be banned 
altogether.'' Under current law, the Professional and Amateur 
Sports Protection Act (PASPA), signed by President Bush in 
1992, gambling on these events is only permitted in Nevada, 
H.R. 3575 would amend PASPA and close this loophole.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3575 was introduced on February 
3rd, 2000 by Representatives Lindsey Graham (SC), Tim Roemer 
(IN), David McIntosh (IN), and James Greenwood (PA), was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ultimately 
garnered 81 cosponsors. The full Judiciary Committee held one 
day of hearings on H.R. 3575 on June 13th, 2000. Testimony was 
received from 12 witnesses, representing colleges and 
universities, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, 
collegiate athletic coaches, the President and Chief Executive 
officer of the American Gaming Association, Chairman of the 
Nevada Gaming Commission, a board member of the Nevada Gaming 
Control Board, and members of Congress. Additional material was 
submitted by a Nevada Regent, Professional Sports 
Organizations, an expert doctor, and the committee is in 
receipt of the National Gaming Impact Study Commission's Final 
Report. On September 13th, 2000, the Committee met in open 
session and ordered H.R. 3575 favorably reported without 
amendment by a vote of 19 ayes, 9 nays, and 1 present. On 
September 27th, 2000, H.R. 3575 was reported to the Full House, 
House Report 106-903, and placed on the Union Calendar.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act--H.R. 3660 and S. 1692

    On February 15, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Charles T. 
Canady introduced the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 
2000'' (H.R. 3660), a bill that would ban the partial-birth 
abortion procedure. A partial-birth abortion is any abortion in 
which an intact living fetus is partially delivered until some 
portion of the fetus is outside the body of the mother before 
the fetus is killed and the delivery completed. An abortionist 
who violates the ban would be subject to fines or a maximum of 
two years imprisonment, or both. H.R. 3660 also establishes a 
civil cause of action for damages against an abortionist who 
violates the ban. The cause of action can be maintained by the 
father of the child or, if the mother is under 18, the maternal 
grandparents.
    H.R. 3660 is similar to legislation first introduced during 
the 104th Congress to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure. 
That legislation passed the House by a vote of 286 to 129, and 
the Senate by a vote of 54 to 44. Following a veto by President 
Clinton on April 10, 1996, a two-thirds majority of the House 
voted to override the veto, but the vote in the Senate fell 
short of the two-thirds needed to override the veto.
    Legislation banning the partial-birth abortion procedure 
was introduced again in the 105th Congress. The House passed 
the bill on March 20, 1997, by a vote of 295-136, and the 
Senate passed the bill on May 20, 1997, by a vote of 64 to 36. 
The President vetoed the legislation on October 10, 1997, 
however, and although the House readily overrode the veto, the 
Senate again fell just short of the necessary votes for an 
override. Prior to passage, the language of the legislation was 
modified slightly from the previous version in order to ensure 
that the bill would not chill the performance of conventional 
abortion procedures, thereby gaining the endorsement of the 
American Medical Association.
    H.R. 3660 is quite similar to the bill that passed the 
House and Senate during the 105th Congress. The language of the 
bill has been modified slightly from the previous version in 
order to alleviate concerns raised in response to various court 
decisions striking down State partial-birth abortion bans on 
the grounds that the bans also reached conventional late-term 
abortion procedures. Specifically, the previous version of the 
bill defined a partial-birth abortion as ``an abortion in which 
the person performing the abortion partially-vaginally delivers 
a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing 
delivery.'' Many of the State partial-birth abortion bans 
include similar language, and some courts have construed that 
language to also encompass the conventional late term abortion 
procedure known as ``dilation and evacuation.'' During the 
dilation and evacuation procedure, the cervix is dilated and 
the fetus is dismembered and removed through the use of 
surgical instruments, and according to some abortionists, the 
dismemberment sometimes occurs after a part of the fetus has 
been pulled through the cervix.
    H.R. 3600 is drafted to ensure that the dilation and 
evacuation procedure is not covered by the ban. Under H.R. 
3660, ``partial-birth abortion'' is defined as ``an abortion in 
which the person performing the abortion deliberately and 
intentionally--(A) vaginally delivers some portion of anintact 
living fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the 
mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person 
knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially outside the body 
of the mother; and (B) performs the overt act that kills the fetus 
while the intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the 
mother.''
    H.R. 3660 passed in the House on April 5, 2000, without 
amendment, by a vote of 287 to 141. Following passage of H.R. 
3660, the House took up the Senate version of the ban (S. 
1692), which had passed in the Senate on October 21, 1999 by a 
vote of 63 to 34. Because opponents of the partial-birth 
abortion ban in the Senate had succeeded in amending S. 1692 to 
include several amendments, the House struck the text of S. 
1692, inserted the text of H.R. 3660, insisted on its 
amendment, and requested a conference with the Senate. No 
further action was taken on the measure.

H.R. 4205, a bill authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for 
        military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
        construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
        Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year 
        for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes

    H.R. 4205, a bill authorizing appropriations for fiscal 
year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such 
fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, was 
introduced by representative Floyd Spence (R-SC) on April 6, 
2000. The bill, as amended, passed the House on May 18, 2000. 
Thereafter, the Senate substituted the text of S. 2549 for that 
of H.R. 4205 and passed the bill as amended.
    Chairman Hyde, Representative Canady and Ranking Member 
Conyers of the Committee on the Judiciary were appointed to the 
conference on H.R. 4205 with respect to certain provisions 
within the Committee's jurisdiction. While the introduced 
version of this bill did not include any provisions relating to 
bankruptcy law, the Senate amendment added several provisions 
pertaining to the dischargeability of certain debts under the 
Bankruptcy Code. These provisions, however, were not among 
those for which the Judiciary Committee conferees were 
appointed.
    The conference report on H.R. 4205 contained several 
sections dealing with the dischargeability in bankruptcy of 
certain obligations relating to service in the military. These 
included section 624 (enlistment bonuses), section 628 (special 
pay and accession bonuses for pharmacy officers), section 633 
(special pay obligations relating to retention incentives for 
members in the armed services who qualified in a critical 
military skill), and section 922 (financial assistance for 
certain educational purposes). The Judiciary Committee 
conferees were also appointed for consideration of provisions 
relating to the organization and management of the Civil Air 
Patrol, employment and compensation provisions for employees of 
temporary organizations, payment of military retired pay to 
Federal judges, settlement of claims for payments for unused 
accrued leave and retired pay, additional benefits for illness 
and injury in performance of funeral honors duty, and 
Department of Energy workers' compensation. The Judiciary 
Committee conferees took no action with respect to these 
provisions as they generally comported with others presently 
codified in title 10 of the United States Code. After passage 
by both bodies, the conference report was signed into law on 
October 30, 2000 (Public Law 106-398).

H.R. 4845, The Federal Property Campaign Fundraising Reform Act of 2000

    Summary.--Over the past several years, the House Committee 
on the Judiciary has been closely following the actions of the 
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') relating to the campaign 
finance investigation and the decisions not to seek the 
appointment of an independent counsel in that or related 
matters. The Committee reviewed thousands of pages of documents 
relating to the Campaign Finance Task Force (``CFTC'') 
investigation and independent counsel issues. Among the 
thousands of pages reviewed by the Committee are many that 
address issues about campaign fundraising on federal property. 
This review led to the inevitable conclusion that the statute 
prohibiting campaign fundraising of federal property needed to 
be amended.
    Under current law, the Federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 607, prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving 
campaign contributions within the meaning of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act (i.e. hard money--contributions intended 
to influence a federal election) in any room or building 
occupied in the discharge of official duties. According to the 
DOJ, the current ban does not apply to soft money (i.e. 
contributions that are not regulated by the Federal Election 
Campaign Act (``FECA'')), contributions designed to influence 
races for state and local office, or contributions intended to 
influence ballot measures. Furthermore, the Department of 
Justice has publicly stated how difficult it would be to 
prosecute someone for soliciting campaign funds over a 
telephone from federal property to a person on private 
property. The ``Federal Property Campaign Fundraising Reform 
Act of 2000'' was introduced on July 13, 2000 by Mr. Hyde and 
18 cosponsors, in order to address all of these issues. 
Specifically, this legislation:
         Prohibits the solicitation of hard and soft 
        money in, to, or from federal property;
         Bans campaign solicitations made on federal 
        property by any means (including the telephone); and
          Bans solicitations made on federal property 
        for funds that are meant to influence state and local 
        elections and ballot measures such as initiatives and 
        referenda.
    The intent of H.R. 4845 is to amend section 607 to embody 
what was previously thought to be proscribed under current law. 
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct described 
their understanding of the law as follows:

          The general rule on solicitation, briefly state, is 
        that members and staff may not solicit political 
        contributions in or from House offices, and this 
        general prohibition applies no matter how the 
        solicitation is made (in person, over the telephone, or 
        through the mail), and no matter the nature of the 
        contribution solicited (hard money, soft money, or 
        contributions for a state or localcampaign). Memorandum 
For All Members, Officers and Employees from the House Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, relating to Rules and Standards of 
Conduct Relating to Campaign Activity, 6, March 2, 2000 (emphasis in 
original).

    Legislative History.--On July 20, 2000, the full Committee 
held a hearing on H.R. 4845 at which the following witness 
appeared: Mr. John C. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General, Criminal Division, United States Department of 
Justice.

Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000--H.R. 4888

    On July 19, 2000, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 
introduced the ``Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000'' (H.R. 
4888), a bill that would make it unlawful for the federal 
government or any state government to execute a woman while she 
is pregnant. This legislation was designed to fulfil the United 
States' obligations under the International Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights. Article 6(5) of the Covenant provides, in 
pertinent part, that a ``[s]entence of death * * * shall not be 
carried out on pregnant women.'' The United States agreed to 
this prohibition, and promised to ``take necessary steps * * * 
to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary 
to give effect to the rights recognized in the present 
Covenant.'' On July 25, 2000, the Committee was discharged and 
on a motion to suspend the rules, H.R. 4888 passed the House by 
a vote of 417 to 0.

H. Con. Res. 124, sense of Congress relating to loyalty of Americans of 
        Asian ancestry/S. Con. Res. 53, condemning all prejudice 
        against individuals of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry in the 
        United States

    On May 27, 1999, Representative David Wu introduced H. Con. 
Res. 124, a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress 
relating to recent allegations of espionage and illegal 
campaign financing that may have brought into question the 
loyalty and probity of Americans of Asian ancestry. This 
resolution pronounced the sense of Congress to heighten 
awareness and focus attention on guarding against stereotyping 
and discriminating against Americans of Asian descent. The Full 
Committee ordered the resolution to be favorably reported by 
voice vote to the House on September 22, 1999. The Committee 
was discharged from further consideration of the bill on 
November 2, 1999. H. Con. Res. 124 passed the House on November 
2, 1999.
    On August 5, 1999, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 
Con. Res. 53, a resolution that expresses the sense of Congress 
that no Member of Congress or any other individual in the 
United States should stereotype or generalize the actions of an 
individual that an entire group of people; individuals of Asian 
and Pacific Island ancestry in the United States are entitled 
to all rights and privileges afforded to all individuals in the 
United States; and the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
Energy, and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission should, within their respective 
jurisdictions, investigate all allegations of discrimination in 
public or private workplaces and vigorously enforce the 
security of U.S. national laboratories, without discriminating 
against such individuals. The measure was referred to the 
Senate Committee on Judiciary. On July 20, 1999, the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary ordered that the resolution be 
favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and an amendment to the title and with an amended 
preamble. On July 27, 2000, the Senate passed the amended 
resolution by unanimous consent. On September 6, 2000, the 
resolution was received in the House and referred the House 
Judiciary committee. The measure was then held at Full 
Committee.

H. Con. Res. 180--expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
        President should not have granted clemency to terrorists

    Summary.--H. Con. Res. 180 expressed the sense of the 
Congress that the President should not have granted clemency to 
The Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN) terrorists. On 
August 11, 1999, President Clinton granted clemency to 16 FALN 
terrorists, contrary to the recommendations of numerous law 
enforcement agencies and the families of the victims of the 
FALN's reign of terror.
    The FALN is a militant terrorist organization that claimed 
responsibility for the bombings of approximately 130 civilian, 
political, and military sites throughout the United States and 
Puerto Rico in the 1970's and 1980's. During the FALN's violent 
attempts at seeking independence for Puerto Rico, six people 
died, and dozens of others were injured, including law 
enforcement officials. In addition, millions of dollars of 
property damage was caused by the FALN's violence.
    Upon their capture, the 16 members of the FALN were tried 
for numerous crimes, including seditious conspiracy, robbery, 
weapons charges and other felonies. They were convicted and 
sentenced to prison for terms up to 90 years. None of the 
terrorists expressed remorse for their actions at their trial, 
sentencing or while in prison. Once these 16 were imprisoned, 
not a single act of terrorism occurred that was attributed to 
the FALN.
    When it became apparent that the President was 
contemplating release of the terrorists, numerous law 
enforcement agencies advised against granting clemency. The 
FBI, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and two United States Attorneys 
all reportedly recommended against granting leniency to them. 
The Bureau of Prisons reportedly based its decision in part on 
the existence tape-recorded telephone calls made by the 
terrorist inmates that indicated that some of the 16 vowed to 
resume their violent activities upon release from prison. 
Families of the victims of the FALN's activities pleaded with 
the President to keep the terrorists in prison and not grant 
them clemency.
    On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered the 16 FALN 
members clemency and 14 of them were released back into the 
community.
    Legislative History.--Because of the United States' long-
standing counter-terrorism policy against conceding to 
terrorists and bringing them to justice for their crimes, H. 
Con. Res. 180 was introduced on September 8, 1999 by Mr. 
Fossella for himself, along with Mr. Dreier, Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
Bliley, Mr. Archer, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. 
Royce, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Smith of New 
Jersey, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Stump, Mr. Watts of 
Oklahoma, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Traficant, Mrs. 
Kelly, Mr. Cox, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Upton, Mr. Istook, Mr. 
Chambliss, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Packard,, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Buyer, 
Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. 
Knollenberg, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Weller, 
Mr. Ewing, Mr. Largent, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. 
Shadegg. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and 
held at full committee onSeptember 8, 1999. On September 8, 
1999, the Committee on Rules reported and the House adopted H. Res. 
281, the rule providing for a motion to suspend the rules and pass H. 
Con. Res. 180 (H. Rept. 106-309). On September 9, 1999, the Committee 
on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of H. Con. 
Res. 180 which was as agreed to by the House under suspension of the 
rules, by a vote of 311 yeas, 41 nays, and 72 ``present''. On September 
13, 1999, it was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary on September 29, 1999.

Appointment of Managers to conduct the Impeachment Trial of President 
        William Jefferson Clinton--H. Res. 10

    During the One Hundred and Fifth Congress, on December 19, 
1998, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the 
House of Representatives. On that same day, the House 
appointed, pursuant to H. Res. 614, 13 managers to conduct the 
impeachment trial in the Senate. On January 6, 1999, in 
continuance of the authority conferred in H. Res. 614 of the 
One Hundred Fifth Congress, the House of Representatives 
reappointed, pursuant to H. Res. 10, Mr. Hyde of Illinois, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Mr. McCollum of Florida, Mr. Gekas 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Buyer of Indiana, 
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot of Ohio, Mr. Barr of 
Georgia, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Cannon of Utah, Mr. 
Rogan of California, and Mr. Graham of South Carolina managers 
to conduct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson 
Clinton, President of the United States.

Disavowing racism and bigotry--H. Res. 121

    On March 17, 1999, Representative J.C. Watts introduced H. 
Res. 121, a resolution affirming Congress' opposition to all 
forms of racism and bigotry. H. Res. 121 was referred to the 
House Committee on the Judiciary and subsequently discharged on 
March 23, 1999 without Committee consideration. The resolution 
was considered by the full House under suspension of the rules 
on March 23, 1999 and it failed to attain the necessary two-
thirds majority, 254-152 (218 Republicans and 36 Democrats 
voted yes; 1 Republican and 150 Democrats voted no), with 24 
members voting present. H. Res. 121 declared that the House of 
Representatives: (1) insists that individuals' rights are 
nonnegotiable; (2) opposes those seeking to divide Americans on 
the grounds of race, religion, or ethnic origin; (3) denounces 
all who practice racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or 
religious intolerance; and (4) calls on all American of good 
will be reject hatred and bigotry.

Recognizing the service of police officers--H. Res. 165 and H. Res. 501

    Representative Joel Hefley (R-CO) introduced H. Res. 165 to 
express the sense of the House of Representative that all peace 
officers slain in the line of duty should be honored and 
recognized and to urge the President to issue a proclamation 
calling on all citizen to honor and recognize such officers 
with appropriate ceremonies. On May 11, 1999, the Committee on 
the Judiciary was discharged from consideration of the 
resolution, and House agreed to the resolution by a recorded 
vote of 420 ayes to 0 nays.
    Represenative Jim Ramstead (R-MN) introduced H. Res. 501 to 
honor and recognize slain peace officers and the sacrifices and 
risks taken daily to all police officers and to urge the 
President to issue a proclamation calling on all citizens to 
honor and recognize such officers with appropriate ceremonies. 
On May 15, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged 
from consideration of the resolution the House agreed to the 
resolution by voice vote.

Recognizing the historical significance of the Supreme Court's 
        unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education--H. Res. 176

    On May 18 1999, Representative Thompson introduced H. Res. 
176 a resolution recognizing the historical significance of the 
Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of 
Education, repudiating segregation, and reaffirming the 
fundamental belief that we are all ``one Nation under God, 
indivisible''. The matter was referred to the House Committee 
on the Judiciary, which was discharged from further 
consideration that day. The resolution was then considered by 
unanimous consent and passed the House on May 18, 1999.

S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999

    S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, 
was introduced by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) on April 28, 1999. 
After its passage by the Senate on May 6, 1999, the House 
substituted the text of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 
1999, for the text of S. 900, and passed the bill as amended.
    Chairman Hyde, Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law Chairman Gekas, and Ranking Member Conyers 
of the Committee on the Judiciary were appointed to the 
conference on S. 900 with respect to certain provisions within 
the Committee's jurisdiction, two of which pertained to 
bankruptcy law. Section 136 of S. 900 established various 
regulatory requirements for wholesale financial institutions, 
including the creation of a new subchapter under chapter 7 of 
the Bankruptcy Code to deal with their liquidation. Section 197 
was intended to enhance the ``source of strength doctrine,'' 
which requires bank holding companies to provide financial 
assistance to its bank subsidiaries in financial distress. 
While the conference report on S. 900 did not include section 
136, it did incorporate a modified version of section 197. 
Included in S. 900 as section 730, this provision differed from 
the House amendment in several respects. First, it clarified 
that the transferred assets must be those of an affiliate or a 
controlling shareholder of an insured depository institution. 
The House amendment did not so specify. Second, section 730 
provided that the transfer must be to or for the benefit of an 
insured depository institution and that it must be made by an 
affiliate or controlling shareholder of such insured depository 
institution. The House amendment did not include such 
clarifying language. Third, section 730 specified that no 
person may bring a claim against a Federal banking agency for 
monetary damages, or for other legal or equitable relief in 
connection with such transfer. The House amendment only 
referred to claims for monetary damages or for the return of 
assets or other property. Fourth, section 730 eliminated the 
House amendment's provision concerning its application to the 
rights of certain entities. Further, section 730 added a 
definition of the term ``claim.'' For purposes of this 
provision, a claim was defined as a cause of action based on 
Federal or State law providing for the avoidance of 
preferential or fraudulent transfers or conveyances, or 
providing for similar remedies. The definition, 
however,explicitly excepted any claim based on actual intent to hinder, 
delay or defraud pursuant to such fraudulent transfer or conveyance 
law.
    S. 900 also contained provisions that implicated the 
Committee's antitrust jurisdiction. Under current law, bank 
mergers are reviewed under special bank merger statutes, and 
they do not go through the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review 
process that covers most other mergers. Under S. 900, banks 
will be able to get into other businesses which they have not 
been able to do before.
    The principle that S. 900 follows is that when mergers 
occur, the bank part of that merger will be judged under the 
current bank merger statutes, and no change is intended in that 
process or in any of the agencies' respective jurisdictions. 
The non-bank part of that merger will be subject to the normal 
Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review by either the Justice 
Department or the Federal Trade Commission.
    This is, in all likelihood, the result that would have 
obtained anyway. Hybrid transactions involving complex 
corporate entities--some parts of which are in industries 
subject to merger review by specialized regulatory agencies and 
other parts of which are not--have occurred in the past. In 
those cases, the various parts of the consolidation were 
considered according to agency jurisdiction over their 
respective parts, so that normal Hart-Scott-Rodino Act 
requirements applied to those parts that did not fall within 
the specialized agency's specific authority. See, e.g., 16 
C.F.R. Sec. 802.6. These precedents would have probably 
dictated the desired result here.
    The clarification for the new financial holding company 
structure contained in Sec. 133(c) is consistent with, and in 
no way disturbs, those existing precedents. Even so, S. 900 
makes a big change in our banking laws, and the Judiciary 
conferees thought it would be most helpful to clarify this 
point with respect to financial holding companies in the 
statute. That clarification was achieved with the language in 
Sec. 133(c) of the Conference Report. Similar language was a 
part of the House bill.
    As the shape of the new activities in which banks were 
going to be permitted to engage through operating subsidiaries 
became clear in conference, the conferees ideally would have 
further revised the House language to make a similar 
clarification regarding consolidations of non-banking entities 
that are operating subsidiaries of merging banks. But the 
operating subsidiary situation so closely parallels the 
precedents mentioned above that a clarification for that 
situation was probably unnecessary.
    Of course, whatever aspect of a banking merger is not 
subject to normal Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger review will be 
subject to the alternative procedures set forth in the Bank 
Merger Act and the Bank Holding Company Act, including the 
automatic stay. So one way or another, there will be some 
avenue for effective premerger review by the antitrust 
enforcement agencies. These alternative procedures would be in 
some ways more potentially disruptive to the merging banking 
entities, particularly when the antitrust concern involves non-
banking entities. But it is our intent that the precedents will 
be followed.
    In short, under this bill and the precedents, no bank is 
treated differently than it otherwise would be because it has 
some other business within its corporate family. Likewise, no 
other business is treated differently than it otherwise would 
be because it has a bank within its corporate family.
    The conference report also includes conforming language 
found in Sec. 133(a) to clarify that the Federal Trade 
Commission's authority in the non-banking sphere is preserved. 
These provisions were advisable in light of the fact that the 
FTC's enforcement authority specifically excludes banks and 
savings associations, but does not and should not exclude the 
non-banking entities that will be brought into the banking 
picture as a result of the new law. S. 900 clarifies that the 
existing exemption is limited to the bank or savings 
association itself and that the FTC retains jurisdiction over 
nonbank entities despite any corporate connections they may 
have with banks or savings associations. This clarification 
applies to the FTC's jurisdiction over non-banking firms under 
the FTC Act, and accordingly under any statute that may provide 
for enforcement under the Act like the consumer credit laws and 
the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act. 
For example, the FTC would continue to have jurisdiction over a 
telemarketer of financial services, even if it is a subsidiary 
or affiliate of a bank. The FTC's authority would not be 
expanded or extended to any new statute that may not be 
enforced under the FTC Act. These provisions were also included 
in the House bill.
    Again, no bank is treated differently than it otherwise 
would be because it has some other business within its 
corporate family. Likewise, no other business is treated 
differently than it otherwise would be because it has a bank 
within its corporate family.
    After passage by both the House and the Senate, the 
conference report on S. 900 was signed into law on November 12, 
1999 (Public Law 106-102).

H.R. 1401 (S. 1059), a bill authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 
        2000 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
        military construction, and for defense activities of the 
        Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such 
        fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes

    Members of the Committee served as conferees on H.R. 1401 
(S. 1059), to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 
and 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such 
fiscal year for the Armed Forces and for other purposes for 
consideration of provisions relating to government access to 
classified information on Department of Energy defense-related 
computers, the conduct of security clearances, and restriction 
on access to national laboratories by foreign visitors from 
sensitive countries. S. 1059 became law on October 5, 1999 as 
Public Law 106-65.

                          Oversight Activities

    Pursuant to Rule X, clause 2(d), the Committee adopted an 
oversight plan for the 106th Congress. The oversight plan 
incorporated the matters which the Committee deemed, at the 
beginning of the Congress, to be worthy of its attention. Some 
of the matters contained in the oversight plan were addressed 
in the context of legislative hearings. The following is a list 
of the oversight hearings held by the full Committee. The 
oversight activities of the subcommittees will be discussed 
separately.

Full Committee Oversight Hearings

    Antitrust Aspects of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. 
May 5, 1999. (Serial No. 30).
    Youth Culture and Violence. May 13, 1999. (Serial No. 20).
    Competitive Issues in Electricity Deregulation. July 28, 
1999. (Serial No. 69).
    Hate Crimes Violence. August 4, 1999. (Serial No. 74).
    Competitive Issues in Agriculture and the Food Marketing 
Industry. October 20, 1999. (Serial No. 67).
    Solutions to Competitive Problems in the Oil Industry. 
March 29, April 7, June 28, 2000. (Serial No. 127).
    Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: The Bureau of Competition 
of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice. April 12, 2000. (Serial No. 104).
    State of Competition in the Airline Industry. June 14, 23, 
2000. (Serial No. 126).
    Investigation of Misconduct and Mismanagement at ICITAP, 
OPDAT and the Criminal Division's Office of Administration. 
September 21, 2000. (Serial No. 128).

Full Committee Oversight Activities

review of documents relating to the attorney general's decision not to 
seek the appointment of an independent counsel in the campaign finance 
                                 matter

    Over the past several years the House Committee on the 
Judiciary has been closely following the actions of the 
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') relating tot he campaign 
finance investigation and the decisions not to seek the 
appointment of an independent counsel in that and related 
matters. In fact, the Committee on March 12, 1997, and 
September 3, 1997, requested that the Attorney General apply 
for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate 
this scandal. The Committee then held an oversight hearing on 
October 15, 1997, at which the Attorney General testified about 
the investigation and her decision not to seek the appointment 
of an independent counsel. Concerned about reports about 
management and operational problems encountered by the Campaign 
Finance Task Force (``CFTF''), the Committee requested on 
October 30, 1998, that the General Accounting Office (``GAO'') 
review the operation of the Public Integrity Section and the 
CFTC. The Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on March 2, 1999, regarding 
the reauthorization of the Independent Counsel statute. The 
Committee's Chief investigative Counsel reviewed the Freeh \1\ 
and La Bella \2\ memoranda, Chief of Public Integrity Section 
Lee Radek's rebuttal \3\ to the La Bella memorandum, and La 
Bella's response \4\ to Radek's rebuttal, at the Department of 
Justice on February 8 and 9, 2000. After that review, the 
Committee requested on February 24, 2000, that the GAO be 
permitted to review the same memoranda; however, the DOJ never 
responded to that reasonable request.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Memorandum from the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Louis J. Freeh, to the Attorney General, dated November 
24, 1997 (``Freeh Memo'').
    \2\ Interim Report for Janet Reno, Attorney General, and Louis J. 
Freeh, Director, FBI regarding the campaign finance investigation, 
prepared by Charles LaBella, Supervising Attorney, Campaign Financing 
Task Force and James DeSarno, Assistant Director, FBI CAMPCON Task 
Force (``LaBella Memo'') (July 16, 1998).
    \3\ Memorandum from Lee J. Radek, Chief, Public Integrity Section 
to James K. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, 
reviewing the LaBella and DeSarno Interim Report (August 5, 1998).
    \4\ Addendum to Interim Report Interim Report for Janet Reno, 
Attorney General, and Louis J. Freeh, Director, FBI, regarding the 
campaign finance investigation, prepared by Charles LaBella, 
Supervising Attorney, Campaign Financing Task Force and James DeSarno, 
Assistant Director, FBI CAMPCON Task Force (``LaBella Memo'') (August 
12, 1998).
    \5\ Letter to the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General, from the 
Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, 
February 24, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of the Committee's lingering concerns about the 
decision not to seek the appointment of an independent counsel 
in the campaign finance matter, the operation and management of 
the Task Force, and the Department's interpretation of various 
criminal laws implicated in this matter, the Committee 
requested, along with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in 
an April 5, 2000, letter, that the Attorney General produce 
pertinent records.\6\ Subsequent to the delivery of the April 
5, 2000, letter, the Subcommittee on the Constitution noticed a 
meeting to authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for 
April 13, 2000. At the request of Ranking Member John Conyers, 
the Subcommittee postponed the meeting and instead met with 
Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, Assistant Attorney General 
for Legislative Affairs Robert Raben, and other DOJ officials 
about the March 29 document request. At that meeting both 
Chairmen Hyde and Canady stressed the seriousness and 
importance of the matter and indicated that the Committee was 
willing to litigate the matter and would seek review of the 
Department's noncompliance in Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1331 (general federal question jurisdiction). In an April 
13, 2000, letter to Messers. Holder and Raben, Chairmen Hyde 
and Canady wrote: ``Because your have assured us that the 
Justice Department is acting in good faith, will seriously 
consider our legal and institutional prerogatives, and will 
search for and collect all documents responsive to our request 
over the next two weeks, we have postponed consideration of the 
subpoena until Wednesday, May 3, 2000.'' Over the course of the 
following several weeks, majority and minority staff had 
several meetings with DOJ representatives about the production 
of pertinent documents. A final meeting with the principles was 
scheduled for May 3, 2000, and the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution postponed the issuance of the subpoena. At the May 
3, 2000 meeting, a final agreement was worked out for the 
production and receipt of responsive documents.\7\ The 
Committee received the first installment of documents on May 8, 
2000. Other committees of the Congress received the same 
documents several weeks thereafter. On June 6, 2000, the House 
Committee on Government Reform publicly released these at a 
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Letter to the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General, from the 
Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, 
the Honorable Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
the Honorable Charles Canady, Chairman, House Committee on the 
Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, and the Honorable Arlen 
Specter, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Department 
of Justice Oversight Investigation, Subcommittee on Administrative 
Oversight and the Courts, April 5, 2000. The authors expressed their 
concerns as follow:

        As you know, over the past several years there has been 
      intense public and congressional concern regarding the 
      Department of Justice's handling of the campaign finance 
      investigation, including (1) whether the Department used 
      the independent counsel law to prevent law enforcement 
      officials from investigating high level ``covered'' 
      persons, (2) whether decisions regarding the appointment of 
      an independent counsel and other key prosecutorial 
      decisions were made by taking the most exculpatory view of 
      all potentially damaging evidence, (3) whether such 
      decisions were made based on untested factual assumptions 
      that turned out to be false, (4) whether consistent and 
      principled judgments were made regarding important legal 
      issues, such as the legality of using federal property for 
      fundraising purposes, (5) whether the Department failed to 
      investigate credible allegations that might have implicated 
      high level government officials, such as Common Cause's 
      allegation of a conspiracy to violate campaign funding 
      laws, (6) whether the Department failed adequately to 
      consider the possibility that innumerable individual 
      examples of campaign fundraising violations or 
      improprieties reflected an overall scheme or pattern, (7) 
      why high level government officials were never asked key 
      questions about their knowledge regarding these violations 
      and improprieties, (8) why lawbreakers such as Charlie Trie 
      and John Huang were given plea agreements which were too 
      lenient, (9) why the recommendations and views of 
      distinguished and career law enforcement officials such as 
      FBI Director Freeh and Charles La Bella, your handpicked 
      prosecutor, were repeatedly overruled or ignored by senior 
      officials at the Department, and why these officials were 
      excluded from some aspects of the investigation and (10) 
      why there are still no answers to important questions such 
      as why Chinese government officials provided hundred of 
      thousands of dollars for contributions to an American 
      political campaign. These concerns have not been alleviated 
      by recent disclosures regarding the now famous Freeh and La 
      Bella memoranda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Letter to the Honorable Janet Reno from the Honorable Henry 
Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, the Honorable Charles 
Canady, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, the Honorable John 
Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and 
Melvin Watt, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
(enclosing the Protocol Agreement for Production of Document to the 
House Committee on the Judiciary by the Department of Justice), May 3, 
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      campaign finance task force

    At the request of the Committee, the General Accounting 
Office issued a May 2000 report titled: Campaign Finance Task 
Force: Problems and Disagreements Initially Hampered Justice's 
Investigation, GAO/GGD-00-101BR. The report addressed (1) 
strained working relationships and trust concerns; (2) 
disagreement over investigative approach; (3) management and 
analysis of evidence problems; (4) management changes, staffing 
fluctuations, and oversight; (5) CFTF prospective results and 
costs; (6) limitations in the Federal Election Campaign Act 
that may inhibit prosecutions.

                       the elian gonzalez matter

    In November, 1999, Elian Gonzalez, a five year old Cuban 
child, was rescued while drifting in the ocean off the coast of 
Florida. A few days earlier, he had left Cuba in a boat with 
his mother and several others. The boat subsequently capsized 
and Elian's mother and most of the other passengers perished. 
After his rescue, Elian was paroled by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service into the care of his great uncle, Lazaro 
Gonzalez. After several months of legal action, Elian's father, 
Juan Miguel Gonzalez, traveled to the United States from Cuba 
to claim his son. On April 12, Attorney General Reno revoked 
parole and ordered Lazaro Gonzalez to turn Elian over to her. 
Lazaro Gonzalez refused, and in the early morning hours of 
April 22, 2000, Federal authorities forcibly seized Elian 
Gonzalez from the home of his great-uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, in 
Miami, Florida and delivered him to his father in Maryland.
    On April 22, 2000 Speaker Hastert asked Chairman Hyde to 
exercise the Judiciary Committee's appropriate oversight 
function and examine the Justice Department's tactics and 
response to the Elian Gonzalez matter. In response to this 
request, Chairman Hyde announced on April 24, 2000 that he had 
directed House Judiciary Committee staff to ``begin a 
preliminary inquiry into the tactics employed in the seizure of 
Elian Gonzalez by federal authorities.''
    The following is a summary of the oversight Committee staff 
conducted of the Elian Gonzalez matter. Staff, majority and 
minority, had two briefings from main Justice and INS officials 
regarding the government's seizing of Elian Gonzalez from his 
Miami relatives on April 22, 2000. On May 3, 2000, Committee 
staff met with Bob Wallis, the INS District Director for 
Florida and Jim Goldman, the head of INS investigations in 
Florida. Brad Glassman from the Deputy Attorney General's 
office was also at the meeting. The briefing focused on the 
preparation and execution of the raid, as well as a detailed 
discussion of the security threat in and around Lazaro 
Gonzalez's home. Committee staff met again with Brad Glassman 
on May 15, 2000 to discuss all aspects of the negotiations that 
took place between the government and the Gonzalez families 
from January through April, 2000. Staff also reviewed INS 
documents that were provided to the Committee after a telephone 
request. These documents included summaries of INS interviews 
with Juan Miguel Gonzalez in Cuba and after action reports from 
the six man Border Patrol Tactical Unit that entered Lazaro 
Gonzalez's home and seized Elian on April 22, 2000. In 
addition, staff read and analyzed the various court decisions 
that were rendered in the case.
    On July 27-28, 2000, committee staff, two from the majority 
and two from the minority, traveled to Miami, Florida and 
interviewed Miami businessmen and civic leaders Carlos De la 
Cruz and Carlos Saladrigas. They also interviewed University of 
Miami President Tad Foote and the two lead attorneys for Lazaro 
Gonzalez, Kendal Coffey and Manny Diaz. These interviews 
focused on each of the interviewees involvement in, and 
assessment of, the negotiations that took place from Thursday 
April 20 through Saturday April 22, 2000. These negotiations 
directly involved Attorney General Reno and were aimed at 
effectuating the reunification of Elian Gonzalez with his 
father. On Wednesday October 11, 2000, committee staff, two 
from the majority and three from the minority, interviewed via 
telephone Aaron Podhurst--Miami attorney, friend of Janet Reno, 
and the lead mediator and liaison with Attorney General Reno 
during the April 20-22, 2000 negotiations. This concluded the 
committee's oversight of the Elian Gonzalez matter. At this 
point it was determined by the Chairman that no further action 
by the Committee was required.

           justice department prosecution of obscenity cases

    In a June 10, 1998 memorandum from Deputy Attorney General 
Eric Holder to all United States Attorneys, Mr. Holder 
acknowledged the ``unprecedented growth'' in the distribution 
of obscenity and used the memorandum to remind the U.S. 
Attorney of the Department's policies and priorities in the 
prosecution of federal obscenity cases. Mr. Holder stated that, 
``the Federal role in prosecuting obscenity cases should be to 
focus upon the major producers and interstate distributors of 
obscenity of child pornography, while leaving to local 
jurisdictions the responsibility of dealing with local 
exhibitions and sales.'' Additionally, although he stated that 
the focus should be on major distributors, Mr. Holder also 
acknowledged the efficacy in prosecuting smaller distributors:

        prosecutors of cases involving relatively small 
        distributors can have a deterrent effect and would 
        dispel any notion that obscenity distributors are 
        insulated from prosecution if their operations fail to 
        exceed a predetermined size of if they fragment their 
        business into small-scale operations. Therefore, 
        prosecution of such distributors also may be 
        appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

    In light of this articulated policy of the Department of 
Justice, the Republican members of the House Judiciary 
Committee's Crime Subcommittee sent a letter to Attorney 
General Reno onMarch 22, 1999 regarding prosecution of 
obscenity and child pornography cases. In this letter, the members 
requested Ms. Reno to provide the Subcommittee with the annual number 
of cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under each of the 
Federal obscenity statutes (title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1460 et seq.) and the 
Federal child exploitation and pornography statutes (title 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2251 et seq.) during the past 10 years (beginning with 1988). The 
Attorney General was also requested to specifically identify Internet 
obscenity prosecutions brought pursuant to P.L. 104-104, Sec. 507 et 
seq. Finally, the Subcommittee members asked for an explanation of the 
Justice Department's policies and priorities with respect to the 
prosecution of obscenity and child pornography. The Subcommittee 
members received a reply letter dated June 11, 1999 from Jon P. 
Jennings, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs. On 
January 24, 2000, Committee staff sent a follow-up letter to the 
Department requesting copies of all obscenity related indictments (18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1460 et seq.) filed by the Department from 1997 through 
1999. Robert Raben, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, 
responded to this letter on April 6, 2000. Furthermore, Committee staff 
was briefed by officials from the Justice Department's Child 
Exploitation and Obscenity Section on May 24, 2000.
    From the review of the statistics provided by Mr. Jennings 
and copies of Justice Department indictments provided by Mr. 
Raben, the Committee's majority staff determined that the 
Clinton Justice Department has failed to prosecute either large 
or small scale distributors of obscenity. Additionally, the 
Department has not prosecuted a single distributor of obscenity 
over the Internet under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1462 or 1465, 
despite the fact that Mr. Holder declared that ``priority also 
should be given to large-scale distributors of obscenity over 
the Internet,'' and that ``investigation and prosecution of 
Internet obscenity is particularly suitable for federal 
resources.''
    The Department has a widely supported policy of giving 
priority to cases involving the use of children in ``producing 
pornography and cases involving interstate or foreign shipment 
of material depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit 
conduct.'' However, the Department has utterly ignored its 
stated policy of also enforcing the federal obscenity laws. The 
Congress has provided the Department with adequate resources to 
pursue obscenity prosecutions (including an earmarked $1 
million appropriation in fiscal year 1999 solely for online 
obscenity prosecutions) and the Child Exploitation and 
Obscenity section of the Department of Justice has the 
capabilities to successfully prosecute obscenity cases, as 
evidenced by the determined and successful approach this 
section took towards distributors of obscenity in the late 
1980's and early 1900's.
    It is clear from copies of indictments provided by the 
Department to the Committee that the Department of Justice has 
no policy to prosecute large or small producers or distributors 
of obscenity. The Department should have a comprehensive 
program which would vigorously prosecute obscenity cases 
involving children, child pornography cases, and online 
predator cases. Such a program should also include as a 
necessary component the aggressive prosecution of large scale 
producers and distributors of obscenity. Clearly the policy 
makers in Congress have determined that obscenity is harmful 
and even adults should be prohibited from producing, buying, or 
selling obscene materials. That is why Congress has enacted 
Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 71, sections 1460-1470. 
These laws against obscenity were vigorously enforced during 
the 1980's and early 1990's. They have been neglected, however, 
over the last 6 years.

  Review of federal bureau of prisons' management of inmate telephone 
        privileges in the wake of the FALN terrorist clemencies

    In August, 1999, the Department of Justice's Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) released a special report titled, 
Criminal Calls: A Review of the Bureau of Prisons' Management 
of Inmate Telephone Privileges. This report concluded that ``a 
significant number of federal inmates use prison telephones to 
commit serious crimes while incarcerated--including murder, 
drug trafficking, and fraud.'' The inmates were permitted to 
make seemingly unlimited amounts of telephone calls and they 
were not adequately monitored. The review also concluded that 
the Bureau of Prisons had been aware of this particular problem 
for a long time, but had not taken sufficient steps to address 
the issue.
    At the same time, the House Judiciary Committee was closely 
scrutinizing the President's offer of clemency to 16 terrorist 
members of the FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation) on 
August 11, 1999. The Committee was concerned that inmate 
members of the FALN had expressed intentions to pursue their 
objectives of Puerto Rican independence while vowing to resume 
their violent activities upon their release from prison while 
on tape-recorded prison telephone calls. On January 18, 2000, 
Chairman Hyde wrote to the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons (BOP), Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, asking why the BOP's 
management of inmate telephone calls should not be completely 
revamped to prevent inmates from committing serious crimes 
using prison phones. Concerns were expressed that if the phones 
had been adequately monitored and policed in this instance, 
perhaps the prisoners' intentions to continue their violent 
struggle for independence would have been brought to the 
attention of the proper authorities prior to the President's 
grant of clemency.
    The Office of Inspector General recommended several changes 
to the BOP's management of inmate telephone calls. The Bureau 
of Prisons concurred with most of the recommendations and has 
begun implementing many of the recommendations. The OIG will be 
conducting a follow-up through site visits beginning in 
December, 2000.

          review of the office of professional responsibility

    The House Committee on the Judiciary has been concerned 
about the process for which federal prosecutors are held 
accountable for allegations of ethical violations and 
transparency issues over its investigations. After reviewing 
numerous citizen and Members of Congress' complaints about the 
Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility 
(OPR), Committee staff met with OPR officials and conducted a 
review of their procedures and public summaries of cases after 
their adjudication by OPR. On October 14, 1999, Chairman Hyde 
and Congressman Delahunt asked the General Accounting Office to 
conduct a comprehensive review of OPR policies and processes 
for holding Justice's attorneys accountable to ethical 
standards. Specifically, GAO was asked to determine:
           How OPR conducts inquiries into allegations 
        of misconduct;
           To what extent OPR's workload and budgets 
        have changes, if any;
           The possible range of disciplinary actions 
        and procedures if misconduct if found;
           OPR's oversight relationship with similar 
        Justice components;
           The degree in which OPR has implemented 
        prior GAO recommendations; and
           How OPR monitors and implements the Hyde 
        Attorneys Fees Amendment and the Citizens Protection 
        Act.
           The data evidencing the types of allegations 
        made in the cases whereby OPR made findings of 
        professional misconduct or poor judgment;
           Information demonstrating whether or not OPR 
        monitors and records the disposition of any state bar 
        referrals, and if so, what OPR then does with the 
        information;
           Data regarding resignations and retirements 
        which occur during or as a result of any inquiry or 
        investigation;
           DOJ's policy with regard to monitoring cases 
        which are administratively closed due to it's tendency 
        in a court at the time it is filed with OPR;
           DOJ's policy concerning documentation of an 
        OPR complaint and it's disposition in an attorney's 
        personnel file; and
           Further information on the one case that OPR 
        closed without a finding of misconduct concerning the 
        Hyde Amendment.
    GAO issued a report on some of these issues on August 14, 
2000 and the GAO expects to be able to complete an addenda to 
that report in January 2001.
                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

 BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \1\
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        BOB BARR, Georgia
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
                                     LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
                                     CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
                                     ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas \2\

----------
\1\ Stephen E. Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee effective 
March 4, 1999.
\2\ Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas, was assigned to the subcommittee on March 
24, 1999.

Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................   331
Private legislation referred to the Subcommittee..................     1
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    17
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee..............     0
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee.     0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee....     0
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................     8
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     2
Legislation reported to the House.................................    24
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................    29
Legislation pending in the House..................................     5
Legislation passed by the House...................................    48
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................    17
Legislation vetoed by the President...............................     0
Legislation enacted into Public Law...............................    17
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    23
Days of hearing (legislative and oversight).......................    31

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Crime has jurisdiction over the Federal 
Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole and 
pardons, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons, law 
enforcement assistance to State and local governments, and 
other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and 
relevant oversight.
    Highlights of the Subcommittee's activities during the 
106th Congress include:

               Fighting the War on Drugs More Effectively

Oversight Hearing of the Drug Enforcement Administration

    On July 29, 1999, the Crime Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA's 
resources have been increased substantially in recent years, at 
the same time that new challenges have arisen in our national 
effort to combat illegal drugs. The witnesses included: Norman 
J. Rabkin, Director, Administration of Justice Issue Area, 
United States General Accounting Office; Donnie R. Marshall, 
Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, United 
States Department of Justice; William Berger, Chief of Police, 
North Miami Beach, Florida, Peter Reuter, Professor, School of 
Public Affairs, University of Maryland, and Robert Maginnis, 
Senior Researcher, Family Research Counsel.

The Methamphetamine and Club Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000

    In 1996, Congress passed the Comprehensive Methamphetamine 
Control Act, the first legislative effort specifically directed 
at controlling the proliferation of methamphetamine in America. 
This important, bipartisan measure targeted the diversion of 
the most commonly used precursor chemicals and imposed strict 
reporting requirements on the sales of those chemicals. 
Notwithstanding the effectiveness of the 1996 Act, laboratory 
operators and drug traffickers continue to produce and traffic 
significant quantities of methamphetamine. More can and should 
be done to help law enforcement officials uncover, arrest, and 
hold accountable those who produce methamphetamine. Drug 
trafficking organizations operating out of Mexico and 
California have virtually taken control of the production and 
distribution of methamphetamine in the United States. Over the 
past five years, an upsurge of methamphetamine trafficking and 
abuse has swept across America, and clandestine methamphetamine 
laboratories have been discovered in all 50 states.
    The methamphetamine epidemic in America differs in kind 
from the threat of other illegal drugs because methamphetamine 
can be made from readily available and legal chemicals and 
substances, and because it poses serious dangers to both human 
life and to the environment. Additionally, these chemicals and 
substances are utilized in a manufacturing process that is 
unstable, volatile, and highly combustible. Even small amounts 
of these chemicals, when mixedimproperly, can cause explosions 
and fires. For every one pound of methamphetamine that is produced, 
approximately five pounds of toxic and often lethal waste products may 
be left behind at the laboratory site, or disposed of in rivers, 
kitchen sinks, or sewage systems in an effort to conceal evidence of 
illegal manufacturing. More distributing is that most of these 
laboratories are situated in residences, motels, trailers, and vans, 
and often times are operated in the presence of children. Contributing 
to this danger are countless Internet web sites devoted specifically to 
providing detailed instructions for producing methamphetamine.
    In the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime held one 
field oversight hearing and five (5) oversight forums on 
methamphetamine production, trafficking, and use in Arkansas, 
California, New Mexico, and Kansas. Testimony was received from 
numerous witnesses, including former methamphetamine addicts, 
family members of the victims of methamphetamine related 
violence, law enforcement professionals, and prevention and 
addiction treatment professionals.
    The Subcommittee on Crime held a field hearing on Friday, 
February 25, 2000 at the Jones Center for Families in 
Springdale, Arkansas to examine the explosive growth in recent 
years in the production, trafficking, and use of 
methamphetamine in rural areas such as northwest Arkansas. 
Testimony was heard from: Kelli Eales, McAlester, Oklahoma 
(wife of an Oklahoma state trooper slain by a methamphetamine 
dealer); George Cazenavette, Special Agent in Charge, Drug 
Enforcement Administration, New Orleans Division Office, 
Metairie, Louisiana; The Honorable Bill Hardin, Director, 
Office of the State Drug Director, Arkansas State Police, 
Little Rock, Arkansas; Blaine Hajok, Pharmacy Loss Prevention 
Division, Walmart Stores Incorporated, Bentonville, Arkansas; 
William Ashcraft, Director, Chemical Dependency Program, 
Pinnacle Pointe Hospital, Little Rock, Arkansas; Mike Smith, 
Supervisory Special Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Little Rock, Arkansas; Tim Keck, Chief, Rogers Police 
Department, Rogers, Arkansas; Cindy McCoy, Fayetteville, 
Arkansas; James Clark, Executive Director, Arkansas State Crime 
Laboratory, Little Rock, Arkansas; Jean Sackman, Prevention 
Resource Center, Harrison, Arkansas; and, Larry Counts, 
Executive Director, Decision Point Incorporated, Springdale, 
Arkansas.
    According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), 
the term ``club drugs'' includes LSD (acid), MDMA (Ecstasy), 
GHB, GBL, Ketamine (Special-K), Kentanyl, Rohypnol, and 
amphetamines. Primarily, they are used by teens and young 
adults who frequent nightclubs, bars, and ``raves.'' Club drug 
use appears to be increasing in many cities around the country. 
Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, Detroit, Mimi, and Newark have 
reported widespread use at raves and clubs. MDMA, called 
``Adam,'' ``Ecstasy,'' or ``XTC,'' on the street, is a 
synthetic, psychoactive drug with hallucinogenic and 
amphetamine-like properties. Use of Ectasy has surged 
dramatically in recent years, and it may well be on its way to 
becoming an epidemic. Seizures by the United States Customs 
Service have risen from less than 500,000 tablets during fiscal 
year 1997, to 9.3 million tablets during fiscal year 2000. In 
certain regions of the country, hospital emergency rooms have 
seen a dramatic increase in patients suffering negative effects 
of usage. Arrests of Ecstasy traffickers are on the rise, as 
certain foreign organized crime groups have reportedly 
developed sophisticated and effective distribution networks 
both worldwide and within U.S. borders. The margin of profit is 
significant; for a $100,000 investment in production of 200,000 
tablets, $5 million may be realized.
    In the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime held a 
hearing on June 15, 2000 on ``The Threat Posed by the Illegal 
Importation, Trafficking, and Use of `Ecstasy' and Other `Club' 
Drugs.'' Testimony was heard from: Lewis Rice, Jr., Special 
Agent in Charge, New York Division, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; and, John Varrone, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Commissioner, Office of Investigations, United States Customs 
Service; David McDowell, MD, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, 
Columbia University and Director, Columbia University Substance 
Treatment Research Service; Laurence DesRochers, MD, Staff 
Emergency Physician, Community Hospital, Toms River, New 
Jersey; Andrea Craparotta, Investigator, Middlesex County 
Prosecutor's Office, New Brunswick, New Jersey; Eladio Paez, 
Detective, Miami Police Department, Miami, Florida; and, 
Phillip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and 
Religious Studies, Pennsylvania State University.
    On September 30, 2000, Representative Cannon (R-UT) 
introduced H.R. 2987, the ``Methamphatemine and Club Drug Anti-
Proliferation Act of 2000.'' This legislation is aimed at 
preventing the proliferation of methamphetamine and club drug 
manufacturing, trafficking, use, and addition in America by 
enhancing Federal, State, and local law enforcement resources, 
increasing penalties on methamphetamine and club drug related 
offenses, and authorizing prevention and treatment initiatives 
providing law enforcement officials with tools and training to 
more adequately address the methamphetamine epidemic. The bill 
was referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and Commerce. 
Subsequentley, the Subcommittee on Crime discharged H.R. 2987 
and it was ordered reported favorably by the Committee on July 
25, 2000, and the bill was reported on September 21, (H. Rept. 
106-878, Part I). On September 21, 2000 the Committee on 
Commerce discharged the bill and it was placed on the Union 
Calendar. On September 22, 2000, an amendment containing 
provisions substantially similar to the Committee passed 
version of H.R. 2987 was offered to H.R. 4365, the ``Children's 
Health Act of 2000'' during its consideration in the Senate. 
The Senate subsequently approved H.R. 4365, as amended 
containing that text, on that same date. The House approved the 
bill without amendment on September 27, 2000 by a vote of 394 
yeas to 25 nays. The president approved the bill on October 17, 
2000 and it became Public Law 106-310.
    On November 19, 1999, S. 486, the ``Methamphetamine Anti-
Proliferation Act of 1999,'' passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent and was subsequently referred to the Committee on 
Commerce on January 27, 2000 and the Subcommittee on Crime on 
February 3, 2000. This legislation is a substantially similar 
companion to H.R. 2987 as introduced, and no further action was 
taken on it in the 106th Congress.

Drug Dealer Liability Act of 1999

    On March 9, 1999, Representative Tom Latham (R-IA) 
introduced H.R. 1042, the ``Drug Dealer Liability Act of 
1999,'' to provide civil liability for illegal manufacturers 
and distributors of controlled substances for harm caused. This 
legislation was referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and 
Commerce.
    Both Committees were subsequently discharged from further 
consideration of the bill and it was passed by the House on 
October 10, 2000 by voice vote. No further action was taken on 
the bill during the 106th Congress.

Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000

    Crime is down in America in large part because we are 
incarcerating more individuals who commit anti-social acts, and 
keeping them there for longer periods of time. On September 27, 
2000, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) introduced H.R. 5312, 
the ``Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000,'' to 
protect children from illegal drugs, drug trafficking, and the 
violence associated with the drug trade by increasing the 
prison sentences for Federal drug felonies involving or 
affecting children. The bill increases the mandatory minimum 
sentence from one year to three years for any person who uses 
children (persons under the age of 18) to distribute drugs and 
increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a second-time 
offender from one year to five years. The mandatory minimum 
sentence would be increased from one year to three years for 
any person who distributes drugs to children and the mandatory 
minimum sentence for a second-time offender from one year to 
five years. For any person who distributes drugs in or near a 
school or other protected location, including schools, 
colleges, playgrounds, public housing facilities, youth 
centers, public swimming pools, or video arcade facilities, 
this legislation increases the mandatory minimum sentence from 
year to three years and increases the mandatory minimum 
sentence for a second-time offender from three years to five 
years.
    The bill was Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and in addition to the Committee on Commerce. Both Committees 
subsequently discharged the bill, and on October 17, 2000 the 
House passed the House by voice vote. No further action was 
taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.

Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Act of 2000

    On May 18, 2000, Representative John Mica (R-FL) introduced 
H.R. 4493, the ``Prosecution Drug Treatment Alternative or 
Prison Act of 2000,'' to authorize a new funding program within 
the Department of Justice, to be administered through the 
Office of Justice Programs, for State and local prosecutors to 
develop and implement drug treatment options for eligible 
nonviolent offenders. It will enable prosecutors to establish 
and oversee a drug treatment option for offenders with serious 
drug abuse and addictions, with the full leverage of a sentence 
of incarceration if they fail to complete the program and 
comply with its stringent requirements. The authorization 
funding level for this national program begins at $75 million, 
with annual increases over the following four years.
    On October 17, 2000 the House passed the bill by voice 
vote. On December 6, 2000 it passed the Senate, as amended, by 
unanimous consent. No further action was taken on the bill 
during the 106th Congress.

Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999

    On July 29, 1999 Representative Thomas Bliley (R-VA) 
introduced H.R. 2634, the ``Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 
1999,'' to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to 
registration requirements for practitioners who dispense 
narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V for maintenance treatment or 
detoxification treatment. This legislation was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. On November 3, 1999 the Committee discharged 
consideration of the bill and it was placed on the Union 
Calendar. On July 18, 2000, Mr. Bliley moved to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, as amended, and it was passed by the 
House by a vote of 412 yeas to 1 nay.
    While no further action was taken on this bill in the 106th 
Congress, an amendment containing provisions substantially 
similar to the House passed version of H.R. 2634 was offered to 
H.R. 4365, the ``Children's Health Act of 2000'' during its 
consideration in the Senate. The Senate subsequently approved 
H.R. 4365, as amended containing that text, on that same date. 
The House approved the bill without amendment on September 27, 
2000 by a vote of 394 yeas to 25 nays. The president approved 
the bill on October 17, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-310.

Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act

    H.R. 3164 was introduced by Representative Porter Goss (R-
FL) on October 28, 1999. H.R. 3164 provides authority for the 
identification of and worldwide sanctions against foreign 
narcotics traffickers whose activities threaten U.S. security, 
foreign policy, or the economy.
    On November 2, 1999, H.R. 3164 was agreed to under 
suspension of the rules by the Yeas and Nays (385-26). No 
further action on this bill was taken during the 106th 
Congress.

Money laundering

    Since the current money laundering laws were enacted in 
1986, the criminal conduct that those laws were intended to 
address has become increasingly international in scope. 
Criminals who commit crimes abroad are using the United States 
and its financial institutions as havens for laundered funds. 
At the same time, criminals committing offenses in the United 
States are using foreign banks and bank secrecy jurisdictions 
to conceal the proceeds of their offenses.
    In the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime sought to 
address this truly international law enforcement problem. On 
February 9, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the nature 
and extent of domestic and international money laundering, its 
role in the international drug trade, and methods of combating 
the problem. The Subcommittee heard testimony from: Jim 
Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Stefan D. Cassella, Assistant Chief, 
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, U.S. Department 
of Justice; John Varrone, Executive Director, Domestic 
Operations East, Office of Investigations, U.S. Customs 
Service; John Byrne, Senior Counsel and Compliance Manager, 
American Bankers Association; Bill Bruton, Certified Fraud 
Examiner, the Kroll Lindquist AveyCompany; Ian Comisky, 
Esquire, Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley LLP; and David Smith, Esquire, 
English & Smith.
    On June 20, 2000, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) 
introduced H.R. 4695, the ``Money Laundering Act of 2000.'' 
H.R. 4695 updates the money laundering laws to enable law 
enforcement to respond to the increasingly international nature 
of money laundering. No action was taken on the bill during the 
106th Congress.

Oversight forums

    During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee held a series 
of regional forums across the country to examine regional 
trends in the production, trafficking, and use of 
methamphetamine. In particular, the forums were designed to 
determine how Congress might respond to the methamphetamine 
crisis. State and local law enforcement officials, prevention 
and treatment professionals, former methamphetamine addicts, 
and others victimized by the methamphetamine epidemic appeared 
before the Subcommittee. The oversight forums were held in five 
cities: Redondo Beach, California; San Diego, California; 
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Pasadena, California; and Salina, 
Kansas.
    Participants in the oversight forum in Redondo Beach, 
California, on April 20, 2000, included: Kevin Hendershot, 
Resident, Beacon House Association, San Pedro, California; Mark 
Trouville, Associate Special Agent in Charge, Los Angeles Field 
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Edward Manavian, 
Executive Director, Los Angeles County Regional Criminal 
Information Clearinghouse; John Allen Ramseyer, Deputy District 
Attorney, Major Narcotics Division, City of Los Angeles; Andrew 
Hutchcroft, Youth Outreach, Beacon House Association, San 
Pedro, California; Richard Rawson, M.D., Associate Director, 
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Integrated 
Substance Abuse Programs, UCLA School of Medicine; The 
Honorable Gregory Hill, Mayor, City of Redondo Beach, 
California; Stephen R. Port, Chief of Police, Hawthorne, 
California; James C. Christian, Director, Los Angeles 
Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force; 
and Bob Doyle, Undersheriff, Riverside County, California.
    Participants in the oversight forum in San Diego, 
California, on April 21, 2000, included: Wayne Eddington, El 
Cajon, California; Gary Helson, Supervisory Special Agent, San 
Diego Field Division, Drug Enforcement Agency; Tom Manning, 
Deputy District Attorney, County of San Diego; Bob Ross, M.D., 
Director of Health and Human Services Agency, County of San 
Diego; Bob Amador, Deputy District Project Director for the 
Drug Endangered Children Program, San Diego, California; 
Lieutenant Bob Kanaski, San Diego Police Department; Richard W. 
Robinson, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Public 
Safety, County of San Diego; and Michael Sise, M.D., Director 
of Trauma, Mercy Hospital, San Diego.
    Participants in the oversight forum held in Albuquerque, 
New Mexico, on April 24, 2000, included: Sue Rowland and Niki 
Tungate, Albuquerque, New Mexico; William Hansen, Assistant 
Special Agent in Charge for New Mexico, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; Captain Ruben Davalos, Albuquerque Police 
Department, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Stan Whitaker, Special 
Commissioner for Domestic Violence, New Mexico District Court; 
and Dr. Bobby Sykes, Director, Relevancy Inc., Albuquerque, New 
Mexico; Peter Golden, Sheriff, Torrance County, New Mexico; Mr. 
Gil Gallegos, Coordinator, Region 1 HIDTA, Deputy Chief 
(retired) Albuquerque Police Department, National President, 
Fraternal Order of Police; Jim Stokes, Counselor, Bi Treatment 
Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Ms. Kim Covey, Seattle, 
Washington.
    Participants in the oversight forum in Pasadena, 
California, on July 6, 2000, included: Loraine Brown, Special 
Agent in Charge, United States Customs Service, Los Angeles 
Field Office; Michelle Leonhart, Special Agent in Charge, 
United States Drug Enforcement Administration, Los Angeles 
Field Office; Jack Friedman, Impact Drug and Alcohol Treatment 
Center, Pasadena, California; Jerry Hunter, California Bureau 
of Narcotics Enforcement, Los Angeles Regional Office; Sgt. 
Chris Jurado, Special Investigation Section, Pasadena Police 
Department; Sgt. Tony Hollins, Los Angeles County Sheriff's 
Department; and The Honorable Chip Martin, Judge, Los Angeles 
Superior Court.
    Participants in the oversight forum in Salina, Kansas, held 
on August 8, 2000, included: Bruce Sawlley (former convicted 
and incarcerated methamphetamine addict), Coral Spring, 
Florida; Joseph J. Corcoran, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Drug 
Enforcement Administration, St. Louis Division, St. Louis, 
Missouri; Kirk Thompson, Assistant Director, Special Operations 
Division, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas; Dean 
Akings, Chief of Police, Great Bend Police Department, Great 
Bend, Kansas; and Pamela McCoy, M.D., Assistant Clinical 
Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Kansas Medical 
Center, Kansas City, Kansas; Roxann Dupre, Salina, Kansas; Tom 
Stanton, Assistant County Attorney, Saline County Attorney's 
Office, Salina, Kansas; Dwain Worley, Chemist and Forensic 
Scientist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas; Leon 
Shearrer, Sheriff, Pawnee County, Larned, Kansas; and Kelly 
Ralston, Special Agent in Charge, Great Bend Office, Kansas 
Bureau of Investigation, Great Bend, Kansas.

Hillory J. Farias Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999

    H.R. 2130 was introduced by Representative Fred Upton (R-
MI) on June 10, 1999. H.R. 2130 is an act to amend the 
Controlled Substances Act to direct the emergency scheduling of 
gamma hydroxybutyric acid, to provide for a national awareness 
campaign, and for other purposes.
    On October 8, 1999, the Committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill. On October 12, 1999, H.R. 2130 was 
agreed to under suspension of the rules by the Yeas and Nays 
(423-1). On November 11, 1999, the bill was laid before the 
Senate by unanimous consent, and the Senate struck all after 
the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S. 1561 
amended. The House agreed to the Senate amendments under 
suspension of the rules on January 31, 2000, by the Yeas and 
Nays (339-2). H.R. 2130 was signed into law by the President on 
February 18, 2000 and became Public Law 106-172.

                        Protecting Our Children

Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act

    H.R. 764, the ``Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement 
Act,'' was introduced by Representative Deborah Pryce (R-OH). 
The bill amended provisions of existing law collectively known 
as the Byrne Grant Program that authorize the Federal 
government to award both block grants and discretionary grants 
to States for crime-related purposes. Under this program, funds 
can be used to obtain personnel, equipment, training, technical 
assistance, and information systems to improve criminal justice 
systems. The Bryne Grant statute specifies 26 permissible uses 
for these funds. H.R. 764 amended the Byrne Grant Program to 
add an additional permissible use for these federal funds, 
namely ``to enforce child abuse and neglect laws and programs 
design to prevent child abuse and neglect.''
    The bill also amended the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, 
which created the Crime Victims Fund, which is financed from 
the collection of criminal fines, penalty assessments, and 
forfeited appearance bonds of persons convicted of crimes 
against the United States. In FY 1998, $363 million was 
deposited into this fund for distribution in FY 1999. The Fund 
grants money to States to compensate crime victims directly, 
and it provides other grants to States which are then 
distributed to public and nonprofit agencies that provide 
direct services to victims of crime. Under current law the 
first $10 million deposited in the fund each year are to be 
expended by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for 
grants relating to child abuse prevention and treatment. Of the 
remaining funds, 48.5 percent are to be used for grants to 
State crime victim compensation programs, 48.5 percent are to 
be used for victim assistance programs, and 3 percent are to be 
used for grants for demonstration projects and training in 
technical assistance services to eligible crime assistance 
programs.
    H.R. 764 increased the ``earmark'' for child abuse and 
domestic assistance programs from $10 million to $20 million. 
Doubling this ``earmark'' will, therefore, result in a $10 
million reduction in the funds that would otherwise be 
available for the grants to the victims compensation programs 
and the victim assistance programs.
    On September 17, 1999, the Subcommittee was discharged H.R. 
764 from further consideration. On September 28, 1999, the full 
Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the House, and 
the bill was reported on October 1, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-360). 
The House passed the bill on October 5, 1999 by a recorded vote 
of 425 yeas to 2 nays. On November 11, 1999, the Senate passed 
the bill by unanimous consent with an amendment. On February 1, 
2000, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by a recorded 
vote of 410 yeas to 2 nays. The President approved the bill on 
March 10, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-177.

The Amber Plan

    On October 2, 2000, Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) 
introduced H. Res. 605, expressing the sense of the House that 
communities should implement the so-called ``Amber Plan'' to 
expedite the recovery of abducted children. Congress has played 
a significant roll in the national effort to protect children 
by providing grant money to the States to fight crime committed 
against children and by passing new Federal laws to prosecute 
criminals who victimize them. Yet, most of the work to prevent 
these crimes and punish those who commit them occurs at the 
local level.
    H. Res. 605 brings national attention to an effective 
program working at the local level called the ``Amber Plan.'' 
This program, begun in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, 
helps save the lives of children who have been kidnaped. The 
Amber Plan was created in 1996 in memory of nine-year-old Amber 
Hagerman, who was tragically kidnaped and murdered in 
Arlington, Texas. Because of its success in Dallas-Fort Worth, 
it has been replicated in communities across the country.
    The Amber Plan works by utilizing the national Emergency 
Alert System. When a child is reported abducted, the 
abduction--including a description of the alleged perpetrator--
is immediately broadcast on local radio and television stations 
using the Emergency Alert System. These alerts get the word to 
everyone who might recognize the child, or the abductor, and 
then call the police. Since its inception, the Amber Plan has 
led to the safe recovery of at least nine children nationwide.
    H. Res. 605 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
on October 2, 2000, and to the Subcommittee on Crime on October 
6, 2000. The Committee did not take formal action on the bill. 
On October 24, 2000, the House passed the resolution by voice 
vote.

Aimee's Law

    H.R. 894, ``Aimee's Law,'' was introduced by Representative 
Matt Salmon (R-AZ) on March 2, 1999. It is similar to a bill he 
introduced during the 105th Congress (H.R. 4258), on which the 
Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on September 17, 1998.
    H.R. 894 would provide that whenever someone convicted of 
murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense is released from 
prison and commits another of those offenses in a different 
state, the state from which the offender was released will lose 
a portion of the Federal law enforcement assistance funds to 
which it would be otherwise entitled, which will be given to 
the state in which the second offense was committee. The amount 
to be transferred is the cost of the incarceration, 
prosecution, and apprehension by the second state. The Attorney 
General is to administer the transfer by deducting the 
appropriate amount from the annual amount that would have been 
paid to the state under the several Federal law enforcement 
funding programs that make annual distributions. In the event 
the person had committed similar crimes in more than one state, 
the costs of the state convicting he person last would be 
apportioned among all of the states that convicted the offender 
previously.
    As introduced, the bill would also award up to $100,000 to 
the victim or their family of persons injured by offenders who 
commit these crimes. These funds would also be paid by the 
state or states in which the offender previously committed one 
of the offenses that trigger the statute.
    A provision similar to H.R. 894 was passed was part of H.R. 
3244, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 
2000. The provision in the bill differed from H.R.894 as 
introduced in that it did not provide for any payment by a state to the 
victim or the victim's family. The amendment also contained a safe 
harbor provision that would exempt some states for liability under the 
bill. States would not lose any of their Federal law enforcement funds 
under the bill if the average term of imprisonment for murder, rape, or 
a dangerous sexual offense in that state was more than 10% above the 
nation average for those crimes, or if the offender had served at least 
85% of the sentence imposed on them.
    The House passed the bill by voice vote on July 11, 2000. 
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th 
Congress, however H.R. 3244 was approved by the President on 
October 28, 2000 and became Public Law 106-386.

National Youth Crime Prevention Demonstration Act

    H.R. 102 was introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-
MI). H.R. 102 would provide grants to grassroots organizations 
in certain cities to develop youth intervention models.
    The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and in addition to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. On May 14, 1999, the Subcommittee was discharged 
from further consideration on the bill H.R. 102. On May 20, 
1999, the Committee held a mark-up session on the bill. No 
further action was taken on H.R. 102 during the 106th Congress.

Matthew's Law

    H.R. 4045, ``Matthew's Law'' was introduced by 
Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham (R-CA). H.R. 4045 
would direct the Sentencing Commission to amend the Federal 
Sentencing Guidelines to increase the penalty range for every 
Federal crime in the event that the crime involves violence 
against a person under 13 by five levels. The bill also 
authorizes the FBI to assist state and local authorities in any 
case involving a homicide of a person under the age of 13.
    It is similar to a provision passed by the House as an 
amendment to H.R. 1501 by a recorded vote of 401 yeas to 27 
nays. No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th 
Congress.

Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act

    H.R. 1989 and H.R. 4047, each entitled the ``Two Strikes 
and You're Out Child Protection Act'' were introduced by 
Representative Mark Green (R-WI). They are similar to a 
provision passed as an amendment to H.R. 1501 by a voice vote.
    The bills would mandate that any person convicted of a 
``Federal sex offense'' be imprisoned for life if they have 
previously been convicted of a similar offense under either 
Federal or state law. The court would have no discretion in 
sentencing the offender to any other term of imprisonment. H.R. 
1989 defines Federal sex offense to include offenses involving 
sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, child pornography, 
coercion and enticement of a minor for sexual purposes, and the 
interstate transportation of minors for sexual purposes. H.R. 
4047 defines Federal sex offense in a similar way, but without 
including the pornography or coercion and enticement crimes, 
and then only if the offense involves a crime against a person 
under the age of 16.
    The House passed the bill by voice vote on July 25, 2000. 
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th 
Congress.

Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens Act

    H.R. 4147, the ``Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens Act,'' 
was introduced by Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO). It is 
similar to a provision offered by Representative Charles Canady 
(R-FL) and passed as an amendment to H.R. 1501 by a voice vote. 
The amendment can be found at section 105 of the bill, as 
passed by the House.
    Under current law, it is a crime to knowingly transmit 
obscene material through the mails or otherwise in interstate 
commerce. In 1998, Congress passed H.R. 3494 (Public Law 105-
314), the ``Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act,'' 
a bill I introduced. This act contained a provision that 
created a new crime of ``transferring obscene matter to 
minors'' which made it illegal to transfer obscene matter to a 
person under the age of 16. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1470. This crime 
carries a more severe punishment than the other obscenity 
provisions.
    In the form passed by the House, the bill would have made 
it a crime to transfer obscene matter to a person under the age 
of 18. When the bill was considered in the Senate, however, the 
Senate Judiciary Committee amended this provision to lower the 
age to 16. The lower age then was retained in the bill when it 
passed the full Senate and when the Senate amendments were 
adopted by the house. H.R. 4147 would amend section 1470 to 
apply the higher punishment to persons who transfer obscene 
materials to any person under the age of 18.
    The House passed the bill on October 2, 2000 by a recorded 
vote of 397 yeas to 2 nays. No further action was taken on the 
bill during the 106th Congress.
    On May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 894, H.R. 4045, H.R. 4047, and H.R. 
4147. The following witnesses testified: Representative Randy 
Cunningham (R-CA); Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 
(R-WI); Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ); and Representative 
Thomas G. Tancredo (R-CO); The Honorable Mike Lawlor, State 
Representative, Connecticut; Marc Klaas, Sausalito, California; 
Gail Willard, Brookhaven, Pennsylvania; Janet M. LaRue, Esq., 
Senior Director of Legal Studies, Family Research Council, 
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Fred Goldman, Scottsdale, Arizona; 
Franklin Zimring, Professor of Law, University of California, 
Berkeley, Berkeley, California; and Jeffrey Haugaard, Professor 
of Human Development and Family Studies, Cornell University, 
New York.

Illegal Pornography Prosecution Act of 2000

    H.R. 4710 was introduced by Representative Steve Largent 
(R-OK) on June 21, 2000. H.R. 4710 would authorize 
appropriations to the Department of Justice for FY 2001 to be 
used by theCriminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity 
Section, for the hiring and training of staff, travel, and other 
necessary expenses to prosecute obscenity cases.
    On July 25, 2000, Representative Steve Chabot (R-OH) moved 
to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4710, which was agreed to by 
the Yeas and Nays (412-4). No further action was taken on H.R. 
4710 during the 106th Congress.

Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 1999

    H.R. 3484, the ``Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 1999'' 
was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) together 
with Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT). The bill amended Federal law to 
authorize the use of wiretaps in investigations of three sex 
crimes, principally involving children, for which the use of 
that tool was not previously authorized.
    Under current law, law enforcement agencies may only see 
court authority to use a wiretap in investigations of a limited 
number of crimes. The crimes as to which a wiretap may be used 
to investigate, commonly called ``wiretap predicates,'' are set 
forth in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2516. In every case, law enforcement 
authorities must seek a court order authorizing the use of the 
wiretap. Some crimes involving the sexual exploitation of 
children are already wiretap predicates, but several are not. 
Given the dramatic increase in the use of the Internet by 
persons intent on luring children into sexual activities, law 
enforcement agencies have been turning their attention to this 
aspect of these crimes. Fortunately, acts that involve the 
enticing of children to meet with these predators, are 
themselves crimes under Federal law. The benefit of making 
these acts crimes has been that the government does not have to 
wait until a child is actually abused before acting. Catching 
and punishing predators who are enticing children, stops them 
before they can inflict greater harm on the child.
    All of the crimes that involve sex predators attempting to 
entice children into engaging in sex with them are not wiretap 
predicates. Many of these crimes begin on the Internet--where 
predators engage children in conversations in ``chat rooms'' or 
send pornography to them to lower their natural defenses to the 
advances of adults. Through these acts, they entice the child 
to travel to meet them, or offer to travel themselves to meet 
the child, in hopes of engaging in sexual activities with them. 
If law enforcement officials cannot investigate these crimes 
using a wiretap, they are put at a disadvantage in trying to 
apprehend these predators before they physically harm their 
victims.
    H.R. 3484 would have added three crimes as new wiretap 
predicates. The crimes added by the bill are: 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2252A, which deals with selling, receiving, or shipping 
child pornography; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2422(1)(c), which deals with 
coercion and enticement to engage in prostitution or other 
illegal sexual activity; and 18 U.S.C. 2423, which relates to 
the transportation of minors to engage in prostitution or other 
illegal sexual activity.
    On July 13, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
3484. The following person testified; Representative Nancy L. 
Johnson (R-CT); David R. Knowlton, Deputy Assistant Director, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Investigation 
Division; and John Varrone, Acting Assistant Commissioner, 
Office of Investigations, United States Customs Service; David 
B. Kopel, Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden, 
Colorado.
    On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 3484 reported favorably to the full Committee. On 
September 20, the full Committee ordered the bill reported 
favorably to the House, and the bill was reported on October 2 
(H. Rept. 106-920). The House passed the bill on October 3 by a 
voice vote. No further action was taken on the bill during the 
106th Congress.

Jeremy and Julia's Law

    H.R. 469, ``Jeremy and Julia's Law'' was introduced by 
Representative Rick Lazio (R-NY). The bill would have created a 
new Federal crime involving false statements made by child care 
providers or reckless conduct by those providers. The bill 
would have enacted a new section 1822 to chapter 89 of title 18 
of the United States Code (which relates to crimes involving 
specific profession or occupations) in order to make it a crime 
for any child day care provider, or employee of such a 
provider, to knowingly make a false representation regarding 
the provider or the care given by that provider to a parent or 
guardian considering the placement of a child in the care of 
that provider or to a law enforcement officer, if the child's 
safety or health is thereby placed at substantial risk. The 
maximum punishment under the statute is imprisonment for up to 
one year. The statute would also make it a crime for a child 
day care provider to recklessly cause serious bodily injury to 
a child. The maximum punishment for that crime would be three 
years imprisonment. The bill defined the term ``child day care 
provider'' to mean any person or entity that provides child day 
care in a place other than the home of the child or children 
for whom the care is provided. The bill only applied to 
providers who act in or affect interstate commerce.
    Forty-five states license and regulate day care providers. 
Most of these statutes require providers to employ a minimum 
number of care givers, depending on the number of children 
being cared for. Many states also require that providers 
undergo some state sponsored or approved training before the 
provider may obtain the required state license. Of the states 
that require day care providers to be licensed, 29 establish a 
misdemeanor penalty for violations of their regulatory 
requirements. All 50 states outlaw recklessly causing a child's 
death and 40 states have a reckless endangerment statute that 
proscribes recklessly causing physical injury to another 
person.
    There is no current Federal criminal statute that 
specifically punishes misconduct by day care providers. Two 
current statutes might be used to address the conduct to which 
the bill is aimed. The mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1341, 1343) make it a crime to use the mails or a 
means of interstate commerce to transmit a communication that 
is part of a scheme or artifice to defraud, or intended to 
obtain money by false pretenses. And 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 makes 
it a crime to make any materially false, fictitious, or 
fraudulent statement or misrepresentation in connection with 
any matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch. In 
that case however, absent some Federal statute that governed 
day care providers in some way, there might be a question as to 
whether a provider's representations as to her qualifications, 
the conditions of the care she provides, or actions with 
respect to an injured child would fall within the jurisdiction 
of some Executive Branch agency.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 469 on October 4, 
2000. The following witnesses testified at the hearing: Michael 
Horowitz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of 
Justice; Mark Fiedelholtz, Plantation Florida; Joe Haas and 
Tina Haas, Albany, New York. No further action was taken on the 
bill during the 106th Congress.

Secure Our Schools Act

    On March 28, 2000, Representative Steven Rothman (D-NJ) 
introduced H.R. 4108, the ``Secure Our Schools Act.'' H.R. 4108 
would amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the appropriation of $60 
million for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003 in grants to 
State and local governments and Indian tribes to improve 
security at Schools. Up to 50% of the costs of security 
enhancement programs would be paid by the Federal Government 
through such grants, and money would be distributed directly to 
qualifying States, units of local government, and Indian 
tribes. Grants could be used for the placement and use of metal 
detectors, locks, lighting, and other deterrent measures, 
security assessments, security training of personnel and 
students, coordination with local law enforcement, and any 
other measure that the Attorney General determines may provide 
a significant improvement in security.
    Over the past few years, public concern over school safety 
has grown tremendously, fueled in part by tragic shootings at 
Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and Westside 
Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The shootings in these 
and other schools across the nation have demonstrated the 
continued need to improve school safety. Safe and secure 
schools facilitate teaching and learning, while violence, or 
the threat of violence, divert attention and valuable resources 
away from the educational mission. The safety of children in 
the nation's schools is a community and national concern, and 
as such, schools alone should not be solely responsible for 
providing funding for security measures. H.R. 4108 would give 
State and local governments an incentive to improve school 
security by providing matching grants.
    On May 19, 2000, the Subcommittee was discharged from 
further consideration on the bill H.R. 4108. On May 24, the 
full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the 
House, and the bill was reported on July 10 (H. Rept. 106-718). 
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th 
Congress.

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding child abuse and neglect

    H. Con. Res. 93 was introduced by Representative Deborah 
Pryce (R-OH) on April 27, 1999. H. Con. Res. 93 expresses the 
sense of Congress that the faith community, nonprofit 
organizations, State and local officials involved in prevention 
of child abuse and neglect, and volunteers throughout the 
United States should recommit themselves and mobilize their 
resources to assist children in danger of abuse or neglect. 
Furthermore, it states that Federal resources should be 
marshaled in a manner that maximizes their impact on the 
prevention of child abuse and neglect, and that State and local 
officials should be provided with increased flexibility to use 
Federal law enforcement resources to prevent child abuse and 
neglect if appropriate. Finally, H. Con. Res. 93 states that 
child protection services agencies, law enforcement agencies, 
and the judicial system should coordinate efforts to the 
maximum extent possible to prevent child abuse and neglect.
    On April 29, 1999, the Committee, and in addition, the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce was discharged from 
further consideration of the bill. The bill was considered by 
unanimous consent and was agreed to by voice vote on April 29, 
1999. No further action was taken on this bill during the 106th 
Congress.

              enhancing protections for vulnerable persons

The Violence Against Women Act

    In response to growing rates of crimes committed against 
women, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act as Title 
IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994. ``VAWA'' as it is called, created new criminal 
enforcement authority and enhanced penalties to combat sexual 
assault and domestic violence in federal court. It also 
authorized several multi-million dollar grant programs to fight 
violence against women by providing funds to state and local 
law enforcement agencies, as well as for education, prevention, 
and outreach programs.
    On March 24, 1999 Representative Connie Morella (R-MD) 
introduced H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. 
This legislation, referred to the Committees on Judiciary, 
Education and Workforce, and Commerce, reauthorizes and makes 
key improvements in programs created by the Violence Against 
Women Act of 1994. Those programs include: Law Enforcement and 
Prosecution Grants to Combat Violence Against Women; National 
Domestic Violence Hotline; Battered Women's Shelter and 
Services; Grants for Community Initiatives; Education and 
Training for Judges and Court Personnel; Grants to Encourage 
Arrest Polices; Rural Domestic Violence And Child Abuse 
Enforcement; National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction; 
Federal Victims' Counselors; Education and Prevention Grants to 
Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless, and Street Youth; 
Victims of Child Abuse; and, Rape Prevention Education.
    The Subcommittee on Crime held one hearing on H.R. 1248 on 
Wednesday, September 29, 1999. Testimony was received from 
Bonnie J. Campbell, Director, United States Department of 
Justice Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice; 
Juley Fulcher, Public Policy Director, National Coalition 
Against Domestic Violence; Carole Alexander, Executive 
Director, House of Ruth; and Patrick Fagan, Heritage 
Foundation.
    On May 4, 2000 the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and ordered the bill favorable reported. On June 21, 
2000, the full Committee met in open session on this matter, 
and on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, ordered the bill reported 
favorably. The bill as amended also included several new 
programs, including Civil Legal Assistance for Victims; Safe 
Havens for Children Pilot Program; Protections Against Violence 
and Abuse for Women with Disabilities;Standards, Practice, and 
Training for Sexual Assault Examinations, and provided for the 
appointment of a Domestic Violence Task Force to report back to 
Congress on any overlapping or duplication of federal agency efforts 
addressing domestic violence.
    On September 26, 2000 the Committees on Education and the 
Workforce and Commerce discharged the bill and it was placed on 
the Union Calendar. It was considered, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules and passed by the House by a recorded 
vote of 415 yeas to 3 nays. No further action was taken on the 
bill during the 106th Congress, however a provision 
substantially similar to this bill was included in the 
conference report on H.R. 3244, the Victims of Trafficking and 
Violence Protection Act of 2000, which was approved by the 
President on October 28, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-386.
    VAWA programs have aided the prosecution of domestic 
violence, sexual assault and child abuse cases across the 
country, and have increased victim services like domestic 
violence shelters for women and the National Domestic Violence 
Hotline. Yet despite the dramatic drop in most categories of 
crime across the country over the past several years, violent 
crime committed against women is still a serious problem.

Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000

    H.R. 3244, the ``Victims of Trafficking and Violence 
Protection Act of 2000'', was introduced by Representative 
Chris Smith (R-NJ). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
International Relations, and also to several other committees, 
including the Judiciary Committee. The bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. The full Committee 
reported the bill favorably on April 4, 2000.
    The bill, as enacted, contains several criminal provisions. 
These provisions include: a new crime involving the forced 
labor of person; a new crime involving trafficking in a person 
who is the victim of involuntary servitude, peonage, slavery, 
involuntary servitude, or forced labor; a new crime involving 
sex trafficking of children or of person by force, fraud, or 
coercion; a new crime involving unlawful conduct with respect 
to documents in furtherance of involuntary servitude, peonage, 
slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor.
    During the conference committee meetings between the House 
and Senate to resolve differences in the bill, a number of 
crime provisions that were considered by the Subcommittee were 
added to this bill that are similar to other bills described 
elsewhere in this report. They include: H.R. 894 ``Aimee's 
Law;'' H.R. 1248 ``Violence Against Women Act of 2000;'' H.R. 
3485, ``Aid to Victims of Terrorism.''

Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999

    On May 19, 1999, Representative Sue Kelly (R-NY) introduced 
H.R. 1869, the ``Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act 
of 1999.'' H.R. 1869 amends the Federal anti-stalking law, 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2261A, making several significant changes or 
additions to current law. First, it expands Federal 
jurisdiction over stalking to reach stalkers who use the mail 
or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce to stalk 
their victims. Second, H.R. 1869 requires that a Federal court, 
when sentencing a defendant convicted of stalking, issue a 
protection order designed to protect the victim from further 
stalking. Third, H.R. 1869 permits a Federal court to order the 
detention of an alleged stalking defendant pending trial in 
order to assure the safety of the community or the defendant's 
appearance at trial.
    The Subcommittee on Crime held a one day legislative 
hearing on H.R. 1869 on September 29, 1999. Testifying on the 
bill was Robert Fein, U.S. Secret Service; David Beatty, 
National Center for Victims of Crime; and Jayne A. Hitchcock. 
On October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and ordered 
H.R. 1869 reported favorably to the full Committee. On November 
2, 1999, the full Committee ordered the bill reported 
favorably, as amended (H. Rept. 106-455) to the House, and the 
bill was reported on November 5, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-455). On 
November 10, 1999, the House passed H.R. 1869, as amended, 
under suspension of the rules. A provision similar to H.R. 1869 
was included in the conference report to H.R. 3244, the 
``Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,'' 
which passed the House on October 6, 2000. H.R. 4344 was signed 
into law by the President on October 28, 2000 and it became 
Public Law 105-386.

Kristen's Act

    On August 5, 1999, Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC) 
introduced H.R. 2780, ``Kristen's Act.'' Each year about one 
million people are reported missing in the United States, and 
about 42% of them are adults. The many Federal, State and local 
law enforcement agencies across the country dutifully enter 
these missing person reports in the FBI's national missing 
persons database, and most of them are quickly found--within a 
day or two. Still, many children and adults are not found right 
away, and that is one reason why Congress created the Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children. The Center acts as a 
clearinghouse for missing child cases and provides much needed 
support to families whose children are missing. The Center has 
helped locate thousands of missing children and reunite them 
with their families. But there is no such clearinghouse for 
missing adults.
    Once the names of these missing adults are inputted into 
the FBI's National Crime Information Center computer, there is 
little else the families can do but wait and hope that their 
loved ones will be found. Kristen's Act establishes the first 
national clearinghouse for missing adults. It authorizes grants 
to states to (1) assist law enforcement and families in 
locating missing adults; (2) create a national database for the 
purpose of tracking missing adults who are determined by law 
enforcement to be endangered due to age, mental capacity, or 
the circumstances of their disappearance; (3) maintain 
statistics on missing adults; (4) provide information resources 
and referrals to families of missing adults; and (5) assist in 
public notification and victim advocacy of this issue.
    The Committee took no formal action on H.R. 2780. The House 
passed the bill on October 19, 2000 under suspension of the 
rules by voice vote. On October 26, the Senate passed the bill 
by unanimous consent. The President approved the bill on 
November 9 and it became Public Law 106-468.

Jennifer's Law

    Representative Rick Lazio (R-NY) introduced H.R. 1915, 
Jennifer's Law. The bill authorized the appropriation of 
$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 to be 
awarded to states to use the funds to establish or expand 
programs developed to improve the reporting of unidentified 
persons to the government.
    On June 7, 1999, the Committee was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill. On that day, the House passed by the 
bill by a recorded vote of 370 yeas, to 4 nays. No further 
action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.

Victims of Rape Health Protection Act

    On October 14, 1999 Representative Curt Weldon (R-FL) 
introduced the ``Victims of Rape Health Protection Act'' to 
reduce by ten percent the funds available to a State under the 
drug control grant program unless that State demonstrates that 
its laws or regulations with respect to a defendant against 
whom a rape charge is brought require that: (1) the defendant 
be tested for HIV if the nature of the crime would have placed 
the victim at risk of HIV and the victim requests such a test; 
(2) the defendant be so tested within 48 hours after the 
information or indictment is presented and that the test 
results be made immediately available to the victim; (3) the 
defendant undergo any appropriate follow-up tests and that 
those test results be made immediately available to the victim; 
and (4) if results indicate that the defendant has HIV, such 
fact may be considered in the judicial proceedings conducted 
for the crime.
    Drugs have now been developed which can prevent the 
transmission of the HIV virus after exposure to someone who 
carries the virus. The drugs are effective in preventing 
transmission approximately 80% of the time, however they must 
be administered with 2 to 24 hours after exposure and have 
extremely unpleasant side effects. Knowing the HIV status of 
the alleged perpetrator will enable the victim to make a more 
informed decision as to whether to undergo this course of 
treatment.
    The Subcommittee on Crime and the Committee subsequently 
discharged H.R. 3088 and on October 2, 2000 it was considered 
under suspension of the rules and passed by a vote of 380 yeas 
to 19 nays. No further action was taken on this legislation in 
the 106th Congress.

Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act

    Older Americans are among the most rapidly growing segments 
of our society. The nation's elderly are too frequently the 
victims of violent crime, property crime, and consumer and 
telemarketing fraud, and they are often targeted and retargeted 
in a range of fraudulent schemes. The TRIAD program, originally 
sponsored by the National Sheriffs' Association, International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, and the American Association 
of Retired Persons unites sheriffs, police chiefs, senior 
volunteers, elder care providers, families, and seniors to 
reduce the criminal victimization of the elderly. Congress 
should continue to support TRIAD and similar community 
partnerships that improve the safety and quality of life for 
millions of senior citizens.
    There are few other community-based efforts that forge 
partnerships to coordinate criminal justice and social service 
resources to improve the safety and security of the elderly. 
According to the National Consumers League, telemarketing fraud 
costs consumers nearly $40,000,000,000 each year. Senior 
citizens are often the target of telemarketing fraud. 
Fraudulent telemarketers compile the names of consumers who are 
potentially vulnerable to telemarketing fraud into the so-
called ``mooch lists.'' It is estimated that 56 percent of the 
names on such ``mooch lists'' are individuals age 50 or older. 
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Trade 
Commission have provided resources to assist private-sector 
organizations to operate outreach programs to warn senior 
citizens whose names appear on confiscated ``mooch lists.''
    S. 3164, the ``Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act'' 
authorizes appropriations to the Attorney General for fiscal 
years 2001 through 2005 for programs for the National 
Association of TRAID (a program originally sponsored by the 
National Sheriffs' Association, International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, and the American Association of Retired 
Persons to unite Sheriffs, police chiefs, senior volunteers, 
elder care providers, families, and seniors to reduce the 
criminal victimization of the elderly). S. 3164 directs the 
Comptroller General of the Untied States to submit to Congress 
a report on the effectiveness of the TRAID program. It also 
requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting 
through the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services 
for Aging, to provide to the Attorney General of each State and 
to publicly disseminate in each State, including to area 
agencies on aging, information designed to educate senior 
citizens and raise awareness about the dangers of fraud, 
including telemarketing and sweepstakes fraud. Directs the 
Secretary to give priority, in disseminating information, to 
areas with high incidents of fraud against senior citizens. 
Additionally, S. 3164 directs the Attorney general to: (1) 
conduct a study to assist in developing new strategies to 
prevent and otherwise reduce the incidence of crimes against 
seniors; and (2) include as part of each National Crime 
Victimization Survey statistics related to crimes targeting or 
disproportionately affecting seniors, crime risk factors for 
seniors, and specific characteristics of the victims of crimes 
who are seniors. Finally S. 3164 expresses the sense of the 
Congress that State and local governments should fully 
incorporate fraud avoidance information and programs into 
programs that provide assistance to the aging.
    S. 3164 was introduced by Senator Bayh on October 5, 2000, 
and it passed the Senate by unanimous consent on October 24, 
2000. On October 27, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee 
on crime. On October 30, 2000, the Committee was discharged 
from further consideration of S. 3164, and on that day the 
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules. On 
November 22, 2000, the President signed the bill and it became 
Public Law 106-534.

         improving law enforcement through enhanced technology

The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000

    In the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994 (Public Law 103-322) Congress authorized the FBI to create 
a national index of DNA samples taken from convictedoffenders, 
crime scenes and victims of crime, and unidentified human remains. In 
response to this authority, the FBI established the Combined DNA Index 
System (CODIS), which the FBI had been developing as a pilot program 
since the early 1990s. CODIS allows State and local forensics 
laboratories to exchange and compare DNA profiles electronically in an 
attempt to link evidence from crime scenes for which there are no 
suspects to DNA samples of convicted offenders on file in the system. 
Today, CODIS is installed in over 90 laboratories in 41 states and the 
District of Columbia. There are approximately 445,000 offender samples 
and 31,000 crime scene samples classified and stored in CODIS.
    All 50 states have enacted statutes requiring convicted 
offenders to provide DNA samples for analysis and entry into 
the CODIS system. The crimes which trigger the requirement to 
provide a sample vary from state to state. Samples from Federal 
offenders are not included in CODIS (unless they previously 
committed a state offense for which a sample was taken) because 
the language of the 1994 act only authorized the creation of 
the CODIS system, and not the taking of samples from persons 
convicted of Federal crimes, crimes under the District of 
Columbia Code, or offenses under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ). In a 1998 report of Congress the FBI requested 
that Congress enact statutory authority to allow the taking of 
DNA samples from persons committing Federal crimes of violence, 
robbery, and burglary, or similar crimes in the District of 
Columbia or while in the military, and authorizing them to be 
included in CODIS.
    The development of DNA identification technology is one of 
the most important advances in criminal identification methods 
in decades. As a direct result of the proven ability of DNA 
evidence to solve crime, many of the 120 public forensic 
laboratories operating across country have developed 
significant testing backlogs that have yet to be cleared. These 
backlogs have been exacerbated in recent years as new 
developments in DNA analysis technology has required that many 
samples, especially those taken from convicted offenders and 
cataloged in the CODIS database, be reanalyzed using new 
technology.
    In a report issued by the Justice Department's Bureau of 
Justice Statistics (Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 
(February 2000)), as of December 1997, approximately 69% of 
publicly operated forensic crime labs across the country had at 
least 6,800 unprocessed DNA cases and an additional 287,000 
unprocessed convicted offender DNA samples. The public labs 
reporting a backlog include the FBI's crime lab in Washington. 
In 1997, for example, these labs received about 21,000 cases 
involving DNA evidence for analysis and processed about 14,000 
of those cases. In that same year, 116,000 convicted offender 
samples were submitted for analysis, an increase from 72,000 in 
1996. Of these totals, only 45,000 were analyzed in 1997 and 
37,000 in 1996.
    As a result of these backlogs, killers, rapists, and other 
dangerous offenders who might be successfully identified 
through DNA matching remain at large to engage in further 
crimes against the public. And promptly identifying the actual 
perpetrator of a crime through DNA matching clears all other 
persons who might wrongfully be suspected, accused, or 
convicted of the crime. Where this cannot bed done because of 
an inability to analyze and index convicted offender or crime 
scene samples in a timely manner, the risks to the innocent 
increase accordingly.
    H.R. 4640, the ``DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000'' was 
introduced by Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL). The bill 
establishes a $170 million grant program whereby the Federal 
government may make grants to states to enable them to conduct 
DNA analyses of biological samples taken from offenders who are 
required to provide such a sample and samples taken from crime 
scenes and from victims of crime. The bill authorizes funding 
for analysis of convicted offender samples analysis of $15 
million a year for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003. The 
bill also authorizes $25 million in fiscal year 2001, $50 
million in fiscal year 2002, and $25 million in each of fiscal 
year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 for the analysis of crime scene 
sample and the building of capacity to conduct analysis in the 
future. Addressing the crime scene sample backlog is 
intrinsically more expensive because of the higher cost of 
analyzing crime scene samples. States wishing to receive 
funding under the program created by the bill are required to 
make application to the Attorney General through the Office of 
Justice Programs. To qualify for funding, a state must develop 
a plan to eliminate its backlog of samples awaiting DNA 
analysis.
    The bill also authorizes DNA samples to be collected and 
included into CODIS from offenders convicted of certain Federal 
offenses, crimes under the District of Columbia Code, and 
offenses under the UCMJ. The Federal and military offenses 
triggering the sample requirement are specified in the bill and 
consist principally of serious violent crimes and crimes 
involving sex offenses. The bill authorizes the District of 
Columbia government to determine which crimes under the 
District of Columbia code will trigger this requirement. The 
bill also requires that samples of offenders whose convictions 
are reversed be removed from CODIS.
    H.R. 4640 is similar to three other bills which have been 
introduced in the 106th Congress: H.R. 2810, the ``Violent 
Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999'' introduced by 
Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI); H.R. 3087, the ``DNA 
Backlog Elimination Act,'' introduced by Representative Anthony 
Weiner (D-NY); and H.R. 3375, the ``Convicted Offender DNA 
Index System Support Act,'' introduced by Representative 
Benjamin Gilman (R-NY). The sponsors of those bills are 
original co-sponsors of H.R. 4640.
    All three of these bills were the subject of a hearing in 
the Subcommittee on Crime on March 23, 2000. The following 
witnesses testified: Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY); 
Representative Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY); Representative Patrick 
J. Kennedy (D-RI); Dwight E. Adams, Deputy Assistant Director, 
Laboratory Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Washington, D.C.; David G. Boyd, Director, Office of Science 
and Technology, National Institute of Justice; United States 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Michael G. Sheppo, 
Bureau Chief, Division of Forensic Science Command, Illinois 
State Police, Springfield, Illinois; David Coffman, Crime 
Laboratory Analyst Supervisor, Investigation and Forensics 
Program Area, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 
Tallahassee, Florida; Paul B. Ferrara, Director, Division of 
Forensic Science, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of 
Criminal Justice Services, Richmond, VA; Barry Steinhardt, 
Esq., Associate Director, American Civil Liberties Union, 
Washington, D.C.; Jane Siegel Greene, Esq., executive Director, 
the Innocence Project, New York, New York.
    On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 4640 reportedfavorably to the full Committee. On 
July 26, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the 
House, and the bill was reported on September 26 (H. Rept. 106-900). 
The House passed the bill on October 2 by voice vote. The Senate passed 
the bill with an amendment by unanimous consent on December 6, 2000. On 
December 7, the House agreed to the senate amendment by unanimous 
consent. On December 19, 2000, the President approved the bill and it 
became Public Law 106-546.

Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act

    S. 3045, the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science 
Improvement Act of 2000, was introduced by Senator Jeff 
Sessions (R-AL) as a tribute to the late Senator Paul Coverdell 
(R-GA). Senator Coverdell had introduced similar legislation 
earlier this Congress but did not live to see it acted upon. S. 
3045 is similar to a bill, H.R. 2340, introduced in the House 
by Representative Sandford Bishop (D-GA) on which the House 
took no action.
    The bill expands the list of permitted uses of the Federal 
Byrne Grants program to allow states to use those funds to 
improving the quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic 
science services, including DNA, blood, and ballistics tests. 
The act requires States to develop a plan outlining the manner 
in which the grants will be used to improve forensic science 
services provided by State and local crime labs and limits 
administrative expenditures to 10% of the grant amount. And the 
act adds a reporting requirement so that the backlog reduction 
can be documented and tracked. We need to know how these grants 
are impacting backlogs in each State.
    The bill also included two provisions unrelated to forensic 
science grants. One clarifies a provision of the Civil Asset 
Forfeiture Act (codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 983 (a)(2)(C)(ii)) 
which was passed into law during the 106th Congress. the other 
provision expresses a sense of the Congress regarding the use 
of DNA samples in cases involving the imposition of the death 
penalty.
    On October 26, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by 
unanimous consent. In the house, the bill was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Crime. On 
December 7, 2000, the Committee was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill and passed the bill by unanimous 
consent. On December 21, 2000, the President approved the bill 
and it became Public Law 106-561.

Computer Crime Enforcement

    On December 15, 2000, the Committee was discharged from 
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2816, a bill introduced 
by Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ). On that day the House 
passed the bill by unanimous consent with an amendment. Also on 
that day, the Senate passed the bill, as amended by the House, 
by unanimous consent. The President approved the bill on 
December 28, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-572.
    The bill authorizes the appropriation of $100 million over 
four fiscal years to be awarded by the Department of Justice to 
each State to be used to: (1) assist State and local law 
enforcement agencies in enforcing State and local criminal laws 
relating to computer crime and in educating the public to 
prevent and identify computer crime; (2) educate and train 
State and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors to 
conduct investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and 
prosecutions of computer crime; (3) assist State and local law 
enforcement officers and prosecutors in acquiring computer and 
other equipment to conduct investigations and forensic analysis 
of evidence of computer crimes; and (4) facilitate and promote 
the sharing of Federal law enforcement expertise and 
information about the investigation, analysis, and prosecution 
of computer crimes with State and local law enforcement 
officers and prosecutors, including the use of multi-
jurisdictional task forces.

Innocence Protection Act

    H.R. 4167 was introduced by Representative William Delahunt 
(D-MA) together with Representative Ray LaHood (R-IL). H.R. 
4167 contains three major titles: (I) exonerating the innocent 
through post-conviction review, (II) ensuring competent legal 
services in capital cases, and (III) compensating the unjustly 
condemned.
    Title I of the bill would establish a procedure whereby 
offenders convicted in Federal court (of any crime) could 
obtain a post-conviction DNA analysis of biological evidence 
found in connection with their case. The bill would only permit 
these tests when the offender alleges that the material in 
question was not tested in connection with the offender's trial 
or that the material could be re-tested using improved DNA 
analysis techniques which would provide a reasonable likelihood 
of more accurate or probative results. If the result of the 
test on the evidence is ``favorable'' to the offenders, the 
bill would also require the court to order a hearing and 
fashion appropriate relief. The bill also requires the 
government to preserve all biological material related to a 
case for as long as the offender remains in custody. The bill 
does allow the government to seek court permission to destroy 
such evidence but, in that case the defendant first must be 
given an opportunity to test the material to be destroyed.
    The bill also requires all states to permit similar post-
conviction testing procedures in state cases. The bill relies 
on the 14th amendment to impose this mandate on the states. The 
bill also would condition certain Federal funding to states on 
their adoption of similar procedures. One of the Federal crime 
funding programs so conditioned is the Bryne Memorial State and 
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which distributes 
hundreds of millions of dollars each year to state and local 
governments.
    Title II of the bill would further condition Federal 
funding under the Byrne program on a state's adoption of 
procedures in death penalty cases that are designed to 
``establish[] and maintain[] an effective system for providing 
competent legal services to indigent defendants at every stage 
of a state death penalty prosecution in which a death sentence 
is sought.'' It would require the Director of the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts to promulgate 
regulations specifying the elements of an effective system. 
This section would also limit the applicability of certain 
procedural rules in the current habeas corpus provisions, 
enacted in 1996 (that require Federal courts pay deference to 
findings of fact made in state criminal trials.) Thistitle of 
the bill would also authorize the appropriation of Federal funds to 
public and private agencies for the purpose of increasing the 
availability of counsel in Federal and state death penalty cases.
    Title III of the bill would also increase from $5,000 to 
$50,0000 the amount of damages that can be awarded for each 12 
month period in which as person was wrongly incarcerated. The 
bill would further condition a state's receipt of Federal 
``truth-in-sentencing'' prison construction grant funding on 
the state's adoption of a similar compensation scheme.
    Title IV of the bill contains several ``miscellaneous'' 
provisions. One of these would prohibit the Federal government 
from imposing a sentence of death in any Federal criminal 
prosecution if the state in which the Federal court is located 
does not also allow for the imposition of the death penalty in 
state prosecutions. The bill does contain some exception to 
this prohibition, such as cases involving acts of terrorism, 
the murder of a high public official, or murder of a Federal 
inmate by another. Another provision would amend current habeas 
corpus provisions, also enacted in 1996, that require offenders 
convicted in state court to exhaust state court remedies before 
proceeding in Federal court.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 4167 on June 20, 
2000. The following witnesses testified at the hearing: 
Representative Ray LaHood (R-IL); Representative William D. 
Delahunt (D-MA); The Honorable George H. Ryan, Governor, State 
of Illinois; Kirk Bloodsworth, Baltimore, Maryland; Stephen B. 
Bright, Esq., director, Southern Center for Human Rights, 
Atlanta, Georgia; Ward Campbell, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, 
Sacramento, California; James E. Coleman, Jr., Esq., Professor 
of Law, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Justice Gerald 
Kogan, Alliance for Ethical Government, University of Miami 
School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, Peter Neufeld, Esq., The 
Innocence Project, New York, New York; The Honorable Eliot 
Spitzer, Attorney General, State of New York; and The Honorable 
Stuart VanMeveren, President, National District Attorney's 
Association.
    No further action was taken on the bill H.R. 4167 during 
the 106th Congress.

Volunteer Organization Safety Act of 1999

    H.R. 3410, the ``Volunteer Organization Safety Act of 
1999'' was introduced by Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX). 
The bill provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Federal government may not require volunteer 
organizations who request background checks to be completed on 
potential volunteer workers to submit fingerprints to the 
government in order to complete the background check. The 
purpose of the bill is to allow volunteer organizations seeking 
background checks on potential volunteer workers to request the 
FBI to conduct those checks using the system of criminal record 
organized by name and other personal identifiers as part of the 
National Crime Information Center system rather than using the 
FBI's fingerprint system.
    In 1993, Congress passed the National Child Protection Act 
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 5119a), which authorized the FBI to conduct 
background checks on persons who work with children upon the 
request of the organization for which these persons would work. 
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
(Public Law 103-322) expanded the scope of the law to include 
the elderly and person with disabilities. To take advantage of 
this law, however, a state must first pass its own law 
requiring that the check be performed. As it was envisioned, 
states would require persons working with children, the 
elderly, and the disabled, whether in a for-profit business or 
in a volunteer agency, to submit fingerprints to a designated 
state law enforcement agency (such as the state police). That 
agency would them submit them to the FBI which would run the 
prints through its fingerprint system, the Integrated Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), to determine whether 
the person had ever been convicted of a crime. The FBI would 
provide the results to the referring state agency which would 
then determine, under state law, whether the person checked was 
qualified to hold the position he or she was seeking. The 
agency would inform the company or organization for which the 
person was apply to work or volunteer whether the person had 
been passed or denied by the system. In order to protect the 
privacy of the applicant/volunteer, the state agency would not 
inform any employees or volunteers at the agency of the actual 
basis for the denial, but just that the person in question had 
been denied during the background check process.
    Only a few states passed a law authorizing fingerprints to 
be submitted through a state agency to the FBI. In an effort to 
encourage greater use of the law, Congress amended the Act in 
1998 in the Interstate Criminal Justice Improvements Act 
(Public Law 105-251) to enact Senate bill (S. 2022) to provide 
that in the absence of any state-enacted procedure authorizing 
background checks, a qualified entity could contact an agency 
authorized by the governor of that state and request the 
fingerprint background check be performed.
    The FBI's National Crime Information Center is an 
information system that provides local, state, and Federal law 
enforcement agencies with information 24 hours-a-day on 17 
different files of records, such as wanted persons, stolen 
cars, stolen firearms, and other stolen property. The system 
includes over 500,000 records on ``wanted persons'' (persons as 
to whom as arrest warrant is outstanding) and 200,000 records 
on persons subject to restraining or protecting orders. The 
system is not designed to be a final determiner of a person's 
identity but to ascertain in a short period of time (i.e., a 
few minutes) whether a person is wanted by another jurisdiction 
or is subject to a restraining or protective order. The system 
is most commonly used by police making arrests or traffic stops 
in order to determine if the person apprehended or detained is 
wanted for another crime and whether the car they are driving 
has been reported stolen.
    The use of the NCIC system is limited because it is only 
designed to search for records that match the data inputted. 
For example, if the person arrested is carrying false 
identification showing a fictitious name or date of birth, the 
NCIC system will not reveal any records that pertain to him. 
Because fingerprints are unique to each person, only a 
fingerprint system search will reveal these records.
    On May 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 3410. The following witnesses 
testified: Representative Sessions (R-TX); and Representative 
Kay Granger (R-TX); David R. Loesch, Assistant Director of the 
FBI for the Criminal Justice Information ServicesDivision; 
Julie Thomas, Executive Director, Volunteer Center of Dallas County, 
Dallas Texas; Ben Casey, President, YMCA of Metropolitan Dallas, Texas; 
and Al Philippus, Chief of Police, San Antonio, Texas.
    No further action was taken on the bill H.R. 3410 during 
the 106th Congress.

Internet denial of service attacks

    On February 28, 2000, the Subcommittee held a joint hearing 
together with the Subcommittee on Criminal Oversight of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee concerning a series of well-planned 
and coordinated cyber attacks on several of the nation's 
largest Internet sites that began on February 8, 2000 and 
continued for several days. Within seconds of the first wave of 
attacks, two popular sites--search engine Yahoo.com and 
retailer Buy.com--were effectively shut down for several hours. 
Over the next two days, more of the Internet's flagship sites 
were similarly disrupted, including news outlets CNN.com and 
ZDNet.com, retailer Amazon.com, auction house eBay.com, and 
brokerage house E*Trade.com. The attacks inconvenienced 
millions of Internet users and resulted in a loss of revenue 
for several of the affected sites. The Subcommittee received 
testimony on the nature of the attacks and suggestions as to 
how best to respond to the continuing threat.
    Testifying at the hearing were Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney 
General, U.S. Department of Justice; Martha Stansell-Gamm, 
Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Michael Vatis, 
Director, National Infrastructure Protection Center, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation; Ron Dick, Deputy Director, National 
Infrastructure Protection Center, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation; Howard Schmidt, Director, Information Security, 
Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington; Charles Giancarlo, 
Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems Incorporated, San Jose, 
California; Paul Misener, Vice President, Global Public Policy, 
Amazon.com, Seattle, Washington; Henry Wolfgang Carter, Chief 
Compliance Officer, E*Trade, Menlo Park, California; Dan 
Rosensweig, President and Chief Executive Officer, ZDNet.com, 
New York, New York; Katherine T. Fithen, Manager, CERT 
Coordination Center, Software Engineering Institute, 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ``Mudge,'' Vice President of Research 
and Development, @Stake, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts; and 
James Dempsey, Esquire, senior Staff Counsel, The Center for 
Democracy and Technology, Washington, D.C.

Reporting requirements concerning intercepted wire, oral, or electronic 
        communications

    On November 5, 1999, the Senate passed by unanimous consent 
S. 1769, a bill introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). On 
November 18, 1999 the Committee was discharged from further 
consideration and the House passed the bill with an amendment 
by unanimous consent. On April 13, 2000 the Senate concurred in 
the House amendment by unanimous consent. On May 2, 2000, the 
President approved the bill and it became Public Law 106-197.
    The bill makes a provision of the Federal Reports 
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (which terminates as of 
December 31, 1999, all reporting requirements contained on a 
list prepared by the Clerk of the House of Representatives for 
the first session of the 103rd Congress) inapplicable to 
certain reporting requirements under specified Federal 
provisions and Acts, including: (1) the reports that the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts is required to transmit to Congress each April 
concerning the number of applications for orders authorizing or 
approving wire, oral, or electronic communications 
interception; (2) the requirements for the Department of 
Justice's annual report on crime statistics; and (3) the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service's annual statistical 
report.
    The bill also amends the Federal criminal code to require 
the Attorney General or specified other officials to report to 
the Administrative Office each January on the number of such 
orders in which encryption was encountered and whether such 
encryption prevented law enforcement from obtaining the plain 
text of communications intercepted. And the bill directs the 
Attorney General to include within an annual report to Congress 
on pen registers and trap and trace devices information 
concerning: (1) the period of interceptions authorized by each 
order and the number and duration of any extensions of the 
order; (2) the offense specified in the order, application, or 
extension of an order; (3) the number of investigations 
involved; (4) the number and nature of the facilities affected; 
and (5) the identity, including district, of the applying 
investigative or law enforcement agency making the application 
and the person authorizing the order.

              Juvenile Justice Reform and Firearms Safety

    Juvenile justice reform remained a top priority of the 
Crime Subcommittee in the 106th Congress. Consequently, the 
Subcommittee held two days of hearings on juvenile justice 
reform, on March 10 and 11, 1999. On March 10, the following 
witnesses were heard: Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General, Criminal Division, United States Department 
of Justice; Sherry Matteucci, United States Attorney for the 
State of Montana; and Frank A. Orlando, a retired Judge and the 
Director of Center for the Study of Youth Policy of Nova 
Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On March 
11, the following witnesses were heard: David Grossmann, a 
retired judge from Hamilton County Juvenile Court of 
Cincinnati, Ohio; Patricia West, judge of the Juvenile and 
Domestic Relations District Court of Virginia Beach, Virginia; 
Kenneth W. Sukhia, an attorney of the law firm of Fowler, 
White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker of Tallahassee, 
Florida; Jim Kester of the Criminal Justice Division of the 
Office of the Governor of Texas, Austin, Texas; Wesley 
Shackelford, attorney of the Texas Juvenile Probation 
Commission, Austin, Texas; Mike Lawlor of the State of 
Connecticut, House of Representatives of Hartford, Connecticut; 
Laurence Steinberg, professor of psychology of Temple 
University at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Richard D. 
Taylor, judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District 
Court of Richmond, Virginia.
    Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) introduced H.R. 1501, 
the ``Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999'' on 
April 21, 1999. All Crime Subcommittee members--Republicans and 
Democrats--were original co-sponsors. It was marked up by the 
Subcommittee on April 22, 1999, and considered by the House on 
June 16 and 17, 1999, and then passed by a vote of 287-139. The 
bill provides much-needed resources to State and local juvenile 
justice systems to helpthem do more to focus on the youthful, 
first-time offender. And it ties these additional resources to 
graduated sanctions--an approach that seeks to ensure meaningful, 
proportional consequences for juvenile wrongdoing, starting with the 
first offense, and intensifying with each subsequent more serious 
offense.
    At the same time that the bill calls for graduated 
sanctions, it provides flexibility. It ensures that a court's 
disposition is tailored to the individual juvenile. It also 
allows for the imposition of graduated sanctions to be 
discretionary: That is, a state or locality can still qualify 
even if its system of graduated sanctions allows juvenile 
courts to opt out. the bill simply provides that when there are 
such opt-outs, a record must be sent at the end of the year, 
explaining why a sanction wasn't imposed. This is working well 
in certain states and localities, and is not an undue burden.
    Furthermore, the bill ensures flexibility by providing that 
a wide range of juvenile justice system activities and services 
can be supported. From new detention facilities and hiring more 
judges and probation officers, to juvenile gun courts, drug 
court programs and accountability-based school safety 
programs--this bill allows States and localities to strengthen 
their juvenile justice systems as they see fit.
    The bill was substantially amended on the House floor to 
include numerous provisions addressing a wide range of issues 
related to juvenile justice and children's safety.
    The Senate subsequently considered juvenile justice 
legislation and the Speaker appointed conferees on July 30, 
1999. The House-Senate Conference met on August 5, 1999. The 
House instructed conferees on H.R. 1501 on July 30, September 
22, September 23, September 24, October 14, March 15, 2000, and 
April 11, 2000. No further action was taken on the bill during 
the 106th Congress.
    On June 10, 1999, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) 
introduced H.R. 2122, the ``Mandatory Gun Show Background Check 
Act.'' The legislation provided for mandatory background checks 
at gun shows. It was considered by the House on June 16, 1999. 
Numerous amendments related to firearms safety were made to the 
bill while being considered by the House. The bill was defeated 
on final passage by a vote of 147 yeas to 280 nays. No further 
action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.

                        prison industries reform

    The Federal Bureau of Prisons (``BOP'') has custody of over 
130,000 prisoners convicted of federal crimes. Over 115,000 of 
these prisoners are incarcerated in the 94 institutions that 
the BOP operates. Every prisoner who is physically able to work 
is required to perform some type of labor five days a week. 
Approximately 17% of the federal prison population works in 
Federal Prison Industries, a correction program in which 
inmates manufacture goods and provide services to agencies of 
the federal government. Under the trade name ``UNICOR,'' 
Federal Prison Industries (FPI) currently produces goods in 
over 150 different product lines. In 1998, its gross annual 
revenues were approximately $534 million.
    There are over 1.8 million persons incarcerated in state 
prison systems. Each of the 50 states and the District of 
Columbia operate some type of prison industry program. Some 
states limit the sales of the goods manufactured in these 
programs to the state government, while others authorize sales 
to the commercial market under the Prison Industry Enhancement 
(PIE) program. As of mid-1996 (the last year for which data is 
available) there were over 64,000 state inmates employed in 
these prison industry programs. Expressed as a percentage, 
state prison industry programs employ approximately 6.3% of all 
state prisoners.
    The FPI program is entirely self-sufficient--no taxpayer 
monies are used to operate it. Revenues exceed costs by about 
2% of gross sales, and this money is retained by FPI to finance 
the activation of future facilities. Of each dollar of revenue, 
7 cents is paid as wages to prisoners and 20 cents is paid as 
wages to the BOP employees who oversee the operation of UNICOR 
factories. The remaining 70 cents is paid to the American 
businesses which supply the goods, raw materials, and supplies 
used in the UNICOR operation.
    Congress has placed a number of requirements on FPI. Under 
the statute authorizing the operation of federal prison 
industries (18 U.S.C. Sec. 4121, et sec.), FPI is required to 
provide employment ``for the greatest number of those inmates 
in the United States penal and correctional institutions who 
are eligible to work as is reasonably possible.'' The Board is 
also required to diversify prison industrial operations, so far 
as practicable, so that ``no single private industry shall be 
forced to bear an undue burden of competition'' from the 
products of the prison workshops and also to maintain a 
``minimum competition'' with private industry or free labor. 
FPI is to conduct its operations so as to ``avoid capturing 
more than a reasonable share of the market'' among federal 
departments, agencies, and institutions for any specific 
products. Additionally, FPI is to concentrate on producing 
``only those products which permit employment of the greatest 
number of * * * inmates who are eligible to work as is 
reasonably possible.''
    FPI and states prison industry programs are prohibited by 
Federal law from selling the goods inmates produce in the 
commercial market. This prohibition dates to the late 1920s 
when Congress enacted the Cooper-Hawes Act to enable States to 
control the flow of prison-made goods and, in 1935, enacted the 
Ashurst-Sumners Act to generally prohibit interstate commerce 
in those goods. In 1979, Congress created the Prison Industry 
Enhancement (PIE) Program. This law, as later amended, 
establishes an exception to the prohibition for up to 50 state 
prison industry projects and permits them to sell ``goods, 
wares, or merchandise'' in interstate commerce as long as labor 
representatives were consulted and currently employed workers 
were not displaced in establishing the project. The program 
also requires that participating inmates be paid prevailing 
wages, with deductions to be taken from those wages for taxes, 
charges for room and board, family support, and victim 
compensation. These programs are only available to state 
prisons industry programs. It is not available to FPI.
    The departments and agencies of the Federal government are 
required to purchase ``such products of the industries 
authorized by [Chapter 307 of the United States Code] as meet 
their requirements and may be available'' as long as the 
products to not exceed ``current marketprices.'' This provision 
is commonly known as the ``mandatory source preference.'' In practice, 
this law gives FPI the exclusive right to sell goods to the federal 
agencies, up to an annual market percentage previously authorized by 
the FPI board. Of the 150 products FPI sells, in only 12 instances do 
sales exceed 20% of the federal market for that product. The total 
sales of all FPI products represent only 3% of the total federal 
government purchases of these products. Of the total federal government 
purchases of all products, FPI's total sales represent 1/4 of 1%.
    Disputes as to the price, quality, character, or 
suitability of FPI products are to be arbitrated by a board 
comprised of the Comptroller General of the United States, the 
Administrator of General Services, and the President, or their 
representatives.\1\ Departments and agencies may request a 
waiver of the mandatory source rule so that they may purchase 
goods from a source other than FPI. In fiscal year 1997, FPI 
granted 82% of all waivers requested, enabling private business 
to sell approximately $236 million in additional goods to 
federal departments and agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4124(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FPI program is operated as a ``government corporation'' 
created by Congress in 1934. The board of directors of FPI 
consists of six persons appointed by the President and who 
serve at his pleasure without compensation. By statute, one 
director is to be appointed from each of the following 
backgrounds: industry, labor, agriculture, retailers and 
consumers, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the 
Office of the Attorney General. Before FPI begins to produce a 
new product, or significantly expands the production of an 
existing product, the FPI Board must approve that change.
    In 1991, researchers of the Bureau of Prisons published 
preliminary findings in a study entitled ``The Effect of Prison 
Work Experience, Vocational, and Apprenticeship Training on the 
Long Term Recidivism of U.S. Federal Prisoners'' (the ``PREP 
study''). The study began in 1983 and data was collected 
through October 1987 on over 7,000 offenders. The findings 
published in 1987 demonstrated that inmates who participated in 
the work programs had statistically significant lower rates of 
recidivism and higher levels of employment than inmates who did 
not participate in these programs.
    In 1995, the BOP conducted a follow-up study in which it 
examined whether the inmates from the first study had been 
recommitted to prison, Most of the inmates involved in the 
study had been released for at least 8 years, and some for as 
long as 12 years. This report confirmed the 1987 findings that 
inmates who had received this type of training, and especially 
male inmates, were 24% less likely to commit new offenses than 
inmates who did not receive the training. A 1995 Ohio study 
conducted by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 
Correction showed a similar result for prisoners who worked in 
Ohio's prison industries program. That study showed that 
participation in any prison industry jobs reduced the 
recidivism rate for offenders by 20 percent, while 
participation in a high skilled prison industry job reduced the 
rate by 50 percent. A study conducted by the Maryland State Use 
Industries over a five year period showed that participation in 
that prison industry program reduced recidivism by half.
    H.R. 2558, the ``Prison Industries Reform Act of 1999'' was 
introduced by Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL), together 
with Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA). The principal purpose 
of H.R. 2558 was to increase the work opportunities available 
to both Federal and state prisoners. It would have accomplished 
this by allowing private sector companies to participate in 
federal prison industry programs. The bill required FPI to open 
all present and future prison industry programs to any private 
company that wishes to operate its business using inmate 
workers at a federal prison. These companies would have been 
permitted to sell the products made by their inmate workers on 
the open market, just as if they were made by non-inmate 
workers. The bill would also have allowed FPI to sell products 
made by prisoners directly to other American companies (e.g., 
should that companies not wish to operate the prison industry 
program itself but prefer that FPI operate the industry for 
it.)
    The bill required FPI, and any private company that uses 
FPI inmate workers to produce products or services, to pay to 
the inmate workers who produce these goods a wage that is at 
least equal to the Federal minimum wage. From the amounts paid 
to these inmate workers, the Bureau of Prisons was authorized 
to take deductions for fines and restitution owed by the 
inmate, for the inmate's family support obligations, for an 
inmate savings accounts to be paid to the prisoner upon his 
release, and for room and board costs. The bill required that 
one-half of the amounts deducted be paid to the U.S. Treasury 
to offset the costs of housing Federal prisoners.
    H.R. 2558 also provided incentives for American businesses 
to use FPI labor to compete against foreign workers and bring 
back to the U.S. jobs that have been lost to those workers. 
Under the bill, FPI or private companies which have contracted 
to use FPI inmates labor would be authorized to pay less than 
the minimum wage to inmate workers if the products to be 
produced would otherwise be made by foreign workers outside of 
the United States. The determination as to whether the products 
to be produced fall into this category would be made by an 
Independent Review Panel comprised of representatives from 
organized labor, the business community, the Small Business 
Administration, the Commerce and Labor Departments and the 
International Trade Commission.
    The bill required FPI to make it a priority to produce 
products that are currently made by foreign workers, in order 
to lessen the impact of this program on non-inmate American 
workers. As discussed above, the bill also required that FPI, 
or companies using FPI labor, pay at least minimum wage to the 
inmate employees if the products they produce might compete 
with ones produced by non-inmate American workers. Further, the 
bill prohibits American companies from laying off their non-
inmate American employees in order to hire inmate workers. 
Under the bill, private companies who contract with FPI to use 
prison labor must agree to maintain their existing level of 
non-inmate American workers for at least 18 months after they 
contract with FPI or begin making products with FPI labor, 
whichever is later.
    H.R. 2558 eliminated the mandatory source preference. It 
would have immediately prohibited FPI from expanding its sales 
using this authority. It also phased out FPI's use of the 
authority by requiring FPI to annually reduce the portion of 
the goods it sells each year using this authority. The bill 
would have then abolished the use of this authority completely 
after seven years by repealing the statute that allows for its 
use. As a result, the entire Federal market forgoods and 
services will be completely open to all bidders.
    The bill also allowed, but did not require, state prison 
industries to sell their products on the open market. To do so, 
however, states must pay the inmates who produce the products 
to be sold a wage that is not less than the Federal minimum 
wage. As with FPI, States may deduct from these wages amounts 
to be used to pay fines and restitution, family support 
obligations, and room and board. Also, states must eliminate 
any mandatory source preferences they impose on their state 
agencies and departments within 7 years of the date when they 
begin to sell goods on the open market.
    On July 19, 1999, Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and 
several cosponsors, including Representative Howard Coble (R-
NC) and Representative Barney Frank (R-MA), introduced H.R. 
2551, Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act 
of 1999. This bill would have made a number of significant 
changes to the way in which FPI would be authorized to do 
business. It made no change in the existing laws affecting 
state prison industry programs.
    H.R. 2551 would have immediately repealed the mandatory 
source preference provision requiring Executive Branch 
departments and agencies to buy a portion of their procurement 
needs from FPI. FPI would have been required to compete for all 
contracts to sell goods or provide services to the Federal 
Government. But the bill would have continued the existing 
prohibition on the sale of prison made goods or services to the 
open market. The bill specifically prohibited private sector 
companies from partnering with FPI, even if those companies 
ultimately sell their product to the Federal government.
    H.R. 2551 would have required all federal agencies to 
solicit an offer from FPI, when making a purchase above a 
minimal threshold, for any product or service which the FPI has 
authorized UNICOR to sell. The bill contained a provision 
allowing FPI to require an agency to negotiate with it on a 
noncompetitive basis (i.e., a type of mandatory source 
preference) only if the Attorney General determines that FPI 
cannot reasonably expect to receive the contract award on a 
competitive basis and the contract award is necessary to 
maintain work opportunities in BOP facilities in order to 
prevent a situation which could ``significantly endanger the 
safe and effective administration'' of a BOP facility.
    The bill would also have required that the FPI board 
consider several new factors regarding the impact of a proposed 
change in the FPI product or quantity limits before approving 
that proposal. These factors include: (1) an analysis of the 
proportion of the federal government market for a specific 
product or service currently furnished by small businesses 
during the previous three fiscal years; (2) whether the 
industry producing the product in the private sector has 
unemployment rates higher than the national average; (3) 
whether that industry has an unemployment rate that has been 
increasing over the prior five years; (4) whether the industry 
has certain import to domestic production ratios; (5) the total 
volume of domestic production for the five previous years in 
the industry making the specific product in question; and (6) 
the projected growth or decline in demand for the specific 
product.
    On August 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 2558, the ``Prison Industries 
Reform Act of 1999'' and H.R. 2551, the ``Federal Prison 
Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 1999.'' The 
following witnesses testified: Representative Peter Hoekstra 
(R-MI); Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of 
Prisons; accompanied by Steve Schwalb, Assistant Director, 
Bureau of Prisons; Fred P. Braun, Jr., President, The Workman 
Fund, Leavenworth, Kansas; John H. Felt, Manager of Government 
Accounts, HON Industries, Muscatine, Iowa; Phillip L. Glover, 
President, Council of Prison Locals, Johnstown, Pennsylvania; 
Andrew S. Linder, President, Power Connector, Incorporated, 
Bohemia, New York; Larry K. Martin, President, American Apparel 
Manufacturers Association, Arlington, Virginia; Thomas 
Petersik, Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, 
Washington, D.C.; and Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio 
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Columbus, Ohio.
    On September 23, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 2558 reported favorably to the full Committee. No 
further action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.

                    protecting and supporting police

Financial assistance for higher education for the dependents of public 
        safety officers killed in the line of duty

    On June 6, 1999, Representative Peter King (R-NY) 
introduced H.R. 2059, a bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the retroactive 
eligibility dates for financial assistance for higher education 
for spouses and dependent children of Federal, State, and local 
law enforcement officers who are killed in the line of duty. 
H.R. 2059 would amend the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents 
Assistance Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 3796d 5(a)) to extend the 
retroactive eligibility dates for financial assistance for 
higher education to the spouses and dependent children of 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers killed in 
the line of duty. Current law provides that the dependents of 
Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty 
after May 1, 1992, are eligible for this assistance. Dependents 
of State and local public safety officers killed in the line of 
duty after October 1, 1997, are also eligible. This legislation 
would move the eligibility dates farther back in time to make 
more dependents eligible. For Federal law enforcement officers 
and State and local public safety officers, the dates would be 
changed to January 1, 1978.
    In 1996, Congress amended Part L of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) 
by passing the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance 
Act. The Act was in response to several fatal shootings of 
Federal law enforcement officers in the early 1990's, which 
left surviving spouses and children in difficult financial 
circumstances, without the means to pursue higher education. It 
provided that the Attorney General could extend benefits to 
pursue higher education to the dependents of Federal law 
enforcement officers killed or permanently disabled in the line 
of duty. The act included a ``special rule'' of retroactive 
eligibility to receive educational benefits for the dependents 
of Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty 
on or after May 1, 1992. By its terms, the retroactive 
eligibility clause did not cover the dependents of Federal law 
enforcement officers permanently disabled in the line of duty. 
The act was amended in 1998 to offer educational benefits to 
the dependents ofState and local public safety officers killed 
or permanently disabled in the line of duty, and that amendment 
included retroactive eligibility for the dependents of public safety 
officers killed in the line of duty on or after October 1, 1997.
    Unfortunately, the somewhat arbitrary choice of dates to 
qualify for benefits has excluded deserving dependents from 
participating in the program. H.R. 2059 would correct this 
inequity by (1) making the retroactive eligibility dates to 
receive benefits for higher education the same for both Federal 
law enforcement officers and public safety officers, and (2) by 
moving the eligibility dates farther back in time to make it 
possible for more young people to pursue higher education. To 
date, the cost of providing educational benefits to dependents 
of officers killed in the line of duty has been surprisingly 
modest. For example, the Department of Justice reports that for 
fiscal year 1999, only eight survivors of Federal agents were 
paid a total of $44,036 in benefits, which no State and local 
survivors received benefits. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that extending retroactive eligibility will cost the 
Government an additional $14 million over fiscal years 2000 
through 2005 and about $24 million over the next 10 years.
    On July 6, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged 
from further consideration of H.R. 2059. On July 11, 2000, the 
full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the 
House, and the bill was reported on July 27 (H. Rept. 106-800). 
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th 
Congress. On September 19, 2000, the House passed S. 1638, a 
bill substantially similar to H.R. 2059, by voice vote. The 
president approved that bill on October 2, 2000 and it became 
Public Law 106-276.

Protecting public safety officers

    H.R. 4423, the ``Probation Officers' Protection Act of 
2000,'' was introduced by Representative Bob Barr (R-GA). It 
would authorize probation and pretrial services officers to 
carry firearms.
    Probation officers and pretrial services officers are 
employees of the Judicial Branch. They perform a number of 
functions, including preparing reports to the court concerning 
whether release on bail is appropriate for a defendant, 
monitoring compliance with bail orders by all defendants, and 
monitoring the activities of persons who are on parole or on 
supervised release. Congress determines, by statute, the extent 
of the authority given these officers. Under current law, they 
are authorized to carry firearms if ``approved by the district 
court.'' In practice, the chief judge of the district court in 
each of the 94 Federal judicial districts decides whether 
probation and pretrial services officers may carry firearms. As 
a result, officers in 84 judicial districts may carry them, 
while officers in the remaining 10 districts may not.
    H.R. 4423 would make this practice uniform by amending 
current law to authorize all probation officers and pretrial 
services officers to carry firearms. The bill would require all 
such officers to first complete any safety and proficiency 
training or testing proscribed by the Director of the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
    On July 13, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
bill. The following persons testified at the hearing: The 
Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge, 
District of Columbia, Judith M. De Santis, Executive Vice 
President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; Robert 
Ryan, Chief Probation Officer, District of Massachusetts, 
Boston, Massachusetts. No further action was taken on the bill 
during the 106th Congress.

Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grants Act

    On March 20, 2000 Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) and 
Representative Peter Visclosky (D-IN) introduced H.R. 4033, the 
``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000'', to 
reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program 
administered by the Department of Justice Office of Justice 
Programs to help State and local jurisdictions purchase armor 
vests for use by law enforcement departments through FY 2004. 
The bill would reauthorize the program, increase the 
authorization level to $50 million, and guarantee that smaller 
jurisdictions receive full funding available under the program.
    On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 4033 reported favorably to the full Committee. On 
July 11, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably 
to the House, and the bill was reported on July 20 (H. Rept. 
106-776). The House passed by the bill on July 26, 2000 by a 
recorded vote of 413 yeas to 3 nays. No further action was 
taken on the bill during the 106th Congress. On October 26, 
2000, the House passed S. 2413, the Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Act of 2000, a bill substantially similar to 
H.R. 4033, by unanimous consent. The president approved that 
bill on November 13, and it became Public Law 106-517.

Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 1999

    On January 6, 1999, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) 
introduced H.R. 46, the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor 
Act of 1999.'' H.R. 46 would establish a national medal for 
public safety officers who exhibit extraordinary valor above 
and beyond the call of duty. While law enforcement agencies at 
all levels present their own awards and medals to those who 
demonstrate bravery, the United States Government has no medal 
in recognition of acts of courage and valor demonstrated by 
public safety officers. The medal would be given by the 
President in the name of the United States Congress to public 
safety officers who are recognized by the Attorney General for 
extraordinary valor. The Attorney General would be limited to 
naming not more than six medal recipients in a given year. The 
legislation would create a Medal of Valor Review Board composed 
of eleven members appointed by Congress and the President. The 
members of the Review Board, who would serve four year terms, 
would be persons with knowledge or experience in the field of 
public safety, including firefighter, law enforcement and 
emergency services expertise. Each year, the Board would be 
charged with reviewing applications and determining which names 
to present to the Attorney General for approval. They may 
conduct hearings and take testimony as necessary. The Board 
would be staffed by a new office within the Department of 
Justice, known as the National Medal Office.
    On March 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime was discharged 
from further consideration of H.R. 46. On March 24, 1999, the 
full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the 
House, and the bill was reported on April 12, 1999 (H. Rept. 
106-83). On April13, 1999, the House passed H.R. 46 by a 
recorded vote of 412 yeas to 2 nays. On December 15, the Senate passed 
the bill by voice vote with an amendment that added additional sections 
to the bill. These sections were similar to H.R. 2816, a bill that 
passed the House and Senate by unanimous consent on December 15 and was 
signed into law by the president on December 28, 2000 as Public Law 
106-572, and S. 2448 and H.R. 5393, bills on which the House took no 
action during the 106th Congress. No further action was taken on the 
bill H.R. 46 during the 106th Congress.

Training for railroad police officers

    On June 17, 1999, Senator Leahy introduced S. 1235, a bill 
that amends part G of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow railroad police officers to 
attend the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy for 
law enforcement training. The FBI was authorized to offer the 
superior training available at the FBI's National Academy only 
to law enforcement personnel employed by state or local units 
of government. Police officers employed by railroads are not 
allowed to attend this Academy despite the fact that they work 
closely in numerous cases with Federal law enforcement agencies 
as well as State and local law enforcement. Providing railroad 
police with the opportunity to obtain the training offered at 
Quantico, Virginia, will improve inter-agency cooperation and 
prepare them to deal with the ever increasing sophistication of 
criminals who conduct their illegal acts either using the 
railroad or directed at the railroad or its passengers.
    S. 1235 was introduced by Senator Partick Leahy (D-VT) on 
June 17, 1999. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent 
on October 26, 1999. On October 27, 1999 the bill was referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary and on November 2, the bill 
was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime. On November 17, 
1999, the Committee was discharged from further consideration 
of the bill, and on that day the House passed the bill under 
suspension of the rules. On November 24, 1999, the President 
approved the bill and it became Public Law 106-110.

The Community Protection Act of 1999

    H.R. 218 was introduced by Representative Randy (Duke) 
Cunningham (R-CA) on January 6, 1999. H.R. 218 would amend 
title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and 
former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the 
carrying of concealed handguns.
    On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 218 reported favorably to the full Committee. No 
further action was taken on H.R. 218 during the 106th Congress.

  criminal jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the armed forces 
                                 abroad

    Civilians have served with or accompanied American forces 
in the field or onboard ship since the founding of the United 
States, but not in significant numbers until the Civil War. 
During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, however, 
thousands of Defense Department (DoD) civilian and contract 
employees were present in the host nations. And with the rapid 
growth of contingency operations following Operation Desert 
Storm, significant numbers of civilian and contract employees 
have been deployed to places such as Somalia, Haiti, Kuwait, 
Rwanda, and the Balkans. In 1999, there were more than 58,600 
civilian employees of the Department of Defense working 
overseas.
    Since the end of World War II, family members of American 
service personnel and civilian employees have represented the 
largest large segment of the civilians who accompany United 
States forces overseas. In 1999, there were more than 193,000 
dependent family members of military personnel living with them 
abroad. More than 14,000 dependents of DoD civilian employees 
also were living overseas that year.
    Civilians accompanying the Armed Forces ``in the field'' 
have been subject to court-martial jurisdiction since the 
Revolutionary War. In World Wars I and II, civilians 
accompanying the force in the field were tried by court-
martial. The UCMJ, enacted in 1950, contains two provisions 
that authorize courts martial to try civilians accompanying the 
military for acts that violate the UCMJ. Beginning in 1957, a 
series of court decisions severely limited the application of 
those provisions, effectively limiting UCMJ jurisdiction over 
civilians only to times of war declared by Congress.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957); McElroy v. United States ex 
rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960); U.S. v. Averette, 41 C.M.R. 363 
(C.M.A. 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While some Federal criminal statutes are expressly 
extraterritorial, most make the acts described therein criminal 
only if they are committed within ``the special maritime and 
territorial jurisdiction of the United States'' or if they 
affect interstate or foreign commerce. Therefore, in most 
instances, Federal criminal jurisdiction ends at the nation's 
borders. State criminal jurisdiction, likewise, ends at the 
boundaries of each state. Because of these limitations, acts 
committed by civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in foreign 
countries, which would be crimes if committed in the United 
States, often do not violate either Federal or state criminal 
law. And, as discussed above, they also are not violations of 
the UCMJ unless a ``time of war'' had been declared by Congress 
when the acts were committed. As a result, these acts are 
crimes, and therefore punishable, only under the law of the 
country in which they occurred.
    Suprisingly, host countries often do not choose to assert 
their jurisdiction to try American civilians who commit crimes 
in their countries. This is most often the case when the crime 
was committed against another American or against property 
owned by an American. When this happens, however, the 
perpetrator goes unpunished for his crime. Each year, numerous 
incidents of rape, sexual abuse, aggravated assault, robbery, 
drug distribution, and a variety of fraud and property crimes 
committed by American civilians abroad go unpunished because 
the host nation chooses to waive jurisdiction over these 
crimes. This problem is compounded by the increased involvement 
of the military in areas of the world where no functioning 
government exists to prosecute these crimes (e.g., Somalia and 
Haiti) or where the U.S. has the right to exercise exclusive 
jurisdiction over its personnel. Because United Stateslaw does 
not apply to crimes committed by American civilians in these 
situations, such crimes go unpunished.
    Over the past 43 years, many efforts have been made to fill 
this jurisdictional void. Numerous bills designed to address 
the problem have been introduced in Congress but have failed to 
be passed by both Houses.\3\ In 1979, the General Accounting 
Office issued a report on the problem (General Accounting 
Office, Some Criminal Offense Committed Overseas by DoD 
Civilians Are Not Being Prosecuted: Legislation is Needed, 
Report No. FPCD 79-45 (1979)). It found that in 1977, 343,000 
civilians had accompanied the forces abroad in a 12 month 
period. During that year, while host countries exercised their 
jurisdiction in 200 serious cases, they had waived their right 
of prosecution in 59 serious cases (involving rape, 
manslaughter, arsons, robbery, and burglary) and in 54 less 
serious cases (involving simple assault, drug abuse, 
drunkenness), In the report, the GAO recommended that Congress 
enact legislation to extend criminal jurisdiction over U.S. 
citizens accompanying the forces overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See e.g., S. 207, 90th Cong. (1967); S. 1, 94th Cong. (1975); 
H.R. 763, 95th Cong. (1977); H.R. 255, 99th Cong. (1985); S. 147, 101st 
Cong. (1989); H.R. 5808, 102d Cong. (1992); S. 2083, 104th Cong. 
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1995, Congress passed the National defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106 (1996)). Section 
1151 of that act directed the Departments of Defense and 
Justice to jointly establish an advisory committee to ``review 
and make recommendations concerning the appropriate forum for 
criminal jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the Armed 
Forces in the field outside the United States in time of armed 
conflict.'' The advisory committee's report was submitted to 
Congress in April, 1997. It recommended two changes in the law. 
First, it recommended that court-martial jurisdiction be 
extended to civilians accompanying the Armed Forces during 
``contingency operations'' as designated by the Secretary of 
Defense. The advisory committee also recommended that the 
jurisdiction of Federal courts be extended to reach offenses 
committed by civilians accompanying the force abroad. The 
Departments of Defense and Justice support only the extension 
of Federal criminal jurisdiction to persons accompanying the 
Armed Forces outside the United States.
    H.R. 3380, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act 
of 2000'' was introduced by Representative Saxby Chambliss (R-
GA) together with Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL). It 
establishes a new Federal crime involving conduct by military 
personnel and civilians accompanying the Armed Forces outside 
the United States that would have been a felony under Federal 
law, had the conduct occurred within the United States. The 
punishment for the new crime is that which could have been 
imposed under Federal law had the crime been committed in the 
United States.
    The new crime applies to two groups of people: persons 
employed by or who are accompanying the Armed Forces outside of 
the United States and persons who are members of the Armed 
Forces. It includes both civilian employees of the Department 
of Defense, contractor employees, and dependants of military 
members. It brings within its scope both American citizens and 
nationals, as well as persons who are nationals of other 
countries. The bill also allows for the prosecution of military 
members, under certain conditions. For example, military 
personnel who commit acts that fall within the scope of the new 
crime enacted by the act but who are not tried for their crime 
sunder the UCMJ and who later cease to be subject to the UCMJ 
(e.g., because the case was not solved before they were 
discharged from the military, or because the person is no 
longer on active duty may be prosecuted under the Act. And 
military personnel still on active duty could also be 
prosecuted under the act if they are indicted or otherwise 
charged with committing the offense together with one or more 
non-military co-defendants.
    The act prohibits a prosecution under the new statute if a 
foreign government has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person 
for the conduct constituting the offense in accordance with 
jurisdiction recognized by the United States, but allows the 
Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General to waive this 
provision in appropriate cases. The act also contains a 
provision that requires most of the initial proceedings in any 
case under the act to be conducted before the defendant is 
brought to the United States--in most cases by telephone. In 
order to enforce this provision, the act prohibits the forced 
return of a defendant to the United States prior to these 
proceedings being held, except certain situations.
    The Subcommittee on Crime, held a hearing on that bill on 
March 30, 2000. The following witnesses testified on the bill: 
The Honorable Robert Reed, Office of the General Counsel, 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, United States Department of 
Defense; Brigadier General Joseph R. Barnes, Assistant Judge 
Advocate General, United States Army; Brigadier General James 
B. Smith, Commander, 18th Fighter Wing, Kadena Air Force Base, 
Naha, Japan; Roger Pauley, Esq., Director of Legislation, 
Office of Policy and Legislation, United States Department of 
Justice; and Jan Mohr, President, Federal Education 
Association, Washington, D.C.
    On May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 3380 reported favorably to the full Committee. On 
July 27, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably 
to the House, and the bill was reported on July 20 (H. Rept. 
106-778, Part I). The House passed the bill on H.R. 3380 was 
passed by the House by voice vote on July 25, 2000. No further 
action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress. Also on 
July 25, 2000, the House took up consideration of S. 768, a 
bill similar in purpose to H.R. 3380 and which passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent on July 1, 1999. The House struck 
out all of the text of the Senate bill, and substituted for it 
the text of H.R. 3380 as passed by the House. The House then 
passed the Senate bill by unanimous consent. The Senate passed 
S. 768, as amendment in the House, by unanimous consent on 
October 25, 2000. The President approved the bill on November 
22, and it became Public Law 106-523.

             authority of federal law enforcement agencies

Authority of the United States Secret Service
    On June 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime held an 
oversight hearing of the Secret Service during which various 
issues concerning the work of the Service were discussed. The 
following witnesses testified: Brian Stafford, Director, United 
States Secret Service; Kevin T.Foley, Assistant Director, 
Office of Investigations, United States Secret Service; Barbara S. 
Riggs, Assistant Director, Office of Protective Research, United States 
Secret Service; and Carlton Danny Spriggs, Assistant Director, Office 
of Protective Operations, United States Secret Service.
    During the hearing several areas were identified as to 
which legislative changes would be appropriate. In order to 
address this need, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) 
introduced H.R. 3048, the ``Presidential Threat Protection Act 
of 1999.''
    The principal change made by the bill is with respect to 
the jurisdiction of the Secret Service to investigate threats 
made against former Presidents or their families, or against 
the immediate families of the major candidates for the office 
of President or Vice President. Under current law, in order for 
the Service to have jurisdiction to investigate a threat made 
against any person, that person must currently be receiving 
Secret Service protection. However, the immediate family of the 
major candidates for the office of President and Vice President 
do not receive Secret Service protection and so, threats made 
against them are not Federal crimes and may not be investigated 
by the Service. Obviously, threats made against children of 
candidates for President or Vice President are often related to 
their candidacy, and should be investigated by the Federal law 
enforcement agency charged with protecting the candidate during 
the pendency of their campaign. Similarly, should a former 
President decline Secret Service protection, as has occurred in 
the past, threats made against him would not be a Federal crime 
and may not be investigated by the Secret Service. This 
potential problem will be exacerbated by a change made to title 
18 in 1994 which requires that Secret Service protection for 
former Presidents and their spouses terminate ten years after 
the President leaves office.
    To remedy this problem, H.R. 3048 will amend current law to 
make it clear that it is a Federal crime, which the Secret 
Service is authorized to investigate, for any person to 
threaten any current or former President or Vice President, 
major candidates for the office of President or Vice President, 
or the immediate family of such person, notwithstanding the 
fact that the Secret Service may not be protecting the person 
at the time the threat is made.
    H.R. 3048 will also clarify the authority of the Secret 
Service to coordinate the design, planning, and implementation 
of security operations at special events of national 
significance, as determined by the President or his designee. 
Under the authorizing statute for the Secret Service, the 
Service is authorized to protect a number of persons, 
including: the President, Vice President, former Presidents and 
their spouse and certain of their children, visiting heads of 
foreign states or governments, other distinguished visitors to 
the United States, major candidates for the office of President 
and Vice President, and certain other persons as to whom the 
President directs receive such protection. Recently, the 
President has directed the Secret Service to coordinate the 
design, planning, and implementation of security operations at 
special events of national significance. In some cases, 
however, none of the persons specified in section 3056 may be 
present at these events and, therefore, the Secret Service's 
authority to coordinate the security for these events is 
unclear. H.R. 3048 clarifies the authority of the Secret 
Service to do this by specifically authorizing it to coordinate 
the design, planning, and implementation of security operations 
at these events.
    H.R. 3048 also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
issue administrative subpoenas in limited situations. 
Administrative subpoenas are subpoenas issued by a law 
enforcement agency rather than a United States Court. Under 
current law the authority to issue administrative subpoenas is 
given to the Attorney General, but limited to cases involving 
violations of Title 21 (i.e., drug cases), investigations 
concerning a Federal Health Care Offense, or investigations 
involving child abuse and child sexual exploitation. During the 
oversight hearing of the Service held by the Subcommittee on 
Crime, the Service asked the Committee to consider granting it 
administrative subpoena authority for investigations under 
sections 871 and 879 of Title 18 (involving threats against the 
President, former Presidents, and other persons protected by 
the Service.). The bill grants the Secretary of the Treasury 
this authority but limits its use by the Secretary only to 
cases where the Director of the Service determines that the 
threat being investigated is imminent. The authority is further 
limited to requesting only the production of records and other 
things relevant to an investigation (but not the testimony of 
persons) in cases involving violations of those two statutes.
    The statute also consolidates the two administrative 
subpoena statutes that exist in title 18 today, together with 
the new authority granted to the Secretary of the Treasury 
under this bill, into one comprehensive statute. The re-draft 
also contains new provisions designed to give citizens added 
protections against misuse of these subpoenas, including 
provisions that give citizens the right to move a court to 
quash an administrative subpoena and which describe the process 
by which that may be accomplished.
    On March 16, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 3048 reported favorably to the full Committee. On 
May 24, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably 
to the House, and the bill was reported on June 12, (H. Rept. 
106-669). The House passed the bill on June 26 by a voice vote. 
On October 13, the Senate amended the bill and passed it by 
voice vote. On October 25, the House disagreed with two of the 
five amendments made by the Senate, agreed to two of the Senate 
amendments, and agreed to a third with an amendment. The House 
then passed the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent.

United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1999

    On June 24, 1999, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) 
introduced the ``United States Marshals Service Improvement Act 
of 1999'', to provide for the appointment of U.S. Marshals for 
each judicial district of the United States and for the 
Superior Court of the District of Columbia by the Attorney 
General of the United States, subject to Federal law governing 
appointments in the competitive civil service. Currently, those 
appointments are made by the President.
    On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee ordered the bill 
favorably reported to the full Committee, where it was 
considered on July 20, 1999 and ordered reported favorably. On 
November 8, 1999, H.R. 2336 was considered under suspension of 
the rules and then again considered (as unfinished business) on 
November 16, 1999, where it failed by a vote of 183 yeas to 231 
nays. No further action on this legislation was taken in the 
106th Congress.
    On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 2336 reportedfavorably to the full Committee. On 
July 20, 1999, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably 
to the House, and the bill was reported on November 8, 1999 (H. Rept. 
106-459). The House considered the bill under suspension of the rule on 
November 16, 1999 and the bill failed by a recorded vote of 183 to 231. 
No further action was taken on the bill during the 106th Congress.

Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000

    On July 26, 2000, S. 2516, the ``Fugitive Apprehension Act 
of 2000'' passed the Senate by unanimous consent and was 
received in the House. This legislation, introduced by Senator 
Strom Thurmond (R-SC), would authorize funding for fugitive 
apprehension task forces to be administered by the USMS and 
would also provide administrative subpoena authority for the 
Attorney General in certain cases related to fugitive 
apprehension, but only under specific conditions relating to 
protection of the privacy of involved individuals. On August 3, 
2000 this legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Crime. Subsequently, the administrative subpoena provisions 
proved to be controversial and no further action was taken on 
this legislation in the 106th Congress. Similar provisions to 
those within S. 2516 were added as an amendment to unrelated 
legislation, H.R. 3048, the ``Presidential Threat Protection 
Act of 2000'' in the Senate before that legislation was passed 
in the Senate on October 13, 2000. Those provisions relating to 
administrative subpoena authority for the Attorney General were 
subsequently stripped from the amended version of H.R. 3048 
before it was again considered and approved by unanimous 
consent by the House on October 25, 2000.

Oversight Hearing on the United States Marshals Service

    The U.S. Marshals Service is the nation's oldest Federal 
law enforcement agency. Since 1789, U.S. Marshals have served 
the nation through a variety of vital law enforcement 
activities. The Marshals Service occupies a uniquely central 
position in the Federal justice system. It is involved in 
virtually every Federal law enforcement initiative. 
Approximately 4,000 Deputy Marshals and USMS career employees 
perform the following nationwide, day-to-day missions: 
protecting the Federal judicial process through judicial 
security, witness security, and prisoner security; fugitive 
investigation and apprehension; asset seizure, management, and 
forfeiture; and special operations responding to high-threat or 
emergency situations. Today, Marshals Service Director John 
Marshall and 94 U.S. Marshals appointed by the President direct 
the activities of 95 district offices and personnel stationed 
at more than 350 locations throughout the 50 states, Guam, 
Northern Mariana Isands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 
Each district is headed by a U.S. Marshal.
    On July 13, 2000, the subcommittee on Crime held an 
oversight hearing on the Marshals Service. Testimony was heard 
from: John W. Marshall, Director, United States Marshals 
Service; Donald S. Donovan, Acting Assistant Director, Judicial 
Security Division; Robert J. Finan, Assistant Director, 
Investigative Services Division; Kenneth Pekarek, Acting 
Assistant Director, Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation 
System; and George K. McKinney, United States Marshal, District 
of Maryland.

United States Supreme Court Police Protective Authority

    On September 7, 2000, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) 
introduced H.R. 5136, a bill to make permanent the current 
temporary statutory authority of the Marshal of the Supreme 
Court and the Supreme Court Police to provide security beyond 
the Supreme Court building and its grounds to Supreme Court 
Justices, Court personnel, and official guests of the Court. 
The current authority to provide this security will terminate 
on December 29, 2000. H.R. 5136 would also eliminate the 
Court's annual reporting requirement to Congress detailing the 
administrative cost associated with providing off-grounds 
security. This cost has been very modest in the past and is 
fully detailed each year in the Court's annual budget request 
to Congress. Finally, H.R. 5136 would repeal the ministerial 
requirement that the Chief Justice authorize in writing armed 
protection for official guests of the Supreme Court when they 
are traveling in the United States outside the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area.
    The Supreme Court Police is charged with enforcing the law 
at the Supreme Court building and its grounds as well as 
protecting Justices and other Court employees on and off its 
grounds.\4\ Since 1982, Congress has provided statutory 
authority for the Supreme Court Police to provide security 
beyond the Court building and grounds for Justices, Court 
employees, and official visitors of the Court. This same 
authority requires that the Supreme Court annually report to 
Congress on the cost of such security. Since 1986, Congress has 
extended this off-grounds authority to provide security four 
times, but the current authority will sunset on December 29, 
2000. The current authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme 
Court Police are essential to the force's performance of its 
everyday duties. Supreme Court Police regularly provide 
security to Justices by transporting and accompanying them to 
official functions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, 
and occasionally outside it when they, or official guests of 
the Court, are traveling on Court business. Some Justices, 
because of threats to their personal safety, are driven by the 
police to and from their homes and the Court every day. 
Additionally, the police protect Court employees going to and 
from its parking lot, which is located one-half block east of 
the Supreme Court building and off the grounds of the Court. 
The committee believes that the Supreme Court Police should 
continue to provide off-ground security to protect the 
Justices, other Court personnel and the Court's official 
guests. Given the fact that the Court's police force is well 
trained and has an excellent performance record, it is 
appropriate that this authority be made permanent at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 40 U.S.C. 13 et. seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime was 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5136. On 
September 20, 2000, the full Committee ordered the bill 
reported favorably to the house, and the bill was reported on 
October 4, (H. Rept. 106-931). On October 10, 2000, the House 
passed the bill by voice vote. A provision similar to H.R. 5136 
was included in S. 2915, a bill to make improvements in the 
operation and administration of the Federal courts, and for 
other purposes. On November 13, 2000, S. 2915 was signed by the 
President and became Public Law 106-518.

                           Protecting Animals

Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act of 1999

    H.R. 1791, the ``Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection 
Act of 1999'' was introduced by Representative Jerry Weller (R-
IL). The bill added new section 1368 to title 18 in order to 
make it a crime to willfully harm any police animal, or attempt 
to do so. The maximum punishment is one year imprisonment, 
unless the offense disabled or disfigured the animal, or 
resulted in the death of the animal, in which case the maximum 
punishment would increase to 10 years imprisonment. The bill 
defines ``police animal'' to mean a dog or horse employed by 
federal agency for the principal purpose of detecting criminal 
activity, enforcing the laws, or apprehending criminal 
offenders.
    Prior to the enactment of H.R. 1791, damage to an animal 
used by the Federal government could be punished under 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1361. Under that statute, the maximum punishment is 
determined by the amount of damage caused. If the damage is 
less than $1,000 the maximum punishment is one year in prison. 
If it is over that amount, the maximum punishment is 10 years 
in prison.
    The government spends a considerable amount of time and 
money to train these animals, and their handlers often form a 
close bond with them. In many cases, these animals have 
prevented harm or even saved the lives of their handlers. In 
some cases, the financial value of the animal might not 
adequately reflect the training given the animal or the cost of 
disrupting the bond between the law enforcement officer and his 
animal if the animal were harmed. H.R. 1791 more accurately 
reflects that harm.
    On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R 1791 reported favorably to the full Committee. On 
September 22, 1999, the full Committee ordered the bill 
reported favorably to the House, and the bill was reported on 
October 12, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-372). The House passed the bill 
on October 12 by voice vote. On July 19, 2000, the Senate 
passed the bill by unanimous consent. The president approved 
the bill on August 2, 2000 and it became Public Law 106-254.

Punishing depictions of animal cruelty

    Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced H.R. 1887, 
a bill to punish the depiction of animal cruelty. On September 
30, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. The 
following witnesses testified: Loretta Swit, Actors and Others 
for Animals, North Hollywood, California; Tom Connors, Deputy 
District Attorney, Ventura County District Attorney Office, 
Ventura, California; Susan Creede, Investigator, Ventura County 
District Attorney Office, Ventura, California.
    At the hearing law enforcement officials testified that 
about a growing market in videotapes and still photographs 
depicting insects and small animals being slowly crushed to 
death. While most of this material featured torture to mice, 
hamsters, and other small animals, their investigation did find 
depictions of cats, dogs, and even monkeys being tortured. Much 
of the material featured women inflicting the torture with 
their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes. In some 
video depictions, the woman's voice can be heard talking to the 
animals in a kind of dominatrix patter. The cries and squeals 
of the animals, obviously in great pain, can also be heard in 
the videos.
    The witnesses testified that because the faces of the women 
inflicting the torture in the material often were not shown, 
nor could the location of the place where the cruelty was being 
inflicted or the date of the activity be ascertained from the 
depiction, defendants arrested for violating state cruelty to 
animals statutes in connection with the sale of these materials 
in that state often were able to successfully assert as a 
defense that the state could not prove its jurisdiction over 
the place where the act occurred or that the actions depicted 
took place within the time specified in the state statute of 
limitations. While all have some form of a cruelty to animal 
statues, few have a statute that prohibits the sale of the 
depictions of such cruelty.
    H.R. 1887 prohibits the creation, sale, or possession of 
depictions of such cruelty with the intent to placing them into 
instate or foreign commerce for commercial gain. The statute is 
intended to augment, not supplant, state animal cruelty laws by 
addressing behavior that may be outside the jurisdiction of the 
states, as a matter of law, and appears often beyond the reach 
of their law enforcement officials, as a practical matter.
    On October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 1887 reported favorably to the full Committee. On 
October 13, 1999, the full Committee ordered the bill reported 
favorably to the House, and the bill was reported on October 
19, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-397). The House passed the bill on 
October 19, 1999 by a recorded vote of 372 to 42. On November 
19, 1999, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. The 
president approved the bill on December 9, 1999 and it became 
Public Law 106-152.

The Captive Elephant Accident Prevention Act of 1999

    On September 23, 2000, Representative Sam Farr (R-CA) 
introduced H.R. 2929, the ``Captive Elephant Accident 
Prevention Act of 1999.'' The bill would amend Title 18 of the 
United States Code to prohibit anyone from knowingly making any 
elephant available for use in a traveling show or circus, or 
for the purpose of allowing individuals to ride an elephant. 
Any person violating the law would be subject to a fine and 
imprisonment for not more than one year. Repeat offenders could 
be imprisoned for not more than two years. The bill defines the 
term ``traveling show or circus'' as a show or circus that 
spends most of it working time each year away from its 
permanent facility.
    On June 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held a one day 
legislative hearing to consider the merits of the legislation. 
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Bob Barker, entertainer 
and animal rights activist, Hollywood, California; Joel Parrott 
D.V.M., Executive Director, Oakland Zoo, Oakland, California; 
Tom Rider, formerly of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey 
Circus, West Boxford, Massachusetts; Blayne Doyle, Palm Bay 
Police Department, Palm Bay Florida; Pat Derby, President, 
Performing Animal Welfare Society, Galt, California;David 
Rawls, President, Kelly Miller Circus, Hugo, Oklahoma; Kari Johnson, 
Have Trunk Will Travel, Perris, California; David Blasko, Elephant 
Encounter, Six Flags, Marine World, Vallejo, California; Debbie Olson, 
Director of Conservation and Science Programs, Indianapolis Zoo, Azle, 
Texas; and Dennis Schmitt D.V.M., PhD, Associate Professor, Agriculture 
Department, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2929 during the 106th 
Congress.

               general legislation and oversight hearings

Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 2000

    Representative John Conyers (D-MI) introduced H.R. 1443 on 
April 15, 1999. H.R. 1443 would direct the Attorney General to 
conduct a nationwide study of stops for traffic violations by 
law enforcement officers. It would require the Attorney General 
to: (1) perform an initial analysis of existing data, including 
complaints alleging, and other information concerning, traffic 
stops motivated by race and other bias; (2) gather specified 
data on traffic stops from a nationwide sample of jurisdiction, 
including data on the alleged infractions, identifying 
characteristics of the drivers, immigration status questions 
and inquiries, searches instituted and alleged criminal 
behavior that justified the searches, items seized, and 
citations or arrests resulting from stops; and (3) report the 
results to Congress and make such report available to the 
public.
    On February 3, 2000, the Subcommitte on Crime discharged 
from further consideration of the bill H.R. 1443. On March 1, 
2000, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to 
the House, and the bill was reported on March 13, 2000 (H. 
Rept. 106-517). No further action was taken on H.R. 1443 during 
the 106th Congress.

Hearing on the Shoot Down of the Brothers to the Rescue Planes

    On July 15, 1999, the Crime Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the ``Shoot Down of the Brothers to the Rescue 
Planes.'' A number of legal and factual questions were 
considered at this hearing, including the basis for an 
indictment of the Cuban leader Fidel Castro. The following 
witness testified: Jeffrey Houlihan, Senior Detection Systems 
Specialist, United States Customs Service, Domestic Air 
Interdiction Coordination Center, George Fowler, General 
Counsel of the Cuban American National Foundation; Jose 
Basulto, President, Brothers to the Rescue; Arnoldo Iglesias, 
Vice President, Brothers to the Rescue; Sylvia G. Iriondo, Co-
Owner & President, Tarafa & Iriondo Corporation, Realtors; 
Jorge Mas, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, MasTec, 
Incorporated; Incorporated; and Lazaro Betancourt Morin, a 
recent Cuban defector.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representative condemning the act 
        of arson at Three Sacramento, California, Area Synagogues

    H. Res. 226 was introduced by Representative Doug Ose (R-
CA) on June 29, 1999. H. Res. 226 expresses that the House of 
Representatives: (1) condemns the crimes that occurred in 
Sacramento, California, at Congregation B'Nai Israel, 
Congregation Beth Shalom, and Kenesset Israel Torah Center on 
June 18, 1999; (2) interprets such attacks as an attack on all 
Americans; (3) is committed to using Federal law enforcement 
personnel and resources to bring the persons who committed 
these attacks to justice; (4) recognizes the residents of the 
Sacramento, California, area who have so quickly joined 
together to lend support and assistance to the victims and who 
remain committed to preserving the freedom of religion of all 
members of the community; and (5) calls upon all Americans to 
categorically reject similar crimes of hate and intolerance.
    On June 29, 1999, H. Res 226 was agreed to under suspension 
of the rules by the Yeas and Nays (425-0, 1 Present). No 
further action was taken on this resolution during the 106th 
Congress.

Hearing on The Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

    On July 22, 1999, the Crime Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the Office of Justice Programs, the grant-making arm 
of the U.S. Department of Justice. The witnesses who testified 
were: Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of 
Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice; Lawrence 
Sherman, Director & Albert M. Greenfield Professor of Human 
Relations, Fels Center of Government, University of 
Pennsylvania; The Honorable Michael J. Anderegg, Judge, 
Marquette County Circuit Court, Michigan; Joseph Myers, 
Executive Director, American Indian Justice Center & Board 
Member, National Organization for Victims Assistance; Mark 
Soler, President, Youth Law Center, Washington, D.C.; Donna 
Edwards, Executive Director, National Network to End Domestic 
Violence; and Terence Thornberry, Director, Hindelang Criminal 
Justice Research Center, School of Criminal Justice, State 
University of New York at Albany.

Prisoner Health Care Co-Payment

    H.R. 1349, the ``Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act 
of 2000'' was introduced by Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ). 
The bill authorizes the Federal Bureau of Prisons to collect a 
fee from any person who has been charged with or convicted of a 
Federal crime each time that person visits a health care 
professional at his or her request and receives health care 
services. The amount of the fee is to be determined by the 
Director of the Bureau of Prisons through regulation, but would 
be at least $1 per visit. The fee would be assessed and 
deducted from any account maintained on behalf of the prisoner 
receiving the services. The fee would not be assessed or 
collected for preventative health care services, emergency 
services, prenatal care, diagnosis or treatment for chronic 
infectious diseases, mental health care, or substance abuse 
treatment. The bill further provides that when a Federal 
prisoner is housed in a non-Federal facility (e.g., pursuant to 
an agreement between the Federal government and a state or 
local government) the state or local facility may assess a fee 
for health care services, provided that such a fee is 
authorized under the law of the state where the Federal 
prisoner is housed and that state prisoners are charged no 
greater a fee.
    Currently, inmates incarcerated in the Federal prison 
system and persons who are detained pending trial receive free 
medical care from BOP employees (physicians, 
physicianassistants, and nurses) and Public Health Service (PHS) 
personnel (generally physician assistants, dentists, and pharmacists) 
assigned to each institution. Additionally, the BOP maintains contracts 
with medical specialists in private practice who provide care that 
cannot be provided by the BOP employees and PHS personnel. For the most 
seriously ill inmates, the BOP operates seven Federal Medical Centers 
at which are located fully accredited hospitals and facilities to care 
for long-term chronically and terminally ill inmates. In fiscal year 
1999, the BOP spent $372.1 million in health care costs.
    All inmates in the BOP system are required to work if 
medically able, and all who work are paid for their labor. 
Persons detained while awaiting trial are not required to work. 
Wages paid to inmates are retained in an inmate account, which 
inmates can use to pay for telephone calls and purchases from 
the prison commissary. A prisoner's family may deposit money 
into his or her account for his or her use as well.
    The Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on H.R. 1349 on 
September 30, 1999. The following witnesses testified at the 
hearing: Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ); Phillip S. Wise, 
Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Jean Williams 
Auldridge; Vice Chairman, National Board of Directors; Citizens 
United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE); and Robert L. 
Cohen, M.D., New York, New York.
    At that hearing the Bureau of Prisons representative 
testified that some portion of the inmates who seek medical 
treatment at any given time do so for the purpose of avoiding 
work or other rehabilitative programming which is imposed on 
them. Inmates know that while they are waiting for treatment 
they are excused from all programming. Inmates who seek 
treatment without a legitimate medical complaint waste the time 
of medical staff and force truly sick inmates to wait to 
receive the care they need. The BOP supports imposing a nominal 
health care co-payment fee on all prisoners for the same reason 
that managed health care plans impose them on their customers, 
namely, it will help deter overuse of health care services 
(i.e., use of those services by people who do not really need 
them).
    A recent General Accounting Office report (Federal Prisons: 
Containing Health Care Costs for an Increasing Inmate 
Population, No. GAO/T-GGD-00-112, (April 6, 2000)) found that 
co-payment fees for prison inmates have been adopted in 36 
states. Among states and localities that have imposed these 
fees, reductions in sick call visits of from 16 to 50 percent 
have been realized. In its report, the GAO concluded that use 
of a health care co-payment fee system would reduce the number 
of unnecessary medical visits in the Federal prison system, 
perhaps reducing overall visits by as much as 25 percent.
    On March 16, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 1349 reported favorably to the full Committee. On 
July 19, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably 
to the House, and the bill was reported on September 14 (H. 
Rept. 106-851). The House passed the bill on September 19 by 
voice vote. No further action was taken on the bill during the 
106th Congress. However, on September 19, the House took up 
consideration of S. 704, a bill substantially similar to H.R. 
1349 and which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on May 
27, 1999. The House struck out all of the text of the Senate 
bill, and substituted for it the text of H.R. 1349 as passed by 
the House. The House then passed the Senate bill by unanimous 
consent. The Senate passed S. 704, as amended in the House, by 
unanimous consent on September 28, 2000. The President approved 
the bill on October 12, and it became Public Law 106-294.

Hearing on COPS (``Community Oriented Policing Services'') Program

    On October 28, 1999, the Crime Subcommittee held an 
oversight hearing of the COPS Program. The following witness 
testified: Thomas C. Frazier, Director, Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), United States Department of 
Justice; Robert L. Ashbaugh, Acting Inspector General, United 
States Department of Justice; Richard Stana; Associate 
Director, Administration of Justice Issues, United States 
General Accounting Office; Joseph M. Newport, Chief of Police, 
Terre Haute (Indiana) Police Department; Lawrence W. Sherman, 
Albert M. Greenfield Professor of Human Relations, University 
of Pennsylvania; Edward F. Davis, III, Police Superintendent, 
Lowell, Massachusetts; and Martin L. Pfeifer, Sergeant, 
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, and Secretary, 
Fraternal Order of Police.

Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000

    Internet gambling has been characterized by gambling 
addiction experts as the ``crack cocaine'' of gambling. 
Legislation to ban Internet gambling was first introduced in 
the House early in the 105th Congress, at which time there were 
approximately a total of thirty (30) Internet gambling websites 
in existence. Since that time, three years later, more than 
seven-hundred (700) new gambling sites have been established, 
and Internet gambling is now a billion-plus dollar-a-year 
illegal industry, growing every day.
    In the 106th Congress, legislation to prohibit Internet 
gambling was introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). 
H.R. 3125, the ``Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,'' would 
prohibit gambling businesses from using the Internet to place, 
receive, or otherwise make bets or wagers by providing criminal 
penalties for violations, authorize civil enforcement 
proceedings by Federal and State authorities, and establish a 
mechanism for requiring Internet service providers (ISP's) to 
terminate access to material on their facilities that violates 
this section. The legislation would not apply to certain 
lawful, regulated gaming activities.
    On November 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime favorably 
reported H.R. 3125 to the full Judiciary Committee. The 
Subcommittee held a hearing on this bill on March 9, 2000, the 
third held on this matter since legislation was introduced to 
ban Internet gambling in the 105th Congress. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from the following witnesses: ``John Doe,'' 
Internet Gambling Addict, San Diego, California; Representative 
Robert W. Goodlatte (R-VA); Senator John Kyl (R-AZ); The 
Honorable Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 
Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice; and The 
Honorable James E. Doyle, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin, 
Madison, Wisconsin; Robert Minnix, Associate Athletics 
Director, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida; 
Stephen Walters, Chairman, Oregon Racing Commission, Portland, 
Oregon; Keith Whyte, Executive Director, National Council on 
Problem Gambling, Washington, D.C.; and Bartlett Cleland, 
Esquire, Policy Director, Center forTechnology and Freedom, 
Louisville, Texas.
    On November 3, 1999, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 3125 reported favorably to the Full Committee. On 
April 6, 2000 the full Committee ordered the bill reported 
favorably to the House, and the bill was reported on June 7, 
(H. Rept. 106-655). On June 7, the bill was referred 
sequentially to the House Committee on Commerce, and on June 
23, the Committee on Commerce was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill. On July 17, the House considered the 
bill under suspension of the rules and the bill failed to pass 
by a recorded vote of 245 to 159 (270 ayes votes being required 
for passage). No further action was taken on the bill during 
the 106th Congress.
    On November 19, 1999, S. 692, the ``Internet Gambling 
Prohibition Act of 1999'' passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent and was subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on 
Crime on February 3, 2000. This legislation is a nearly 
identical companion to H.R. 3125 as introduced, and no further 
action was taken on it in the 106th Congress.

Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act

    H.R. 4419, the ``Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition 
Act'' was introduced by Representative Jim Leach (R-IA) on May 
10, 2000 and referred to the Committees on Banking and 
Financial Services and Judiciary. The bill prohibits any person 
engaged in a gambling business from knowingly accepting, in 
connection with the participation of another person in Internet 
gambling credit, an electronic fund transfer, or any financial 
instrument and provide that if an appropriate Federal banking 
agency determines that an insured depository institution is 
engaged in prohibited activities, it may issue an injunction 
against the person in violation of this Act. It would also 
encourage that the Federal Government, in deliberations with a 
foreign government on money laundering, corruption, and crime 
issues, should encourage cooperation by foreign governments in 
identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used 
for money laundering, corruption, or other crimes.
    On May 30, 2000 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Crime. On July 20, the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services reported the bill to the House (H. Rept. 106-771, Part 
I). The Subcommittee took no action on this bill, and the 
Committee was discharged from further consideration of it on 
September 29, 2000. No further action was taken on this bill 
during the 106th Congress.

Enforcing Firearms Laws: Project Exile

    On March 22, 2000, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) 
introduced H.R. 4051, ``Project Exile: The Safe Streets and 
Neighborhoods Act of 2000.'' The bill's intent is to help make 
our communities and neighborhoods safer by addressing gun 
violence through the common sense approach of ensuring vigorous 
prosecution of gun criminals. This approach simply involves 
enforcing the laws already on the books, and ensuring a minimum 
prison sentence of at least five years for convicted violators. 
In states and communities around the country where aggressive 
prosecution of gun crimes has been coupled with tough prison 
sentences, violent crime has gone down.
    In the last two years a handful of states, including 
Virginia, have dramatically reduced the level of gun crime in 
their states by implementing programs that ensure tough prison 
time for criminals who use guns. The example of the impact of 
Virginia Exile is noteworthy. Prior to Project Exile, Richmond, 
Virginia had one of the highest murder rates in the world and 
an exploding violent crime problem. Since 1997, when Project 
Exile was begun in Richmond: homicides have dropped 46 percent 
(the lowest level since 1987); crimes involving guns have 
dropped by 65 percent; aggravated assaults have dropped by 39 
percent; and the overall number of violent crimes have dropped 
by 35 percent.
    The Project Exile Act provides resources to states that 
ensure a mandatory minimum sentence of five years (without 
parole) for any person who uses or carries a firearm during and 
in relation to a violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, and 
aggravated assault) or serious drug trafficking offense (an 
offense under state law involving manufacturing or distributing 
a controlled substance, for which a maximum term of 
imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law). 
Importantly, the Act requires that the mandatory minimum 
sentence must be in addition to the punishment provided for the 
underlying crime. Alternatively, a state can qualify for the 
Exile funds if it ensures that person convicted of possessing a 
firearm and who has a prior conviction for a violent crime 
serves a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. The Act will 
give states the option to prosecute offenders in either Federal 
or state court, so long as the states ensure that the mandatory 
minimum sentence of five years is served.
    The Project Exile Act will provide a total of $100 million 
in federal resources over five years as an incentive for states 
to implement such programs and to help defray costs associated 
with tougher enforcement against gun criminals. Funds received 
under the Act will be for strengthening state criminal justice 
systems in a wide variety of ways, including: hiring and 
training more judges, prosecutors and probation officers; 
increasing prison capacity; and developing information-sharing 
case management systems that ensure that all segments of the 
criminal justice system are contributing to and using the same 
case files for serious offenders.
    The Act is an incentive grant program similar to the Trust-
in-Sentencing program that Congress has funded over the last 
five years. The Trust-in-Sentencing program created an 
incentive for states to require convicted violent offenders to 
serve as least 85 percent of their sentences, and helped states 
defray costs associated with the resulting longer prison terms. 
This program has helped move the national average time served 
for violent offenders from 35 percent in 1994 to close to 50 
percent in 1998. It has been a key factor in lowering the crime 
rate over the last 7 years.
    Based on preliminary reviews, it appears that at least six 
states may already qualify: They include Virginia, Texas, 
Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Colorado. Additionally, 
a number of cities have initiated Exile (including Rochester, 
New York, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and there appears to 
be considerable momentum that may carry over from these cities 
to their states.
    In calender years 1998 and 1999 the Administration has 
significantly increased federal gun crime prosecutions (under 
18 U.S.C. sections 922 or 924). It is important to note, 
however, that the number of gun crime prosecutions dropped 
substantially during the five year period before then, from 
7,059 in 1992 to 5,150 in 1997. (The comparable prosecution 
numbers for 1998 and 1999 were 5,876 and 7,057, respectively.)
    The Crime Subcommittee held a hearing on April 6, 2000, on 
H.R. 4051, ``Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods 
Act 2000.'' The following witnesses testified: The Honorable 
Jim Gilmore, Governor of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; The 
Honorable Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney for the 
Middle District of North Carolina, United States Department of 
Justice; Rick Costaldo, Columbine, Colorado; Mary Leigh Blek, 
President, The Bell Campaign, Los Angeles, California; The 
Honorable Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; 
Michael T. McCaul, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, 
Austin, Texas; George J. Terwilliger, III, Esq., Partner, 
McGuire Woods, Battle & Boothe, Washington, D.C.; Kenneth W. 
Sukhia, Esq., Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and 
Banker, P.A.; Tallahasee, Florida; The Reverend William Fails, 
Highpoint, North Carolina; Garen Wintemute, Director, Violence 
Prevention Research Program, University of California, Davis; 
and Kristen Rand, Violence Policy Center, Washington, D.C.

National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of 2000

    Representative Thomas Barrett (D-WI) introduced H.R. 3235, 
the ``National Policy Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of 
1999.'' H.R. 3235 directs the Office of Justice Programs of the 
Department of Justice to award a grant to the Police Athletic 
League (PAL) for the purposes of establishing PAL chapters to 
serve public housing projects and other distressed areas and 
expanding existing chapters to serve additional youth. PAL was 
founded by police officers in New York City in 1914, and its 
goal is to offer an alternative to crime, drugs and violence 
for our nation's most at-risk youth. Since 1914, PAL has grown 
into one of the largest youth-crime prevention programs in the 
nation, with a network of 320 local chapters and 1,700 
facilities that serve more than 3,000 communities and 1.5 
million children. Local chapters are volunteer driven and 
receive most of their funding from private sources. In 
partnership with local law enforcement agencies, PAL chapters 
help to narrow the gap in trust between children and the 
police, especially in low-income and high-crime neighborhoods. 
PAL offers after school athletic, recreational, and educational 
programs designed to give children an alternative to gangs, 
drugs and crime, and to reinforce the values of responsibility, 
hard work and community.
    H.R. 3235 authorizes the appropriation of $16 million a 
year for five years beginning with this fiscal year. The money 
will be used to enhance the services provided by the 320 
established PAL chapters and provide seed money for the 
establishment of 250 (50 per year over a 5-year period) 
additional PAL chapters in public housing projects and other 
distressed areas, including distressed areas with a majority 
population of Native Americans.
    On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee held a mark up and 
ordered H.R. 3235 reported favorably to the full Committee. On 
July 25, the full Committee ordered the bill reported favorably 
to the House, and the bill was reported on September 18 (H. 
Rept. 106-859). The House passed the bill on October 2 by a 
voice vote. On October 13, the Senate passed the bill by 
unanimous consent. The President approved the bill on October 
27 and it became Public Law 106-367.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 
        should focus appropriate attention on the issue of neighborhood 
        crime prevention, community policing, and reduction in school 
        crime

    H. Res. 561 was introduced by Representative Bart Stupak 
(D-MI) on July 20, 2000. H. Res. 561 urges the President to 
focus appropriate attention on the issue of neighborhood crime 
prevention, community policing, and reduction of school crime 
by delivering speeches, convening meetings, and directing his 
Administration to make reducing crime an important priority.
    On July 27, 2000, the Committee discharged from further 
consideration H. Res. 561, and it was agreed to without 
objection under unanimous consent on the same day. No further 
action was taken on this resolution during the 106th Congress.

Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000

    Representative Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) introduced H.R. 1800, 
the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000.'' The bill 
amended the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994 (Public Law 103-322) to ensure that certain information 
regarding prisoners is reported to the Attorney General. On May 
13, 1999, the bill was referred to the House Committee on the 
Judiciary. On May 21, 1999, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime. No hearings were held and no report was 
filed.
    On May, 19, 2000, the full Committee adopted the substance 
of the bill as an amendment to H.R. 1659, the ``National Police 
Training Commission Act of 1999'' a bill introduced by 
Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY). H.R. 1659 is described in 
the full Committee section of this report.
    On July 24, 2000, the Committee was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill H.R. 1800. On July 24, 2000, the 
House passed the bill by voice vote. On October 3, 2000, the 
Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent On October 13, 
2000, the President approved the bill and it became Public Law 
106-297.

Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000

    On May 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held an 
oversight hearing entitled ``Breaches of Security at Federal 
Agencies and Airports.'' The hearing was the culmination of an 
undercover investigation conducted by the Office of Special 
Investigations of the United States General Accounting Office 
(GAO) at the request of Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL). 
The hearing examined the security threat posed by individuals 
using fake law enforcement badges and credentials to enter 
Federal buildings, sensitive installations, and airports. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from three special agents from the 
Office of Special Investigations (OSI) of the GAO: Robert Hast, 
Assistant Controller General for Special Investigations, GAO 
PatrickSullivan, Assistant Director, Office of Special 
Investigations, GAO, and Ronald Malfi, Assistant Director, Office of 
Special Investigations, GAO.
    The witnesses testified that during the investigation, 
undercover OSI Special Agents targeted 19 secure Federal 
buildings and two major airports posing as plain-clothed law 
enforcement officers. In every case, the agents were able to 
enter agency buildings while claiming to be armed and carrying 
briefcases, which were never searched and were big enough to be 
packed with large quantities of explosives, chemical or 
biological agents. The agencies penetrated included the CIA, 
the Pentagon, the FBI, the Justice Department, the State 
Department, and the Department of Energy. The agents were 
simply waived around the metal detectors. In many cases, they 
had the run of the buildings once they were inside, including 
the offices of department secretaries. In one case, agents 
drove a rental van into the courtyard of the building at 
Federal Triangle without the van being inspected or searched. 
The van was parked in the courtyard, and the agents left it 
while they went inside the building.
    For the two airports whose security was compromised, agents 
obtained boarding passes and firearm permits to carry weapons 
onboard the flights for which they had purchased tickets. Like 
the Federal buildings they entered, they carried briefcases 
that were never x-rayed. They walked right up to the door that 
led down the gangway to the airplane. Nothing stood between 
them and the aircraft.
    Representative Steven Horn (R-CA) introduced H.R. 4827, the 
``Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000,'' in response to the 
undercover investigation and hearing. The purpose of H.R. 4827 
is twofold. First, it is to reduce the threat to security in 
Federal buildings, Federal vessels and aircraft, and airports 
that is posed by criminals, terrorists, and foreign agents 
seeking to gain unauthorized access to these places to commit 
criminal acts. Second, it is to prohibit the sale and 
distribution of genuine and counterfeit police badges to 
individuals who might use them for criminal purposes. 
Specifically, H.R. 4827 would make it a Federal crime to enter, 
or attempt to enter, Federal property or the secure area of an 
airport under false pretenses. A person entering such property 
under false pretenses would be subject to a fine and up to six 
months in prison. Additionally, a person entering such property 
under false pretenses with the intent to commit a felony would 
be subject to a fine and up to five years in prison. H.R. 4827 
would also prohibit trafficking in genuine and counterfeit 
police badges in interstate or foreign commerce. A person 
trafficking in police badges would be subject to a fine and up 
to six months in prison. The bill creates a defense to 
prosecution to protect those who possess a badge as a memento, 
in a collection or exhibit, for decorative purposes, for a 
dramatic presentation, or for recreational purposes.
    On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 
4827 to the full Committee. On September 20, the full Committee 
ordered the bill reported favorably to the House, and the bill 
was reported on September 28 (H. Rept. 106-913). The House 
passed the bill on October 2 by voice vote. The Senate passed 
the bill by unanimous consent on December 7, 2000. On December 
19, 2000, the President approved the bill and it became Public 
Law 106-547.

Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 2000

    H.R. 4999 was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum 
(R-FL) on July 27, 2000. H.R. 4999 would require the Director 
of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to pay to qualifying local 
governments specified sums for reducing crime and improving 
public safety, including for: (1) hiring, training, and 
employing on a continuing basis new, additional law enforcement 
officers and support personnel; (2) paying overtime to increase 
the number of hours worked by presently employed officers and 
support personnel; (3) procuring equipment, technology, and 
other material directly related to basic law enforcement 
functions; (4) enhancing security measures in and around 
schools and any other facility or location which is considered 
by the unit of local government to have a special risk for 
incidents of crime; (5) establishing crime prevention programs 
that may involve, though not exclusively, law enforcement 
officials and that are intended to discourage, disrupt, or 
interfere with the commission of criminal activity; (6) 
establishing or supporting drug courts; (7) establishing early 
intervention and prevention programs for juveniles to reduce or 
eliminate crime; (8) enhancing the adjudication process of 
cases involving violent offenders, including the adjudication 
process of cases involving violent juvenile offenders; (9) 
enhancing programs under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 drug control and system improvement grant 
program; (10) establishing cooperative task forces between 
adjoining local governments to work cooperatively to prevent 
and combat criminal activity, particularly criminal activity 
that is exacerbated by drug- or gang-related involvement; and 
(11) establishing a multijurisdictional task force, 
particularly in rural areas, composed of law enforcement 
officials representing local governments, that works with 
Federal law enforcement officials to prevent and control crime.
    On September 19, 2000, H.R. 4999 was agreed to, as amended, 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote. No further action 
was taken on H.R. 4999 during the 106th Congress.

Jeanne's Act

    Every year thousands of violent felons are moved from 
prison to prison on our nation's highways. Many of these 
criminals are transported by the U.S. Marshals Service and the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons. However, as the number of criminals 
in state prisons continues to rise, many states rely on private 
prisoner transportation companies to move prisoners from state 
to state. There is no uniform set of standards and procedures 
for these prisoner transport companies to follow, which may 
lead to situations where prisoners may escape and commit more 
crime before they are apprehended. A major reason for escapes 
from prisoner transport companies is the lack of approved 
standards for the private transport of dangerous prisoners. S. 
1898, the ``Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals 
Act of 2000'' or ``Jeanna's Act,'' seeks to increase public 
safety by requiring the Attorney General to establish minimum 
standards and requirements for companies engaging in the 
business of transporting violent offenders. S. 1898 also 
provides that any person who violates the regulations to be 
promulgated by the Attorney General shall be liable for a civil 
penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each violation, 
and shall make restitution to any government agency for the 
money expended to apprehend any prisoner who escapes.
    S. 1898 was introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan (R-ND). The 
Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on October 25, 
2000. On October 27, the bill was referred to theSubcommittee 
on Crime. On December 7, the Committee was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill, and on that day the House passed the bill by 
unanimous consent. On December 21, 2000, the President signed the bill 
and it became Public Law 106-560.

Mentally ill offenders

    A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics study (``Mental 
Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers,'' July 1999), 
estimated that there are over 283,000 mentally ill offenders 
incarcerated Federal, state, and local prisons and jails. BJS 
estimated that 16% of state inmates, 7% of Federal offenders, 
and 16% of those held in local jails are mentally ill. A 
similar percentage of persons on probation, approximately 
547,000 people, also have a history of mental illness. 
According to the report, mentally ill offenders were more 
likely than other offenders to have committed a violent 
offense. These offenders also reported a higher rate of prior 
physical and sexual abuse than other inmates. They reported 
higher incidents of alcohol and drug abuse by parents and 
guardians while they were children. Half of these offenders 
also reported that a parent, brother, or sister had been in 
prison or jail. And mentally ill offenders were more likely 
than other offenders to have been unemployed and homeless prior 
to their arrest.
    Mentally ill offenders serve, on average, 15% longer prison 
terms than other offenders. And while incarcerated, they are 
more likely then other offenders to be involved in fights with 
other inmates and to be charged with breaking prison rules.
    Law enforcement and corrections officials, prosecutors, 
judges, and mental health officials wrote the Subcommittee on 
Crime to urge the Subcommittee to hold a hearing on the unique 
problems that these type of offenders pose to the criminal 
justice community. They urged that special procedures should be 
developed to deal with these offenders, ones which would 
address their underlying mental problems as part of the 
punishment for their crimes, rather than simply placing them in 
custody with other offenders. On September 21, 2000, the 
Subcommittee on Crime held an oversight hearing on the impact 
of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system.
    On October 24, 2000, the House passed S. 1865, ``America's 
Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project,'' a bill introduced 
by Senator Mike Dewine (R-OH), by voice vote. The Senate passed 
the bill by unanimous consent on September 26, 2000. The 
President approved the bill on November 13, and it became 
Public Law 106-515.
    The bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 to authorize the appropriation of $10 million over 
a four year period for the Attorney General to use to make 
grants to States, State courts, local courts, units of local 
government, and Indian tribal governments, acting directly or 
through agreements with other public or nonprofit entities, for 
up to 125 programs that involve: (1) continuing judicial 
supervision, including periodic review, over preliminarily 
qualified offenders with mental illness, mental retardation, or 
co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders who 
are charged with non-violent offenses; and (2) the coordinated 
delivery of services, which includes specialized training of 
law enforcement and judicial personnel to identify and address 
the unique needs of a mentally ill or mentally retarded 
offender, voluntary outpatient or inpatient mental health 
treatment that carries with it the possibility of dismissal of 
charges or reduced sentencing upon successful completion of 
treatment, and centralized case management involving the 
consolidation of all of a mentally ill or mentally retarded 
defendant's cases (including violations of probation) and the 
coordination of all mental health treatment plans and social 
services, including life skills training.

Hearing on preventing and fighting crime: What works?

    On October 2, 2000, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing 
on the subject of what works to prevent and reduce crime. The 
following witnesses testified: The Honorable Lynne Abraham, 
District Attorney, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick 
J. Coleman, Deputy Director of Policy and Management, Bureau of 
Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, United States 
Department of Justice; John W. Wilson, Acting Administrator, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office 
of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice; Bruce 
C. Fry, Social Science Analyst, Center for Substance Abuse 
Treatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Chuck 
Wexler, Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum; 
Edmund F. McGarrell, Director, Crime Control Policy Center, the 
Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana; Morgan Reynolds, 
Director, Criminal Justice Center, National Center for Policy 
Analysis, Washington, D.C.; John Holton, Director, National 
Center for Child Abuse Prevention Research, Chicago, Illinois; 
James Fox, Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice, 
Northeastern University, College of Criminal Justice, Boston, 
Massachusetts; Byron R. Johnson, Director, Office for the Study 
and Prevention of Domestic Violence, University of 
Pennsylvania; Mr. Mark Mauer, Assistant Director, The 
Sentencing Project, Washington, D.C.; and Patrick Tolan, 
Director, Institute for Juvenile Research, University of 
Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Hearing on the convergence of organized crime, drug trafficking, and 
        terrorism

    On December 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime held a 
hearing on the threat posed by the convergence of organized 
crime, terrorism, and drug trafficking. The witnesses who 
testified at the hearing were: The Honorable Donnie Marshall, 
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; The Honorable 
Michael Sheehan, United States Ambassador at Large for 
Counterterrorism; Frank Cilluffo, Senior Policy Analyst and 
Deputy Director, Center for Strategic and International 
Studies; Ralf Mutschke, Assistant Director, Sub-Directorate for 
Crimes Against Persons and Property, Interpol General 
Secretariat; Steven C. McCraw, Deputy Assistant Director, 
Information, Analysis, and Assessments Branch, Investigative 
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Raphael F. Perl, 
Specialist in International Affairs, Congressional Research 
Service, Library of Congress.

Deterring the use of false identification documents

    Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced S. 2924, a bill 
designed to strengthen the enforcement of Federal statutes 
relating to false identification documents. S. 2924 makes it 
clear that it is a crime to transfer false identification 
documents by electronic means, and that the term false 
identification documents include documents that are in the form 
of computer files, discs, or templates. S. 2924 closes a 
loophole in current law that permits manufacturers of false 
identification documents to escape liability by displaying the 
disclaimer: ``Not a Government Document,'' disclaimers that can 
be removed easily. The bill also directs the Attorney General 
and the Secretary of the Treasury to coordinate efforts to 
investigate and prosecute the distribution of false 
identification documents on the Internet.
    On October 31, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by 
unanimous consent. The bill was referred to the Judiciary 
Committee on that same day and to the Subcommittee on Crime on 
November 3. On December 15, the Committee was discharged from 
further consideration of the bill. The House then passed the 
bill by unanimous consent, with an amendment. Later that same 
day, the Senate agreed to the House amendment by unanimous 
consent. The president approved the bill on December 28, 2000 
and the bill became Public Law 106-578.
           SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

  GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman

JERROLD NADLER, New York             ED BRYANT, Tennessee \1\
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MELVIN WATT, North Carolina          STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana \2\
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
                                     SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
                                     MARY BONO, California \3\
                                     JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \4\
                                     DAVID VITTER, Louisiana \5\

----------
\1\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee June 25, 1999.
\2\ Stephen Buyer, Indiana, resigned from the Committee effective the 
afternoon of March 4, 1999.
\3\ Mary Bono, California, assigned to the subcommittee March 24, 1999.
\4\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, assigned to the subcommittee March 24, 
1999.
\5\ David Vitter, Louisiana, assigned to the subcommittee July 20, 
1999.

Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................    79
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    14
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee..............     0
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee.     0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee....     0
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................     3
Legislation ordered tabled in the Subcommittee....................     1
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     2
Legislation reported to the House.................................    15
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................     9
Legislation pending in the House..................................     2
Legislation passed by the House...................................    20
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     9
Legislation vetoed by the President...............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     7
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another bill.......     2
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    22
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    28

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

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

                         Legislative Activities


                administrative law and regulatory reform

H.R. 1924, the Federal Agency Compliance Act

    On October 27, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 1924, the ``Federal Agency Compliance Act,'' introduced by 
Subcommittee Chairman Gekas. The legislation, simlar to H.R. 
1544 which passed the House on February 25, 1998 by a vote of 
241-176,generally prevented agencies from refusing to follow 
controlling precedents of the United States courts of appeals in the 
course of program administration and litigation involving their 
programs. This practice by agencies, known as ``non-acquiescence,'' has 
been criticized for many years by courts and legal scholars, and has 
resulted in hardship to those appearing before agencies and continual 
relitigation of settled questions of law. The bill, based upon a 
recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 
addressed the two kinds of agency non-acquiescence: intracircuit non-
acquiescence--refusal to follow controlling appellate precedent within 
a specific federal judicial circuit; and intercircuit non-
acquiescence--relitigating in other judicial circuits issues on which 
precedents have already been established in multiple circuits.
    Regarding intracircuit non-acquiescence, the bill generally 
required an agency in its administration of statutes and 
regulations within a given judicial circuit to follow relevant 
existing courts of appeals precedent in that circuit. An agency 
would have been permitted to assert a position contrary to 
precedent in limited circumstances, for example, when 
intervening legal, factual or public policy developments may 
have undermined or changed the rationale for the earlier 
decision. With respect to intercircuit non-acquiescence, the 
bill provided that the Department of Justice and other agency 
officials shall seek to ensure that federal litigation under 
their control is initiated, defended, and continued so as to 
avoid unnecessarily repetitive litigation on questions of law 
already consistently resolved against the government in three 
or more circuit courts of appeals. The provision relating to 
intercircuit non-acquiescence was not subject to judicial 
review or enforcement.
    Witnesses testifying at the hearing were: Senator Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO); Honorable Walter K. Stapleton, 
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 
representing the Judicial Conference of the United States; 
William Schultz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil 
Division, United States Department of Justice; Arthur J. Fried, 
General Counsel, Social Security Administration; John 
Pickering, Chair, Senior Lawyers Division of the American Bar 
Association, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Honorable Ronald 
Bernoski, Social Security Administration, Office of Hearings 
and Appeals, President of the Association of Administrative Law 
Judges, Incorporated; Sheldon Cohen, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLP.
    On June 20, 2000 the Subcommittee reported the bill 
favorably by a voice vote. On September 20, 2000 the Judiciary 
Committee ordered reported the bill favorably by a voice vote. 
The report (H. Rept. No. 106-976) was filed on October 12, 
2000. The House took no action on H.R. 1924.

H.R. 881, the Regulatory Fair Warning Act

    H.R. 881, the ``Regulatory Fair Warning Act,'' was 
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Gekas on March 1, 1999. Mr. 
Gekas first introduced fair warning legislation (H.R. 3307) in 
the 104th Congress. During the 105th Congress, Mr. Gekas 
introduced a revised regulatory fair warning bill (H.R. 4049) 
and held a hearing on the measure on July 23, 1998.
    H.R. 881 would have prohibited a federal agency or federal 
court from imposing a sanction for a violation of an agency 
rule if: (1) the rule was not printed in the Code of Federal 
Regulations or in the Federal Register, was not known to the 
person, or was not knowable to a person who has engaged in a 
reasonable, good faith investigation of the rules applicable to 
the conduct that allegedly violated the rule; (2) the rule 
failed to give the person fair warning of the conduct that it 
prohibits or requires, or (3) with respect only to a 
retrospective sanction, the person acted in reasonable reliance 
upon written representations about what the rule prohibits or 
requires which were issued by the agency or an official with 
actual or apparent authority to interpret, administer, or 
enforce the rule.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 881 on June 29, 
1999. The following witnesses testified: June Bolstridge, 
President, GAIA Corporation; Ernest Gelhorn, Professor of Law, 
George Mason University School of Law; Steve Goodman, JSG 
Trading Corporation; Robert Hahn, Director, AEI-Brookings, 
Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Barbara C. Somson, Deputy 
Legislative Director, United Automobile, Aerospace and 
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; David Sparks, 
Senior Vice President of Finance, Providence Hospital, 
Representing the American Hospital Association.
    On September 29, 2000, the Subcommittee ordered the bill 
reported as amended, with a single amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by Representative Delahunt (D-MA). No 
further action was taken on the bill.

                            executive orders

    The executive order is a well known instrument employed by 
Presidents to manage the affairs of the executive branch. While 
most executive orders are routine and unremarkable, others 
raise questions concerning the separation of powers between the 
branches. A number of bills addressing this perceived problem 
were considered by the Subcommittee during the 106th Congress.

H. Con. Res. 30

    H. Con. Res. 30 was introduced by Representative Metcalfe 
(R-WA) on February 10, 1999. The resolution have expressed the 
sense of Congress that any executive order that infringes on 
the constitutional powers and duties of Congress or requires 
the expenditure of federal funds not specifically appropriated 
to carry out the order is advisory only and has no legal effect 
unless enacted as law.

H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act

    Introduced by Representative Paul (R-TX) on July 30, 1999, 
H.R. 2655, the ``Separation of Powers Restoration Act,'' would 
have broadly defined a ``presidential order'' as any executive 
order or action that has ``normative effect outside the 
executive branch.'' The bill would have directed the President 
to include with each presidential order a statement of the 
specific statutory or constitutional authority for its 
issuance. The bill would have also divested the power to 
declare a national emergency solely to Congress and would have 
limited the application of presidential orders to the executive 
branch. Finally, H.R. 2655 would have liberalized 
standingrequirements to allow lawmakers or aggrieved citizens to 
challenge executive orders that are constitutionally or statutorily 
suspect, and repealed the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1541 (1998)).

H.R. 3131, the Presidential Order Limitation Act of 1999

    H.R. 3131, the ``Presidential Order Limitation Act of 
1999,'' was introduced by Representative Barr (R-GA) on October 
21, 1999. The bill would have broadly defined a ``presidential 
order'' as any executive action ``purporting to have 
prescriptive effect.'' The bill would have required the 
President to transmit a copy of each presidential order to: (1) 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (2) the president 
pro tempore of the Senate; and (3) the chairperson and ranking 
member of each standing and select committee of the House and 
the Senate H.R. 3131 would have also prohibited any 
presidential order from taking effect earlier than 30 days 
after submission and review by Congress. The bill would have 
exempted presidential orders from congressional review if they 
describe an emergency which requires the order to take effect 
at an earlier time to: (1) protect national security; (2) 
prevent physical injury; (3) provide disaster relief; or (4) 
safeguard an American foreign policy interest.
    On October 28, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2655, H.R. 3131, and H. Con. Res. 30. Witnesses who 
testified included: Representative Jack Metcalf (R-WA); 
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX); Representative Bob Barr (R-GA); 
Professor Phillip Cooper, University of Vermont; Thomas 
Fielding, Esq, Wiley, Reign & Fielding, and Eliot Mincberg, 
Vice President and Legal Counsel, People for the American Way. 
The witnesses examined constitutional and legal issues 
surrounding executive orders and considered the impact of the 
proposed legislation. None of the measures received further 
Subcommittee consideration.

                               BANKRUPTCY

H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999

    Subcommittee Chairman Gekas (for himself and 36 original 
cosponsors) introduced H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 
1999, on February 24, 1999. As introduced, H.R. 833 was 
virtually identical to the conference report on H.R. 3150, the 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, which Mr. Gekas introduced in 
the 105th Congress. Like H.R. 3150, which received overwhelming 
bipartisan support in the House as evidenced by a vote of 300 
to 125, H.R. 833 also attracted extensive bipartisan support 
and eventually obtained 106 cosponsors.
    H.R. 833 presented a comprehensive package of reforms 
pertaining to consumer and business bankruptcy law and 
practice, and included provisions regarding the treatment of 
tax claims and enhanced data collection. The bill also 
established a separate chapter under the Bankruptcy Code 
devoted to the special issues and concerns presented by 
international insolvencies.
    The consumer bankruptcy reforms of H.R. 833, as introduced, 
were implemented through a self-evaluating income/expense 
screening mechanism, the establishment of new eligibility 
standards for bankruptcy relief, the imposition of additional 
financial disclosure requirements for consumer debtors, and 
augmented responsibilities for those charged with administering 
consumer bankruptcy cases. In addition, H.R. 833 instituted a 
panoply of consumer bankruptcy reforms designed to increase the 
protections afforded to debtors and creditors.
    H.R. 833 was introduced in response to several developments 
affecting bankruptcy law and practice. Based on data released 
by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
bankruptcy filings increased by more than 72 percent between 
1994 and 1998. In 1998, bankruptcy filings, according to the 
Administrative Office, set an ``all-time high of 1,436,964.'' 
Paradoxically, however, this dramatic increase in bankruptcy 
filing rates occurred during a period when the economy 
continued to be robust, with relatively low unemployment and 
high consumer confidence. (The most recent data reported by the 
Administrative Office indicate that case filings for fiscal 
year 2000 decreased by 6.8 percent from the prior fiscal year.)
    Coupled with this development was the release of a 
privately funded study that estimated financial losses in 1997 
resulting from these bankruptcy filings exceeded $44 billion, a 
loss equal to more than $400 per household. This study 
projected that even if the growth rate in personal bankruptcies 
slowed to only 15 percent over the next three years, the 
American economy would have to absorb a cumulative cost of more 
than $220 billion.
    The consumer bankruptcy provisions of H.R. 833 were 
intended to enhance recoveries for creditors and include 
protections for consumer debtors. With respect to creditors, 
H.R. 833's principal provisions consisted of needs-based 
bankruptcy relief, general protections for creditors, and 
protections for specific types of creditors. The bill's debtor 
protections included heightened requirements for those 
professionals and others who assist consumer debtors in 
connection with their bankruptcy cases, expanded notice 
requirements for consumers with regard to alternatives to 
bankruptcy relief, required participation in debt repayment 
programs for consumers before they may be debtors in 
bankruptcy, and the institution of a pilot program to study the 
effectiveness of consumer financial education for debtors.
    The heart of H.R. 833's consumer bankruptcy reforms was the 
implementation of a mechanism to ensure that consumer debtors 
repay their creditors the maximum that they can afford. The 
needs-based formula under H.R. 833, as introduced, articulated 
objective criteria so that debtors and their counsel could 
self-evaluate their eligibility for relief under chapter 7 (a 
form of bankruptcy relief where the debtor generally receives a 
discharge of his or her personal liability for most unsecured 
debts). Certain expense allowances were localized and a 
debtor's extraordinary circumstances were recognized, including 
episodic losses of income. Parties in interest, such as 
creditors, were empowered under H.R. 833 to move for dismissal 
of chapter 7 cases where debtors were ineligible. These reforms 
were intended to not affect consumer debtors lacking the 
ability to repay their debts and deserving of an expeditious 
fresh start.
    With regard to business bankruptcy reform, H.R. 833 
addressed the special problems that small business cases 
present by instituting a variety of time frames and enforcement 
mechanismsto identify and weed out small business debtors who 
were not likely to reorganize. It also required more active monitoring 
of these cases by United States Trustees and the bankruptcy courts. In 
addition, H.R. 833 included provisions dealing with business bankruptcy 
cases in general and chapter 12 (family farmer bankruptcies). The small 
business and single asset real estate provisions of H.R. 833 were 
largely derived from consensus recommendations of the National 
Bankruptcy Review Commission. Many of these recommendations received 
broad support from those in the bankruptcy community, including various 
bankruptcy judges, creditor groups, and the Executive Office for United 
States Trustees. It also included provisions concerning the treatment 
of certain financial contracts under the banking laws as well as under 
the Bankruptcy Code. H.R. 833 responded to the special needs of family 
farmers by making chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, a form of 
bankruptcy relief available only to eligible family farmers, permanent. 
With regard to single asset real estate debtors, H.R. 833 eliminated 
the monetary cap from the Bankruptcy Code's definition applicable to 
these debtors and made them subject to the small business provisions of 
the bill. It also amended the automatic stay provisions by permitting a 
single asset real estate debtor to make requisite interest payments out 
of rents or other proceeds generated by the real property.
    H.R. 833, in addition, contained several provisions having 
general impact with respect to bankruptcy law and practice. 
Under H.R. 833, certain appeals from final bankruptcy court 
decisions were to be heard directly by the court of appeals for 
the appropriate circuit. Another general provision of H.R. 833 
required the Executive Office for United States Trustees to 
compile various statistics regarding chapter 7, 11 and 13 
cases, to make these data available to the public, and to 
report annually to Congress on the data collected. Other 
general provisions included a prohibition against the 
appointment of fee examiners and the allowance of shared 
compensation with bona fide public service attorney referral 
programs.
    The Judiciary Committee began its consideration of 
comprehensive bankruptcy reform early in the 105th Congress. On 
April 16, 1997, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law conducted a hearing on the operation of the 
bankruptcy system that was combined with a status report from 
the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. This would be the 
first of 13 hearings that the Subcommittee held on the subject 
of bankruptcy reform over the ensuing two years. Eight of these 
hearings were devoted solely to consideration of H.R. 833 and 
its predecessor, H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998. 
Over the course of these hearings, more than 120 witnesses, 
representing nearly every major constituency in the bankruptcy 
community, testified. With regard to H.R. 833 alone, testimony 
was received from 69 witnesses, representing 23 organizations, 
with additional material submitted by other individuals and 
groups.
    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held 
four hearings on H.R. 833, the first of which was held jointly 
with the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and 
the Courts on March 11, 1999. This marked the first time in 
more than 60 years that a bicameral hearing was held on the 
subject of bankruptcy reform. Witnesses who testified at the 
March 11, 1999 hearing included: United States Senators Charles 
Grassley (R-IA), Joseph R. Biden (D-DE), and Christopher J. 
Dodd (D-CT). House Members included: Representatives James P. 
Moran (D-VA), Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Nick Smith (R-MI). Other 
witnesses included: Dean Sheaffer, Vice President and Director 
of Credit at Boscov's Department Store, Inc., representing the 
National Retail Federation; Bruce L. Hammonds, Senior Vice 
Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, MBNA America Bank, N.A.; 
the Honorable Carol J. Kenner, United States Bankruptcy Judge 
for the District of Massachusetts; Larry Nuss, Chief Executive 
Officer, Cedar Falls Community Credit Union, representing 
Credit Union National Association, Inc.; Gary Klein, Senior 
Attorney with the National Consumer Law Center; the Honorable 
Edith Hollan Jones, Judge, Untied States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit, and former member of the National Bankruptcy 
Review Commission; Judith Greenstone Miller, Clark Hill, PLC, 
representing the Commercial Law League of America; Professor 
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University School of Law; and 
Professor Elizabeth Warren, Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at 
Harvard Law School.
    Witnesses at the March 16, 1999 hearing included the 
following: Representatives James P. Moran (D-VA), Bill McCollum 
(R-FL), Nick Smith (R-MI), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Steven Rothman 
(D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Louise McIntosh Slaughter 
(D-NY), and John LaFalce (D-NY). Other witnesses included: 
James I. Shepard, a bankruptcy tax consultant and former member 
of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission; Professor Eric 
Posner of the University of Chicago Law School; Professor David 
Skeel of the University of Pennsylvania Law School; Professor 
Lawrence P. King, Charles Seligson Professor of Law at New York 
University School of Law; Ralph R. Mabey, a practitioner and 
former United States Bankruptcy Judge; the Honorable Joe Lee, 
United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of 
Kentucky; Leon Forman, a practitioner; James E. Smith, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Union State Bank and 
Trust, representing the American Bankers Association; Janet 
Kubica, President and Chief Executive Officer, Postmark Credit 
Union, representing the Credit Union National Association; and 
Frank Torres, Legislative Counsel for Consumers Union.
    Witnesses at the March 17, 1999 hearing included the 
following: George J. Wallace of Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & 
Mellott, LLC, representing the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform 
Coalition; the Honorable William Brown, United States 
Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, 
representing the American Bankruptcy Institute; Professor Todd 
Zywicki of George Mason University School of Law; Professor 
Kenneth Klee of the University of California--Los Angeles 
School of Law, representing the National Bankruptcy Conference; 
Jeffrey A. Tassey, Senior Vice President of Governmental and 
Legal Affairs for the American Financial Services Association; 
Michael Moore, President of Badcock Home Furnishing Centers, 
representing the National Retail Federation; Wayne Sigmon, a 
partner with the law firm of Gray, Layton, Kersh, Solomon, 
Sigmon, Furr and Smith, representing the National Association 
of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys; the Honorable Thomas R. 
Carper, Governor of the State of Delaware, representing the 
National Governors' Association; the Honorable Randall J. 
Newsome, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern 
District of California, representing the National Conference of 
Bankruptcy Judges; Robert Waldschmidt, a chapter 7 trustee, 
representing the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees; 
Henry E. Hildebrand, III, a chapter 13 trustee, representing 
the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees; Prof. Michael 
E. Staten, Director of the Credit Research Center, at the 
McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University; Professor 
Marianne B. Culhane, Creighton University School of Law; Lisa 
H. Ryu, Staff Economist at the National Association of Federal 
Credit Unions; Dr. Thomas S. Neubig, Ernst &Young LLP; and 
Richard M. Stana, Associate Director Administration of Justice Issues, 
General Government Division at the General Accounting Office.
    Witnesses at the fourth and final hearing held on March 18, 
1999 included the following: Representatives Robert E. Andrews 
(D-NJ), James A. Leach (R-IA) and Marge Roukema (R-NJ); Philip 
L. Strauss, Assistant District Attorney, Family Support Bureau 
of the Office of the District Attorney in San Francisco, 
California; Joan Entmacher, Vice President and Director of the 
Family Economic Center, National Women's Law Center; Stephanie 
M. Saperstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Utah 
Attorney General, representing the National Association of 
Attorneys General; Professor Karen Gross, New York Law School; 
the Honorable Thomas Carlson, United States Bankruptcy Judge 
for the Northern District of California; H. Elizabeth Baird, 
Assistant General Counsel for the Bank of America Corporation; 
William H. Schorling, Klett, Lieber, Rooney & Schorling, 
representing the American Bar Association--Business Bankruptcy 
Section; Charles M. Tatelbaum, a partner with the law firm of 
Cummings & Lockwood, representing the National Association of 
Credit Managers; Judith Greenstone Miller, a partner with the 
law firm of Clark Hill, PLC, representing the Commercial Law 
League of America; Damon Silvers, Associate General Counsel for 
the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
Organizations; Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for the Office of 
Advocacy, United States Small Business Administration; Ray 
Valdes, Tax Collector for Seminole County in Florida, on behalf 
of the National Association of County Treasurers and Finance 
Officers, the National Association of County Officials, and the 
National League of Cities; Don Harris, Special Assistant to the 
Attorney General, State of New Mexico, representing the States' 
Association of Bankruptcy Attorneys; Paul H. Asofsky, a partner 
at the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, representing 
the American Bar Association--Section of Taxation; the 
Honorable Tina Brozman, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge 
for the Southern District of New York; Oliver Ireland, 
Associate General Counsel for the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System; Professor Randal C. Picker, Leffmann 
Professor of Commercial Law at University of Chicago Law 
School, representing the National Bankruptcy Conference; Seth 
Grosshandler, a partner at the New York office of Cleary, 
Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton; Joseph Peiffer, Peiffer Law Office; 
and Harley D. Bergmeyer, Chairman, President and Chief 
Executive Officer of the Saline State Bank, representing the 
American Bankers Association.
    On March 24 and 25, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open 
session and on March 25, 1999 ordered favorably reported the 
bill H.R. 833, with a single amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, by a record vote of five to three, a quorum being 
present. Thereafter, the Judiciary Committee met in open 
session on April 20, 21, 22, 27, and 28, 1999, and on April 28, 
1999 ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 833 with 
amendment in the nature of a substitute by a recorded vote of 
22 ayes to 13 nays with one Member voting present, a quorum 
being present. The legislation, as reported, incorporated 
Chairman Hyde's proposals (1) establishing a safe harbor for 
below median income chapter 7 debtors from motions to dismiss 
alleging ability to repay, and (2) requiring certain minimum 
payments to general unsecured creditors as a precondition to 
dismissal of a chapter 7 case under the needs-based test. On 
April 29, 1999, the Committee filed its report on H.R. 833 (H. 
Rpt. 106-123 pt. 1).
    The House, under a rule making certain amendments in order, 
thereafter passed H.R. 833, as amended, on May 5, 1999 by a 
vote of 313 to 108. Among the principal changes to the bill 
occurring as the result of floor action was the inclusion of a 
provision permitting states to opt out of the homestead 
exemption limitation and a provision modifying the Truth in 
Lending Act with respect to credit card disclosures regarding 
interest rates, minimum monthly payments, and late fees. An 
amendment by Chairman Hyde that would have substituted a 
reasonably necessary standard in determining permissible living 
expenses of debtors and their families in place of the bill's 
usage of Internal Revenue Service expense allowances failed by 
a recorded vote of 184 to 238.
    The following day, the bill was received in the Senate. On 
February 2, 2000, H.R. 833 was laid before the Senate by 
unanimous consent. The Senate struck all of H.R. 833's language 
after its enacting clause and substituted the text of S. 625, 
as amended. H.R. 833, as amended, was then passed by the Senate 
in lieu of S. 625 by a recorded vote of 83 to 14. The Senate 
then insisted on its amendment and requested a conference.
    Owing to a constitutional impediment presented by the 
Senate-passed version of this legislation, the Senate did not 
send its bill to the House for its consideration. Instead, an 
informal conference ensued which produced a compromise package 
of bankruptcy reform measures, which was introduced as S. 3186, 
the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, on October 11, 2000. On that 
same date, the House agreed to a conference by voice vote on 
H.R. 2415 (an unrelated bill authorizing certain State 
Department appropriations, among other purposes) that was 
chosen as a legislative vehicle for bankruptcy reform because 
of certain procedural matters. The House also passed a motion 
inter alia requiring the conference committee meeting be open 
to the public and available to the print and electronic media. 
Chairman Henry Hyde, Ranking Member John Conyers, Majority 
Leader Dick Armey, Subcommittee Chairman George Gekas, and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler were appointed as 
House conferees.
    The conference report accompanying H.R. 2415 (H. Rpt. 106-
970) was filed on October 11, 2000. It replaced the text of 
H.R. 2415 with that of S. 3186. On October 12, 2000, the House 
agreed to the conference report on H.R. 2415 by voice vote and, 
on unanimous consent, directed the enrolling clerk to amend the 
bill's short title to ``The Gekas-Grassley Bankruptcy Reform 
Act of 2000''.
    The conference report differed from the House passed 
version of H.R. 833 in various respects. The House bill and its 
Senate counterpart had distinctive versions of ``needs-based'' 
bankruptcy relief. Although both bills required a mandatory 
presumption of abuse if a chapter 7 debtor's ``current monthly 
income'' (a defined term) less specified expenses exceeded 
certain monetary thresholds, the bill differed with respect to 
the amount and calculation of these thresholds. The conference 
report provided that the presumption of abuse is established if 
the debtor's current monthly income (when multiplied by 60) was 
not less than the lesser of (a) 25% of the debtor's nonpriority 
unsecured claims or $6,000 (whichever is greater); or (b) 
$10,000.
    The House and Senate bills also had differing standards for 
rebutting the presumption of abuse. Whereas the House bill 
permitted a debtor to rebut the presumption of abuse only by 
demonstrating extraordinary circumstances that require 
adjustment of expenses or income, theSenate bill allowed the 
debtor to rebut the presumption by special circumstances that justify 
the adjustment of income. Under the conference report, the presumption 
of abuse could only be rebutted by demonstrating special circumstances 
that justify additional expenses or adjustment to the debtor's income.
    In addition, both the House and Senate bills took into 
consideration differing expenses with respect to their needs-
based tests. The House bill, for example, allowed a debtor to 
claim certain education expenses for a child under the age of 
18 years as well as estimated administrative expenses and 
attorneys' fees associated with a chapter 13 case. The House 
bill also authorized a five percent enhancement for food and 
clothing expenses, under certain circumstances. The Senate 
bill, on the other hand, permitted a debtor to claim expenses 
for the care of an elderly, chronically ill or disabled member 
of the debtor's household or immediate family. In addition, the 
Senate bill allowed the debtor to claim reasonably necessary 
expenses incurred to maintain the safety of the debtor and the 
debtor's family from domestic violence. In addition to the 
debtor's applicable monthly expenses specified under the IRS 
National and Local Standards, the conference report permitted a 
debtor to claim the following expenses: (1) the debtor's actual 
monthly expenses for the categories specified by the IRS as 
Other Necessary Expenses; (2) reasonably necessary expenses 
incurred to maintain the safety of the debtor and the debtor's 
family from domestic violence; (3) an additional allowance of 
up to five percent of the IRS National Standards for food and 
clothing expenses if demonstrated to be reasonable and 
necessary; (4) continued actual expenses that are reasonable 
and necessary for the care and support of an elderly, 
chronically ill, or disabled member of the debtor's household 
or immediate family; (5) the actual administrative expenses of 
administering a chapter 13 case--up to 10% of projected plan 
payments--as determined under schedules issued by the Executive 
Office for United States Trustees; (6) actual expenses of up to 
$1,500 per year per child of the debtor to attend a private 
elementary or secondary school, under certain circumstances; 
and (7) payments made to secured creditors, including any 
additional payments necessary to enable the debtor to retain 
possession of a primary residence, motor vehicle or other 
property that collateralizes a secured obligation and is 
necessary for the support of the debtor and the debtor's 
dependents.
    The House and Senate bills had divergent ``safe harbor'' 
provisions for chapter 7 debtors with incomes below certain 
monetary thresholds. The conference report incorporated two 
safe harbors as follows: (1) only the judge, United States 
Trustee, or bankruptcy administrator could seek dismissal of 
chapter 7 case for abuse if the debtor's income equals or is 
less than the applicable state median income; and (2) no one 
(including the judge, United States Trustee, bankruptcy 
administrator, trustee or party in interest) could seek 
dismissal of a chapter 7 case based on the bill's formula for 
determining a debtor's ability to repay debts if the debtor's 
income equals or is less than the applicable state median 
income.
    The House and Senate bills had significant differences with 
regard to how they implemented their respective needs-based 
tests. The House bill primarily relied upon the chapter 7 
trustee to analyze a debtor's ability to repay under the test 
and to seek dismissal of abusive cases. The Senate bill 
required the Office of the United States Trustee, a component 
of the Department of Justice, to conduct this review and to 
file the requisite dismissal motion, if appropriate. Under the 
conference report, the Office of the United States Trustee was 
required to conduct the requisite review and file the dismissal 
motion, if appropriate. This requirement was discretionary if 
the debtor's income was between 100% and 150% of the applicable 
state median income and the debtor's current monthly income 
(reduced by certain expenses) did not exceed a specified 
monetary threshold. The statement of review had to be filed not 
later than 10 days after the first meeting of creditors.
    On October 19, 2000, the Senate, by a vote of 89 to 0, 
agreed to a motion to proceed to consideration of the 
conference report. A further motion to proceed was agreed to in 
the Senate on October 27, 2000 by a vote of 87 to 1. After a 
cloture motion failed by a vote of 53 to 30 on November 1, 
2000, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott moved to reconsider the 
vote. On December 5, 2000, the Senate passed a cloture motion 
by a vote of 67 to 31. The Senate thereafter passed the 
conference report on December 7, 2000 by a vote of 70 to 28. On 
December 19, 2000, the conference report was pocket vetoed by 
the President.

H.R. 1161, the Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act

    H.R. 1161, the ``Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act 
of 1999,'' was introduced by Banking Committee Chair James 
Leach (R-IA) (for himself and Representatives John LaFalce (D-
NY) and Marge Roukema (R-NJ) on March 17, 1999. The Committee 
on the Judiciary was named as an additional committee of 
jurisdiction upon the introduction of H.R. 1161 pursuant to its 
jurisdiction over bankruptcy law under Rule X of the Rules of 
the House. The Judiciary Committee had jurisdictional interests 
in sections 8, 11, 13 and 15 of this bill.
    The Judiciary Committee had no substantive objection to 
H.R. 1161 as ordered to be reported by the Banking Committee on 
July 27, 2000 as it was substantively similar to Title X of 
H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, which the House 
had passed, as amended, on May 5, 1999. In view of the 
substantively similar language and in the interest of 
expeditiously moving H.R. 1161 forward, the Judiciary Committee 
agreed to be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1161 
on September 7, 2000.
    The House passed H.R. 1161, as amended, on October 24, 2000 
by voice vote. The Senate did not act on the bill prior to the 
conclusion of the 106th Congress.

H.R. 2942, H.R. 4718, and H.R. 5540, bills extending the period of time 
        for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is 
        reenacted

    During the 106th Congress, there were several bills 
introduced to extend chapter 12, a specialized form of 
bankruptcy relief available to a ``family farmer with regular 
annual income'' as defined in the Bankruptcy Code. For a 
discussion of the significance of chapter 12, refer to the text 
accompanying H.R. 808, which appears in that portion of the 
report pertaining to the activities of the full Committee.
    On September 24, 1999, Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) 
(for himself and Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Doug 
Bereuter (R-NE), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA),and Charles Pickering 
(R-MS) introduced H.R. 2942, to extend chapter 12 for six additional 
months. Given the imminent expiration date of chapter 12, the bill was 
considered under suspension of the rules and agreed to by the House by 
voice vote on September 27, 1999, as amended. As passed by the House, 
the bill extended chapter 12 for three additional months until January 
1, 2000. H.R. 2942 was received in the Senate on the following day.
    In lieu of considering H.R. 2942, the Senate passed S. 
1606, to extend chapter 12 for nine additional months until 
July 1, 2000. The House, thereafter, passed S. 1606 on October 
4, 1999. The bill was subsequently signed into law on October 
9, 1999 (Public Law 106-70).
    Thereafter, Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) (for himself 
and Mr. Gekas) introduced H.R. 4718 on June 22, 2000 to extend 
chapter 12 for an additional three months until October 1, 
2000. In light of the imminent expiration date of July 1, 2000, 
the bill was considered and passed by the House on June 26, 
2000 under suspension of the rules. As the Senate failed to act 
on this bill, chapter 12 expired as of July 1, 2000.
    H.R. 5540, a further bill to extend chapter 12, was 
introduced by Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) (for himself and 
Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)) on October 25, 2000. The 
bill, which would have reenacted and extended chapter 12 for 
eleven months until June 1, 2002, was subsequently amended to 
include provisions authorizing the creation of certain 
temporary bankruptcy judgeships and extending five presently 
authorized temporary bankruptcy judgeships. This provision of 
the bill was added in response to the need in certain areas in 
the nation for additional bankruptcy judgeships. The bill, as 
amended, was passed by the House under suspension of the rules 
on October 31, 2000 and received by the Senate on the following 
day. The Senate did not act on this bill prior to the 
conclusion of the 106th Congress.

              state taxation affecting interstate commerce

    The right of States to tax economic activities within their 
borders is a key aspect of federalism rooted in the 
Constitution and long recognized by Congress. At the same time, 
the authority of State to lay and collect taxes is subject to a 
number of constitutional limitations. First, the Commerce 
Clause prohibits States from assessing taxes which unduly 
burden interstate commerce. Second, the Due Process clause 
prohibits State from taxing those who lack a ``substantial 
nexus'' with the taxing State. Finally, the Privileges and 
Immunities clause prevents states from assessing taxes which 
discriminate against nonresidents. During the 106th Congress, 
the Subcommittee considered a number of bills that bear 
directly on state taxes affecting interstate commerce.

H.R. 462, a bill clarifying that governmental pension plans of the 
        possessions of the United States shall be treated in the same 
        manner as State pension plans for purposes of the limitation on 
        the State income taxation of pension income

    On February 2, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas (for 
himself and Representatives Bill McCollum (R-FL), John Mica (R-
FL), and Carlos Romero-Barcelo (D-RC-PR)), introduced H.R. 462.
    H.R. 462 made technical corrections to section 114 of title 
4 of the United States Code, which was enacted in 1996 to 
restrict the ability of States to tax certain types of pension 
income received by their former residents. Although section 114 
was intended to apply to ``possessions of the United States,'' 
the provision's incorporation of the Internal Revenue Code's 
definition of ``governmental plan'' (which neither includes 
possessions of the United States nor Puerto Rico) created an 
anomaly that effectively excluded retirement plans established 
by possessions of the United States. In addition to remedying 
this technical error, H.R. 462 also corrected a typographical 
error concerning the designation of a subsection. H.R. 462 is 
virtually identical to H.R. 4572, a bill that was introduced by 
Mr. Gekas in the last session and which passed the House, under 
suspension of the rules, by voice vote on October 15, 1998. The 
Senate did not consider H.R. 4572 prior to the end of the 105th 
Congress.
    No hearings were held on H.R. 462. It was ordered favorably 
reported by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law without amendment by voice vote on March 24, 1999. The 
Judiciary Committee ordered the bill without amendment 
favorably reported to the House by voice vote on May 19, 1999. 
The report (H. Rept. No. 106-302) was filed on September 8, 
1999. The bill was passed by the House under suspension of the 
rules by voice vote on October 18, 1999 and received in the 
Senate on the following day. The Senate did not consider this 
bill prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress.

H.R. 4391, the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act

    On May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee reported H.R. 4391 
favorably by voice vote, H.R. 4391, the ``Mobile 
Telecommunications Sourcing Act.'' The bill, introduced by 
Chairman Hyde, amended federal provisions concerning tax 
authority to deem mobile telecommunications services provided 
in a taxing jurisdiction as provided by the customer's home 
service provider. It subjected charges for such services to 
taxation by the taxing jurisdiction whose territorial limits 
encompass the customer's place of primary use, regardless of 
where the services originate, terminate, or pass through. It 
prohibited any other taxing jurisdiction from imposing any tax, 
charge or fee for such services.
    H.R. 4391 also authorized a state or designated database 
provider to provide an electronic database to a home service 
provider which would designate for each street address the 
appropriate taxing jurisdiction as identified by a nationwide 
standard numeric code. It required the database provider to 
provide notice of the availability of such database, as well as 
subsequent revisions thereto. It held harmless from any fee 
liability a home service provider that uses such database if 
the provider employees an enhanced zip code to assign each 
street address to a specific taxing jurisdiction and exercises 
due diligence to ensure that each address is assigned to the 
correct taxing jurisdiction. It required one specific taxing 
jurisdiction to be assigned when an enhanced zip code overlaps 
boundaries of different taxing jurisdictions. It terminated the 
authority to use the enhanced zip code on the later of: (1) 18 
months after the nationwide standard numeric code has been 
approved, or (2) six months after a state or designated 
database provider provides such database.
    The bill authorized a taxing jurisdiction, or a state 
acting on behalf of such jurisdiction, to: (1) determine the 
place of primary use for the purposes of appropriate taxing 
authority; and (2) if necessary, notify a home service provider 
to change the assignment of a taxing authority to reflect the 
appropriate place of primary use. It required the home service 
provider to obtain and maintain the customer's place of primary 
use for taxing purposes. It additionally provided transition 
provisions and special rules.
    The Subcommittee had held a hearing on H.R. 3489, 
legislation addressing similar subject matter, on May 4, 2000. 
Testimony was received from: Representative Chip Pickering (R-
MS); Ray Scheppach, on behalf of the National Governors 
Association; Thomas Wheeler, President and CEO of the Cellular 
Telecommunications Industry Association; Harley Duncan, on 
behalf of the Federation of Tax Administrators; and Joseph 
Brooks, representing the National League of Cities. (H. Rept. 
106-725, part two, filed on July 11, 2000)
    On May 24, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered reported 
both H.R. 3489 and H.R. 4391 by voice vote. The report of H.R. 
3489 (H. Rept. No. 106-725) was filed on July 11, 2000; the 
report to H.R. 4391 (H. Rept. No. 106-719), was filed on July 
10, 2000. H.R. 3489 was amended by deleting subject matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The House 
passed the bill by voice vote on July 11, 2000. The Senate 
passed the bill by unanimous consent on July 14, 2000 and it 
was signed by the President as Public Law 106-252 on July 28, 
2000.

                          Electronic Commerce

    The Internet and information technology (IT) industries 
continue to drive U.S. economic expansion, presently accounting 
for 35 percent of real U.S. economic growth. Conservative 
forecasts estimate that electronic retail sales will reach $300 
billion over the next three years. The sharp rise in e-commerce 
has not gone unnoticed by state governments, which continue to 
derive a substantial portion of their revenue from taxes on 
retail sales. The rise of electronic commerce has brought 
heightened taxing complexity to consumers and businesses alike. 
Current case law limits the power of states to require remote 
vendors without a substantial in-state taxing nexus to collect 
and remit state sales and use taxes. Moreover, inconsistent 
state taxing policies threaten to impede interstate commerce 
and impair the commercial development of the Internet.
    In 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 
U.S.C. Sec. 151 (1998)) to help address the emerging challenges 
associated with Internet commerce. The ITFA imposed a three 
year moratorium on both Internet access taxes and multiple and 
discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The bill also 
created a nineteen member Advisory Commission on Electronic 
Commerce to examine, among other things, the effect of state 
and local taxes on Internet commerce. While a majority of 
Commissioners recognized the need to move toward national 
uniform treatment of electronic commerce, no consensus on this 
matter was achieved. However, legislation representing the 
majority and minority findings of the Commission was 
subsequently introduced and considered by the Subcommittee. To 
advance the goals set out by the ITFA, the Subcommittee 
conducted a series of hearings on bills intended to simplify 
the taxing complexities that inhere in electronic commerce. To 
foster bipartisan consideration of these bills, the Chairmen 
and ranking members of the Committee and Subcommittee 
cosponsored these measures.
H.R. 4267, the Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act
    H.R. 4267, the ``Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act,'' 
was introduced by Committee Chairman Hyde, Committee ranking 
member Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas, and Subcommittee 
ranking member Nadler on April 13, 2000. H.R. 4267, represented 
the majority findings of the Advisory Commission.
    The bill would have placed a permanent moratorium on state 
and local taxes on Internet access fees and extended tax 
moratoria on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic 
commerce and taxes on sales of digitized goods and products 
until 2006. H.R. 4267 also would have clarified the taxing 
status of electronic merchants by listing geographic, Internet 
and telecommunications-related factors not sufficient to create 
a jurisdictional tax nexus respecting a seller and purchaser 
not present in the same state. Finally, the bill would have 
expressed the sense of the Congress that states should work 
together a draft draft a Uniform Sales and Use Tax Act by 2006. 
H.R. 4267 also would also have clarified the jurisdictional 
nexus criteria for taxing electronic merchants, expressed 
congressional support for states to develop a uniform sales and 
use tax act by 2004, and established an advisory commission to 
assess whether the states have met the tax simplification goals 
contemplated by the bill.
H.R. 4460, the ``Internet Tax Simplication Act of 2000''
    H.R. 4460, the ``Internet Tax Simplification Act of 2000,'' 
was introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde, Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Gekas and Subcommittee ranking member Nadler 
on May 16, 2000. The bill would have extended the tax 
moratorium on Internet access fees until 2006 and continued the 
prohibition on multiple and discriminatory taxation of Internet 
commerce until 2003. The bill would have authorized states to 
enter into a sales and use tax compact to foster a uniform 
Internet sales and use tax system and would have given states 
who enter into the compact authority to levy and collect taxes 
on remote sellers who lack a physical presence in the taxing 
state. Finally, H.R. 4460 would have expressed the sense of 
Congress that state and private industry continue to work 
toward common definition and sourcing rules for taxing 
electronic commerce.
    On May 17, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
4267 and 4460. The following witnesses testified at the 
hearing: the Honorable Ron Kirk, Mayor of Dallas, Texas; the 
Paul Harris, Sr. of the Virginia State Legislature; Gene Lebrun 
representing the National Conference of Commissioners on 
Uniform State Laws; Grover Norquist, President of Americans for 
Tax Reform and Stanley S. Sokul, Independent Consultant, 
Association for Interactive Media. While no clear consensus 
emerged from the hearing, the participants agreed that the 
current taxing system imposes unnecessary burdens on state and 
local governments, Internet retailers, and traditional ``brick 
and mortar'' sales outlets.
    On July 29, 2000, the Subcommittee held further hearings on 
H.R. 4267 and H.R. 4460. In addition, the Subcommittee 
considered H.R. 4462, the ``Fair and Equitable Interstate Tax 
Compact Simplification Act of 2000.'' Introduced by 
Representative Bachus (R-AL), the bill would have: extended the 
moratoria on Internet access and multiple and discriminatory 
taxes on Internet commerce until 2006; authorized states to 
enter into an interstate taxing compact to develop uniform 
taxing standards for Internet commerce: permitted states that 
have entered into a taxing compact to collect sales and use 
taxes on remote sellers who lack physical presence in the 
taxing state; and recognized the importance of consumer 
privacy. Finally, H.R. 4462 would have delineated a number of 
uniform benchmarks that a streamlined taxing system should 
reflect.
    Testimony from a broad range of witnesses was received from 
the following witnesses at the July 29 hearing: the Honorable 
Ray Haynes of the California State Senate, the Honorable 
Stephen Saland of the New York State Senate; R. Michael 
Southcombe, Idaho State Tax Commissioner, representing the 
Multistate Tax Commissioner; Gary Viken, Secretary of Revenue 
for the state of South Dakota, representing National Federation 
of Tax Administrators; Rodney Strain, Jr., Sheriff and Ex-
officio Tax Collector of St. Tammany Parish in Covington, LA; 
Tom Stemberg, CEO, Staples, Inc.; Gary Rappaport, President and 
CEO, The Rapport Companies representing the International 
Council of Shopping Centers; Robert Benham, Owner and 
President, Balliet's, L.L.C.; Katrina Doerfler, Senior Manager 
of Planning and External Affairs, Cisco Systems, Inc.; David 
Friedensohn, CEO of Bigstar Entertainment, Inc.; Frank Julian, 
Operational Vice President and Tax Counsel of Federated 
Department Stores, Inc.; Peter Lowy, Co-President of Westfield 
America, Inc.; James Hunt, President and CEO, Ernst and Young 
Technologies; Arthur Rosen, Esquire, McDermott, Will & Emery; 
Mark Nebergall, President, Software Finance and Tax Executives 
Council; Larry Good, Senior Vice President, Electronic Commerce 
Association and Scott H. Walters, Vice President of Research 
and Development of TAXWARE, International.
    The three bills considered by the Subcommittee at the July 
29, 2000 hearing did not receive further consideration.
H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000
    H.R. 3709, the ``Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000,'' 
was introduced by Representative Cox on February 29, 2000. The 
bill would amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 
Sec. 141 (1998)) to extend the moratorium on multiple and 
discriminatory taxation of Internet commerce and the ban on 
Internet access taxes until October 21, 2006. It also would 
express the sense of the Congress that a uniform Internet 
taxing policy should include, among other things: (1) a 
centralized, one-stop, multi-State registration system for 
sellers; (2) uniform definitions for goods or services that 
might be included in the tax base; (3) uniform and simple rules 
for attributing transactions to particular taxing 
jurisdictions; (4) uniform procedures for the certification of 
software that sellers rely on to determine non-multiple and 
non-discriminatory taxes and taxability; and (5) consistent 
electronic filing and remittance methods.
    No Subcommittee hearings were held on H.R. 3709. However, 
during the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 1054, the ``Internet Tax Freedom Act,'' which included a 
provision creating the tax moratorium which is the subject of 
H.R. 3709. The Subcommittee was discharged of the bill on May 
2, 2000. On May 4, the Judiciary Committee favorably ordered 
reported H.R. 3709, as amended, by a recorded vote of 29-8. The 
minority expressed concerns about the expedited manner in which 
the bill was considered and objected to the absence of language 
clarifying jurisdictional criteria for states and local 
taxation of electronic commerce. The report (H. Rept. No. 106-
609) was filed on May 8, 2000. On May 10, 2000, H.R. 3709 
passed the House by a recorded vote of 352-75. It was received 
by the Senate the next day. Although the bill was placed on the 
Senate calendar for further consideration, it was not scheduled 
for a vote prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress.

                        federal arbitration act

H.R. 534, Fairness and Voluntary Arbitration Act of 1999
    H.R. 534, the ``Fairness and Voluntary Arbitration Act of 
1999,'' was introduced by Representative Mary Bono (R-CA) on 
February 3, 1999. H.R. 534 would have amended the Federal 
Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1-14 (1998)) to make 
arbitration clauses in sales and service contracts enforceable 
only if parties to the contract consent in writing to arbitrate 
the dispute after the controversy in question arises. A bill 
similar to H.R. 543 (H.R. 3122) was introduced in the 102nd 
Congress and received a hearing before the House Subcommittee 
on Economic and Commercial Law. In 1996, the ``Fairness and 
Voluntary Arbitration Act of 1996'' was introduced by 
Representative Sonny Bono, but it did not receive a committee 
hearing.
    On June 8, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas held a hearing 
on the bill. The following witnesses testified at the hearing: 
Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI); James Wootton, President of 
the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform; James Hebe, 
Chairman, President and CEO of Freightliner, LLC; Florence 
Peterson, General Counsel for the American Arbitration 
Association; Gene N. Fondren, President, Texas Automobile 
Dealers Association; Richard Holcomb, Commissioner of the 
Department of Motor Vehicles for the state of Virginia; Mark K. 
Stine, Director of Legislative Affairs, Pennsylvania Automobile 
Association; G.C. Jerry Turnauer, President, Bayshore Sterling 
Truck and Jason P. Isralowitz, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, LLP.
    The Subcommittee held a mark up on H.R. 534 on July 13, 
2000. At the mark up, Representative Bono offered an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute limiting the application of the 
bill to motor vehicle franchise contracts. The amendment also 
renamed H.R. 534 the ``Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract 
Arbitration Fairness Act of 2000.'' While some members 
expressed interest in preserving the original language of the 
bill, the Subcommittee reported H.R. 534 by voice vote with a 
single amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    On September 13, 2000, the Judiciary Committee met in open 
session and ordered reported the amended version of H.R. 534 by 
voice vote. The bill obtained broad bipartisan support, 
obtaining the cosponsorship of 252 members. On October 3, 2000, 
H.R. 534 passed theHouse, as amended, on suspension of the 
rules. It was received in the Senate on October 4, 2000, but did not 
receive a vote in the Senate.

H.R. 916, a bill making technical amendments to Section 10, Title 9, 
        United States Code

    Subcommittee Chair Gekas introduced H.R. 916, making 
technical corrections to subsection 10(a) of title 9, United 
States Code, on March 3, 1999. H.R. 916 is identical to H.R. 
2440, which Mr. Gekas introduced during the 105th Congress.
    Title 9, which pertains to domestic and international 
arbitration law, enumerates the grounds for which a federal 
district court may vacate an arbitration award and/or order a 
rehearing. Subsection 10(a) of title 9 consists of five 
paragraphs. The fifth paragraph, however, is clearly intended 
to be a separate provision as it specifies the basis of the 
court's authority to direct a rehearing by the arbitrator. H.R. 
916 corrected this drafting error--which has existed from the 
legislation's original enactment in 1925--by simply converting 
the fifth paragraph into a separate subsection of section 10 
and making certain conforming grammatical and technical 
revisions.
    On March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee by voice vote reported 
H.R. 916. The Judiciary Committee thereafter ordered reported 
the bill on May 4, 1999 by voice vote. The report (H. Rept. No. 
106-181) was filed on June 10, 1999. As amended on the House 
floor, H.R. 916 also revised compliance dates and related 
provisions in the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994, which was enacted to preserve the government's 
ability, pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization, 
to intercept communications involving advanced technologies 
(such as digital or wireless transmissions) and services (such 
as call forwarding, speed dialing, and conference calling). 
H.R. 916, as amended, passed the House by voice vote on July 
13, 1999. The Senate did not act on the bill before the 
conclusion of the 106th Congress.

                          interstate compacts

    Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the United States 
Constitution provides, ``No State shall, without the Consent of 
Congress * * * enter in any Agreement or Compact with another 
State, or with a foreign power. * * *'' Congressional consent 
is required for such agreements and compacts to ensure that 
they do not work to the detriment of another State and that 
they do not conflict with Federal law or Federal interests. The 
Subcommittee considered a number of interstate compacts which 
under the Constitution the Congress must approve.

H.R. 744, a bill to rescind the consent of Congress to the Northeast 
        Interstate Dairy Compact, and H.R. 1604, the Dairy Consumers 
        and Producers Protection Act

    H.R. 744 was introduced by Representative James 
Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on February 11, 1999 and thereafter was 
referred to this Subcommittee on February 25, 1999. The bill 
would rescind Congress' consent to the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact by repealing Section 147 of the Federal 
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, which codifies 
Congress' consent to the Compact. If enacted, H.R. 744 would 
simply execute Congress' reserved rescission power.
    H.R. 1604 was introduced by Representative Asa Hutchinson 
(R-AR) on April 28, 1999 and thereafter was referred to this 
Subcommittee on May 11, 1999. The bill would, with respect to 
the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, grant consent to the 
inclusion of Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in the Compact, 
delete the requirement that the Secretary of Agriculture find a 
compelling public interest to authorize the Compact, eliminate 
any sunset provisions concerning the Compact's existence, 
remove certain prohibitions limiting imports from other regions 
and creating barriers to entry of milk into the Compact region, 
and substitute Ohio for Virginia in the list of potential 
Compact states. The bill would also authorize the Southern 
Dairy Compact for Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Virginia, and West Virginia with potential membership for 
Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Any 
states withdrawing from the Compact would be required to give a 
year's notice.
    On June 17, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
744 and 1604. Witnesses who testified at this hearing included: 
Honorable Russell D. Feingold, United States Senator of the 
State of Wisconsin; Honorable Mary L. Landrieu, United States 
Senator of the State of Louisiana; Honorable Charles E. 
Schumer, United States Senator of the State of New York; 
Honorable Tommy G. Thompson, Governor of the State of 
Wisconsin; Leon C. Graves, Commissioner of the Vermont 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets; Jay Kopp; David 
Krug on behalf of the Family Dairies USA; Albert Simmons on 
behalf of the National Family Farm Coalition; Wayne Bok, 
President, Associated Milk Products, Inc., representing the 
Upper Mid-West Dairy Coalition; Gary A. Corbett, Vice President 
of Governmental and Dairy Industry Relations, Dean Foods 
Company; James Green, Vice President and General Manager of 
Maola Milk & Ice Cream Company; Scott Charlton, Vice President 
of Manufacturing at Publix Supermarkets, Incorporated, on 
behalf of the Food Marketing Institute; Charles Parker, General 
Manager and Chief Operating Officer at Gold Star Dairy; Mae S. 
Schmidle, Chair of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact 
Commission; John Frydenlund, Director of the Center for 
International Food & Agriculture Policy/Citizens Against 
Government Waste; Kathy Lawrence, Executive Director of Just 
Food; Arthur S. Jaeger, Assistant Director of the Consumer 
Federation of America; Gregg Engles, Chairman and Chief 
Executive Officer of Suiza Foods Corporation; Daniel Smith, 
former Executive Director of the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact Commission; Steven J. Rosenbaum of Covington & Burling; 
Professor Bill Thomas, University of Georgia; Professor Robert 
M. Dunn, Jr., George Washington University; Geoffrey Covert, 
Senior Vice President and President of Manufacturing at The 
Kroger Company, on behalf of the Food Marketing Institute.
    The Subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 1604, as amended, 
on July 29, 1999. There was no further consideration of the 
bill.

H.R. 1293, The Transportation Employee Fair Taxation Act of 2000

    The Constitution permits States to levy income taxes both 
on the basis of taxpayerresidence and on the basis of where the 
income is derived. In some cases, taxpayers are required to pay income 
taxes both in their state of residence and in states in which they earn 
income in the course of regularly assigned professional duties.
    Representative Baird (D-WA) introduced H.R. 1293, the 
``Transportation Employee Fair Taxation Act of 2000,'' on March 
25, 1999. The bill was introduced to address the concerns of 
interstate waterway workers who work along the Columbia River, 
which serves as part of the state border between Washington and 
Oregon in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon assesses a broad based 
state income tax, Washington does not. Washington residents who 
worked along the Columbia River were presented with sometimes 
staggering tax assessments by Oregon officials who claimed that 
income earned along the Columbia River was taxable by Oregon.
    H.R. 1293 equalized the taxing status of interstate 
waterway workers vis-a-vis other interstate transportation 
workers by prohibiting states from levying taxes on the income 
of nonresident interstate waterway workers. Over the last few 
decades, Congress has provided earlier relief to interstate 
motor, rail and airway workers. Interstate waterway workers 
were not accorded similar treatment. On July 18, 2000, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. Representative Baird, 
Chris D. Eckhardt, Captain, Shaver Transportation, and Mike 
Simonsen, Representative, International Organization of 
Masters, Mates and Pilots testified at the hearing. On the same 
day, the Subcommittee ordered the bill reported by voice vote. 
The Judiciary Committee favorably reported H.R. 1293 by voice 
vote on September 20, 2000, and the committee report was filed 
on October 3, 2000 (H. Rept. No. 106-927, part 1, filed on 
October 3, 2000). To facilitate consideration of the bill, the 
House passed the Senate version of the bill (S. 893) introduced 
by Senator Gorton (R-WA) under suspension of the rules on 
October 24, 2000. The bill had passed the Senate on September 
28, 2000. S. 893 was signed by the President on November 9, 
2000 to become Public Law 106-489.

H.R. 4700, granting the consent of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri 
        Metropolitan Culture Compact

    On July 18, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on and 
reported favorably by voice vote H.R. 4700, granting the 
consent of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan 
Culture Compact Representative Karen McCarthy (D-MO) and Audrey 
Langworthy (Kan. State Senate) testified at the hearing. The 
Compact, entered into by the two states in 1999, permanently 
extended the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Culture Compact, 
to which Congress consented in 1994. The 1994 Compact created a 
bi-state taxing district spanning five counties in western 
Missouri and eastern Kansas. The Compact permitted residents of 
the region to jointly approve district-wide sales taxes to 
support cultural activities in the bi-state region. The revised 
Culture Compact expands the definition of ``cultural 
facilities'' to permit voters to approve sales taxes to support 
the construction or renovation of sports-related facilities. 
The Judiciary Committee ordered the bill favorably reported by 
voice vote on July 18, 2000. The report (H. Rept. No. 106-769) 
was filed on July 20, 2000. The bill passed the House on July 
24, 2000. The Senate passed H.R. 4700 on September 26, 2000, 
and it was signed by the President on October 10, 2000 to 
become Public Law 106-287.

H.J. Res. 72, granting the consent of the Congress to the Red River 
        Boundary Compact

    On October 26, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.J. Res. 72 (Representative Thornberry (R-TX)), a joint 
resolution granting the consent of the Congress to the Red 
River Boundary Compact, establishing a new boundary between 
Oklahoma and Texas. The boundary between Texas and Oklahoma had 
historically been the south bank of the Red River, which was 
the southern boundary of the Louisiana Purchase, later 
clarified by the Transcontinental Treaty of 1819. That treaty, 
negotiated with Spain by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, 
extended the western boundary of the Louisiana purchase to the 
Pacific Ocean (encompassing an area already explored by Lewis 
and Clark) and set the Purchase's southern boundary with Texas 
(then a Spanish possession) at the Red River. At that time the 
United States renounced its claim to Texas. After an armed 
struggle for Independence. Texas became a republic in 1836 and 
following approval by Texas. After an armed struggle for 
Inpendence, Texas became a republic in 1836 and following 
approval by Texas of a Congressional Resolution of Annexation, 
it was eventually admitted into the Union on December 22, 1843. 
Oklahoma was admitted to the Union on November 16, 1907. The 
Red River boundary extends for a distance of approximately 517 
miles.
    However, the Red River has a tendency to run dry, 
particularly in the area where it marks its western boundary 
with Oklahoma extending eastward to Lake Texoma south of 
Ardmore, Oklahoma. Because of this, the boundary is blurred by 
deposits of dry alluvial sand which makes the demarcation of 
the ``south bank'' difficult. Cut banks that could be useful in 
demarcating the boundary are often relocated by transitory 
floods. As a result, the precise boundary represented by the 
south bank of the Red River has been a source of dispute and 
litigation involving the two states.
    H.J. Res. 72 resulted from the efforts of a two-state 
commission which met to discuss and ultimately determine the 
boundary question. The commission's proposed boundary was 
adopted by the legislatures of both states. The boundary 
established under the compact becomes the ``vegetation line'' 
on the south bank of the Red River (except for the Lake Texoma 
area where the boundary is to established pursuant to the 
compact by an agreement between the states). The vegetation 
line was chosen because it was the simplest discernible method 
for demarcating the boundary for ordinary citizens and 
officials. Witnesses testifying at the October 26, 1999 hearing 
were: Representative Max Sandlin (D-TX); Representative Mac 
Thornberry (R-TX), David B. Braddock of the Oklahoma House of 
Representatives; Eric Sigsbey, General Counsel of the Texas 
General Land Office.
    The subcommittee reported the resolution favorably by voice 
vote on October 26, 1999. Subsequently to the subcommittee 
markup, concerns were expressed by representatives of several 
Indian tribes and nations bordering the Red River about how the 
compact might effect their interests. Negotiations continued 
for several months between the Subcommittee Congressional 
sponsors of the legislation, representatives of the relevant 
tribes and nations, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. On March 
3, 2000, Subcommittee majority and minority counsel, met in 
Austin, Texas with representatives of Texas and Oklahoma, as 
well as those from the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache tribes (KCA) 
and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. As a result of these 
negotiations and additional consultations with the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, an amendment wasadopted by the full Judiciary 
Committee clarifying that Congressional approval of the Compact does 
not alter the boundaries, the rights or the jurisdiction of the KCA 
tribes or those of the Chickasaw or Choctaw Nations which are, or in 
the future may be, established under Federal law. The Judiciary 
Committee ordered reported H.J. Res. 72 with an amendment on July 19, 
2000. The report (H. Rept. No. 106-770) was filed on July 20, 2000 and 
the House passed the resolution on July 24, 2000. The Senate passed 
H.J. Res. 72 on September 26, 2000. The President signed H.J. Res. 72 
on October 10, 2000 as Public Law 106-288.

H.J. Res. 54, granting the consent of Congress to the Missouri-Nebraska 
        Boundary Compact

    On July 29, 1999 the subcommittee held a hearing and 
reported H.J. Res. 54 by voice vote. The bill granted the 
consent of Congress to the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact 
settling a portion of the boundary between those two states 
that had been in dispute for many decades. When Missouri and 
Nebraska were admitted into the Union in 1820 and 1867, 
respectively, the boundary between them was set at the middle 
of the Missouri River. However, less than six months after 
Nebraska's admission, on July 4, 1867, the Missouri River 
flooded and carved out a new path to the west. In the process, 
a 5,000 acre piece of land--known as McKissick's Island--which 
was west of the river, suddenly became east of the river. While 
in 1914 the U.S. Supreme Court held that McKissick's Island was 
part of Nebraska, in 1934 the Army Corps of Engineers began 
construction of dikes, revetments, ripraps and dredging which 
resulted in the river's further movement along the border. 
Despite a 1982 decision by a United States District Court in 
Nebraska that the boundary remained at its pre-1934 location, 
the states were unable to agree on the precise location of the 
1934 centerline. Consequently, farmers whose land was in the 
disputed area faced taxation and threats of foreclosure from 
both states.
    After many years of negotiations and the appointment of an 
interstate commission, the boundary dispute was resolved and 
the states passed legislation embodying the commission's 
recommendations and incorporating the Supreme court's decision. 
The final agreement shifted more than 10,000 acres of land on 
both sides of a 50 mile section of the river and provided a 
mechanism to govern future boundary disputes. The Judiciary 
Committee ordered reported H.J. Res. 54 on August 3, 1999. The 
report (H. Rept. No. 106-303) was filed on September 8, 1999 
and the House passed the bill on September 21, 1999. The Senate 
passed H.J. Res. 54 on November 5, 1999 by unanimous consent. 
The President signed it as Public Law 106-101 on November 12, 
1999.
    Testimony for the July 29, 1999 hearing on H.J. Res. 54 was 
received from: Representative Doug Bereuter (R-NE), 
Representative Pat Danner (D-MO) and David Duncan, a member of 
the Missouri Boundary Commission.

H.J. Res. 62, granting the consent of Congress to a compact concerning 
        a change in the boundary between Georgia and South Carolina

    On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing and 
ordered reported H.J. Res. 62, granting the consent of Congress 
to a compact concerning a change in the boundary between 
Georgia and South Carolina which resolved a centuries-old 
dispute over the border which is shared by the two states in 
the Savannah River. Testimony for the hearing was received from 
Representative Jack Kingston and Charles Challstrom, Acting 
Director of the National Geodetic Survey, and agency of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within 
the Department of Commerce. While Georgia and South Carolina 
had agreed in the Beaufort Convention of 1787 that the boundary 
between them should be at the centerline of the Savannah River 
except where there were islands in the river, in which case it 
should be the centerline between the islands. However, over 
time they disagreed on whether the centerline should be 
measured from the high water or the low water mark. Despite a 
1922 Supreme Court decision holding that the proper measurement 
was at the ordinary water level, the boundary continued to be 
the subject of protracted debate as new islands emerged in the 
river, the Army Corps of Engineers dredged certain parts of the 
river, South Carolina claimed adverse possession over a set of 
islands in the river, and the states disputed the boundary at 
the mouth of the river on the Atlantic Ocean. The issue gained 
prominence as the disputed land became critical to expanding 
the Port of Savannah and as the potential of offshore oil 
reserves arose.
    Finally, in Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 376 (1990), 
the Supreme Court directed the two states to draw a boundary in 
accordance with its opinion and to submit it for approval. 
Enlisting the help of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) to update and make usable the 1855 map 
used by the Supreme Court in its decision, the states 
subsequently realized that the course of the Savannah River had 
so changed since 1855 that they would have to negotiate a 
different line. The two states worked together, pursuant to the 
Supreme Court's direction, to arrive at a mutually agreeable 
solution that ultimately covered about 3,000 acres of land. 
However, in translating that new boundary into law, Georgia 
used a legal description that was less technically precise and 
accurate than that used by South Carolina, and thus the 
versions passed by the states and referenced in H.J. Res. 62 
were not identical. Nonetheless, Georgia's law provided that 
its textual description could be superseded by a map to be 
prepared by NOAA and paid for by the two states. If such a map 
is produced and is identical to South Carolina's textual 
description, then the two states will have an identical 
agreement and, pursuant to H.J. Res. 62, Congress will have 
consented to the boundary. If, however, NOAA does not produce 
such a map or the map is not sufficiently clear or identical to 
bind the states, the joint resolution gives consent in advance 
to adopt each other's language or come up with new language to 
settle their dispute within five years of enactment. Under H.J. 
Res. 62, the compact will not legally bind the states until 
NOAA produces the requisite map or the states adopt identical 
language.
    The Judiciary Committee ordered reported H.J. Res. 62 by 
voice vote on August 3, 1999 and the report (H. Rept. No. 106-
304) was filed on September 8, 1999. The House passed the bill 
on September 21, 1999 and the Senate concurred on October 26, 
1999. It was signed by the President as Public Law 106-90 on 
November 8, 1999.

                             miscellaneous

H.R. 3312, the Merit Systems Board Administrative Dispute Resolution 
        Act of 2000

    H.R. 3312 was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Gekas on 
November 10, 1999. The bill would have amended the 
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 501-
583 (1998)) to authorize a three-year, early intervention 
alternative dispute resolution program at the Merit Systems 
Protection Board (MSPB). The pilot program is designed to 
assist MSPB judges in managing an increasing caseload while 
facilitating the settlement of disputes between federal 
agencies and employees before they escalate into costly 
litigation before the Board. The bill would also require the 
MSPB to submit an annual report to Congress detailing the 
efficacy of various ADR techniques and requires the Board to 
submit to Congress a report summarizing the merits of the pilot 
program before its conclusion. The Subcommittee held a public 
briefing on H.R. 3312 on February 29, 2000. Testimony was 
received from Ben Erdreich, MSPB Chairman; Jeffrey Senger, 
Deputy Senior Counsel, Department of Justice; and Richard 
Vitaris, President of the MSPB Professional Association.
    On June 20, 2000, the Subcommittee held a markup on the 
bill. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by 
Mr. Gekas and ranking member, Mr. Nadler. Reflecting 
suggestions made by MSPB and the Department of Justice, the 
amendment stressed the voluntary nature of the program. H.R. 
3312, as amended, was reported favorably by voice vote by the 
Subcommittee. On September 20, 2000, the Judiciary Committee 
held a markup on and ordered favorably reported H.R. 3312, as 
amended, by voice vote. After being ordered reported by the 
Judiciary Committee on October 23, 2000 (H. Rept. No. 106-994, 
pt. 1), Mr. Gekas proposed an amended version for floor action 
that restored conditional pay equity to MSPB judges. House 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Chairman Burton 
waived jurisdiction on the measure and did not object to the 
amended version of H.R. 3312 with the pay provision. On October 
24, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3312 with the amendment by 
voice vote on suspension of the rules. It was received in the 
Senate on October 25, 2000, but did not receive further 
consideration prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress.

H.R. 436, Government Waste, Fraud, and Error Reduction Act of 1999

    On February 2, 1999, Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA) 
(for himself and Representatives Judy Biggert (R-IL), Jim Davis 
(D-FL), Thomas Davis (R-VA), and Pete Sessions (R-TX)), 
introduced H.R. 436, the ``Government Waste, Fraud, and Error 
Reduction Act of 1999''.
    H.R. 436 was intended to improve federal debt collection 
practices, among other matters. With respect to the bill's 
provisions concerning private collection contractors and 
delinquent federal debtors, H.R. 436 included clarifying 
language that the amendments effectuated by such provisions 
were not to be construed as altering or superseding the 
Bankruptcy Code.
    The Judiciary Committee was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill on February 5, 1999 and the House 
passed the bill, as amended, on February 24, 1999. The bill was 
received in the Senate on February 25, 1999, but was not acted 
upon prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress.

H.R. 915, authorizing a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in the pay of 
        administrative law judges

    On May 27, 1999 the Subcommittee held a hearing on and 
reported H.R. 915 by voice vote. Witnesses at the hearing were: 
Ronald Bernoski, President, Social Security Administration, 
Office of Hearings and Appeals appearing on behalf of the 
Association of Administrative Law Judges, Inc.; Judith Dowd, 
President, Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference and 
Henry Romero, Associate Director, Workforce Compensation and 
Performance Service, Office of Personnel Management. The bill 
authorized the President to adjust the pay of administrative 
law judges (ALJ) by an amount that he determines to be 
appropriate (within basic pay parameters set out in 5 U.S.C. 
5372(b)), as he is authorized to do for members of the Senior 
Executive Service. The bill also modified the language in 5 
U.S.C. 5372(b)(1) by adding new paragraphs (A) through (C) 
describing the levels at which ALJ's are paid to facilitate the 
President's ability to so adjust that pay. As a result of this 
modification there will continue to be six levels of basic pay 
for AL-3 and one each for AL-2 and -1 (which retains the 
current minimum and maximum parameters, i.e. 65 to 90 percent 
of level IV of the Executive Schedule for AL-3, 95 percent for 
AL-2 and 100 percent for AL-1). Prior to 1990, ALJs were paid 
under the General Schedule as GS-15 and 16's. While the intent 
of Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act of 1990, which put 
ALJs under the Executive Schedule, was to serve as a pay 
increase for ALJs, it had in fact worked to substantially 
undermine their pay comparability with their former colleagues 
on the General Schedule who continued to receive COLAs.
    Subsequent to the Subcommittee's action, the Judiciary 
Committee was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 915 
on June 10, 1999 and it was referred to the Committee on 
Government Reform which reported the Subcommittee's version to 
the House on September 30, 1999, which filed its report (H. 
Rept. 106-387) on October 18, 1999. The House passed the bill 
on October 25, 1999 by voice vote and the Senate passed it on 
November 8, 1999 by unanimous consent. The President signed 
H.R. 915 as Public Law 106-97 on November 12, 1999.

H.R. 4105, the Fair Justice Act

    H.R. 4105, the ``Fair Justice Act,'' was introduced by 
Representative James Traficant (D-OH) on March 28, 2000. The 
bill would have established an independent agency to 
investigate and prosecute alleged misconduct, criminal 
activity, corruption and fraud by an officer or employee of the 
Justice Department. H.R. 4105 authorized the agency to be 
appropriated $10 million for fiscal year 2001, $15 million for 
fiscal year 2002, and $20 million for the following fiscal 
year. The agency would have been headed by a director, 
appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, for a ten-year term. The bill specifies various 
administrative aspects of the position, including pay rate, 
eligibility to receive travel expenses, and grounds for 
dismissal. In addition, H.R. 4105 empowered the director to 
appoint officers and employees as well as to retain the 
temporary and intermittent services of experts and consultants.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 4105 on July 27, 
2000. Witnesses who testified at the hearing included the 
following: Representative James Traficant (D-OH); Joseph 
Occhipinti, Executive Director of the National Police Defense 
Foundation; John Culbertson,Director of The Center for Reform; 
David Margolis, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of 
Justice; John C. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal 
Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Marshall Jarrett, Counsel, Office 
of Professional Responsibility, U.S. Department of Justice; Howard 
Sribnick, General Counsel, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department 
of Justice; Michael Shaheen, former Counsel, Office of Professional 
Responsibility, U.S. Department of Justice; and Professor Bennett 
Gershman, Pace University School of Law.

H.R. 1219, the Construction Industry Payment Protection Act of 1999

    During the Second Session of the 105th Congress, the 
Subcommittee held a joint hearing with the Committee on 
Government Reform on legislation similar to H.R. 1219, 
introduced by Representative Maloney, amending the Miller Act 
to: (1) require the amount of a payment bond required for any 
contract for the construction, alteration, or repair of any 
public building or public work of the United States to be equal 
to the total amount payable by the terms of the contract unless 
the constructing officers determines that such amount is 
impractical, in which case such officer shall set a different 
amount that cannot be less than the amount of the required 
performance bond; (2) permit notice of an action on a payment 
bond by a subcontractor to be served by any means which 
provides written, third-party verification of delivery; (3) 
provides that any waiver of the right to sue on a required 
payment bond shall be void unless it is in writing, signed, and 
executed after the covered labor or material has been 
furnished. The bill also required that proposed revisions to 
the Government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement 
the bill be published within 120 days after enactment and final 
regulations to be published within 180 days of enactment.
    The Subcommittee agreed to the waiver of Judiciary 
Committee jurisdiction in order to facilitate House passage of 
H.R. 1219 which occurred by a vote of 416-0 on August 2, 1999. 
It passed the Senate on August 8, 1999 by unanimous consent and 
was signed by the President as Public Law 106-49 on August 17, 
1999.

                          Oversight Activities


Reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act

    On March 2, 1999 the Subcommittee began a series of 
oversight hearings to consider the operation of the Independent 
Counsel Act (originally enacted as title VI of the Ethics In 
Government Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-521)). After its original 
enactment, the act was reauthorized for five-year periods in 
1983, 1988 and again in 1994. The law was developed in response 
to the so-called ``Saturday Night Massacre'' that occurred 
during the investigation of the Watergate scandal in 1973. In 
that instance, Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was 
fired because of disagreements with President Richard Nixon 
over the conduct of the investigation. In the course of one 
evening, not only was Cox discharged but also Attorney General 
Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William 
Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out the President's 
direction to fire Cox. Public outcry led not only to the 
subsequent appointment of another Watergate Special Prosecutor, 
Leon Jaworski, but ultimately resulted in the adoption of 
legislation that created a structured approach to investigation 
of alleged executive branch wrongdoing that would ensure the 
complete independence of special prosecutors. The intent of the 
law was to provide a mechanism to avoid potential conflicts of 
interest, or the appearance thereof, that might arise if the 
Attorney General were to investigate wrongdoing by either 
himself or other high Administration officials.
    Although upheld by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson, 
487 U.S. 654, the law became increasingly controversial during 
the tenure of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh and his 
investigation of the Iran-Contra matter during the 1980's. 
While during the Clinton Administration numerous counsel were 
appointed pursuant to the act, the most controversial became 
Kenneth Starr and his investigations growing out of, or added 
to, the so-called Whitewater matter. Mr. Starr's efforts 
ultimately lead to the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 
and his trial the following year.
    Testifying at the Subcommittee's March 2, 1999 hearing was 
Deputy Attorney General Eric J. Holder. Subsequent hearings 
were held on: March 10, 1999, with the following witnesses 
testifying: Representatives Jay Dickey (R-AR), Alcee L. 
Hastings (D-FL) and Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS); William B. Parr, 
Former Attorney General; Benjamin R. Civiletti, Former Attorney 
General; Timothy E. Flanigan, former Assistant Attorney 
General; Philip S. Anderson, President of the American Bar 
Association and Professor Julie Rose O'Sullivan of Georgetown 
University Law Center; June 11, 1999, with following witnesses 
testifying: former Senators George Mitchell and Robert Dole; 
Professor Drew Days, former Solicitor General and John Roberts, 
former Deputy Solicitor General. On September 23, 1999, the 
following witnesses testified before the subcommittee: Michael 
Espy, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Susan 
McDougal; Julie Hiatt Steele; Robert Bennett, attorney for 
Caspar Weinberger; Lyn Nofziger, Political Consultant and 
Robert Plotkin, attorney for Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walke.
    On June 9, 1999 Subcommittee Chairman Gekas introduced H.R. 
2083, similar to the proposal offered by former Senators 
Mitchell and Dole at the June 11, 1999 hearing. The Dole-
Mitchell recommendation, the result of a joint study by the 
American Enterprise Institute and The Brookings Institution, 
was that: (1) legislation be adopted authorizing the Attorney 
General to appoint a special counsel to investigate or 
prosecute violations of federal criminal law that would result 
in ``personal, financial, or political'' conflicts of interest 
if conducted by the Department of Justice, if it be in the 
pubic interest to do so, and (2) legislation be adopted 
requiring the Attorney General to issue regulations governing 
the conduct of investigations or prosecutions by such counsel. 
H.R. 2083 additionally provided that such regulations should 
provide for removal of a special counsel by the Attorney 
General only for good cause.
    The Independent Counsel Act expired on June 30, 1999 and 
was replaced by regulations issued by Attorney General Janet 
Reno governing the appointment of special prosecutors (28 
C.F.R. Sec. 591-99 (1999)). No action was taken on H.R. 2083.

Oversight hearing on reinvented taxation and the Taxpayer's Defense Act

    Federal agencies are routinely empowered by Congress to 
impose user fees, an appropriate method of compensating the 
government for specific benefits it provides. However, such 
fees may escalate into taxes when they go beyond covering the 
cost of services, or exceed the value of services provided to 
identifiable beneficiaries. Taxation has been a governmental 
function reserved to the legislative branch since before the 
founding of our country. In The Second Treatise of Government, 
John Locke wrote ``[I]f any one shall claim a power to lay any 
levy taxes on the people, * * * without * * * consent of the 
people, he thereby * * * subverts the end of government.'' John 
Locke, The Second Treatise of Government para.140 (Thomas P. 
Peardon, ed., Macmillan 1989). Consent, according to Locke, 
could only be given by a majority of the people, ``either by 
themselves or their representatives chosen by them.'' Id. 
Furthermore, first among the powers that the Constitution gave 
to the Congress, the government's most representative branch, 
was the power to levy taxes. U.S. Const., art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 
1. And, notably, bills to raise revenue must originate in the 
most representative chamber, the House. Id. at art. I, Sec. 7, 
cl. 1. The modern rise of the regulatory state threatens to 
erode the essential principle that Congress has plenary power 
to raise taxes.
    On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing to examine the proliferation of agency-promulgated tax 
measures. The witnesses at the hearing were: Representative Lee 
Terry (R-NE); Representative J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ); James C. 
Miller, III, Counselor, Citizens for a Sound Economy; Rick 
Joyce, Esquire, Joyce & Jacobs, representing Celpage, Inc.; 
Matthew C. Ames, Esquire, Miller & Eaton, P.L.L.C., 
representing EDLING, the Education and Library Networks 
Coalition; Theodore J. Garrish, Vice President, Nuclear Energy 
Institute; Dan Gerawan, President, Gerawan Farms, Inc.; Thomas 
A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste.
    Immediately following the oversight hearing, Subcommittee 
Chairman Gekas introduced H.R. 2636, the ``Taxpayer's Defense 
Act.'' The bill would have limited executive taxing authority 
by prohibiting federal agencies from promulgating rules that 
establish or increase taxes without the consent of Congress. 
The Act would have created an expedited congressional review 
procedure and required any agency promulgating a rule that 
would establish or increase a tax (however denominated) to 
submit the rule to Congress for its approval before such a rule 
can take effect. This would essentially prohibit agencies from 
increasing taxes and allow them instead to propose, under 
existing authority, a new or increased tax. The Taxpayer's 
Defense Act would not affect existing programs, interpretations 
of the Internal Revenue Code, tax decreases, or taxes whose 
amounts are set by law.
    The Subcommittee did not conduct a legislative hearing on 
the ``Taxpayer's Defense Act.'' However, the Judiciary 
Committee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2636 on November 
3, 1999. The hearing also examined H.R. 2533, the ``Fairness in 
Telecommunications License Transfers Act of 1999'' and H.R. 
2701, the ``Justice for MAS Applicants Act of 1999.'' Witnesses 
at the Judiciary Committee hearing included: Representative 
McIntosh (R-IN); Representative Hayworth (R-AZ); William 
Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission; Roy Neel, 
President, United States Telecom Association; Richard Weening, 
Executive Chairman, Cumulus Media, Inc., Ronald Binz, 
President, Competition Policy Institute; Kent Lassman, Deputy 
Director for Technology and Communications Policy; and Robert 
Ryan, Multiple Address System Applicant, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Oversight hearing on Know Your Customer Rules; Privacy in the Hands of 
        Federal Regulators
    In response to a perceived increase in illegal financial 
activities such as money laundering and fraud, four federal 
bank regulators proposed rules that would require banks and 
other financial institutions to develop profiles of their 
customers to facilitate financial crime law enforcement. The 
``Know Your Customer'' regulations were proposed by the Board 
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve), 
the Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(FDIC), and the Treasury Department's Office of Thrift 
Supervision (OTS) on December 7, 1998.
    Among other things, the proposed rules required financial 
institutions to set up programs that would monitor customer 
accounts, establish a profile of the customer's ``regular and 
expected'' transactions, determine the source of customer 
funds, and report ``suspicious'' activities to relevant 
enforcement authorities. The Treasury Department claimed 
authority to issue ``Know Your Customer'' rules under the Bank 
Secrecy Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1818 1994)). The FDIC predicated 
its ``Know Your Customer'' rulemaking authority on the Federal 
Deposition Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1881-1835a 
(1994)).
    On March 3, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas held an 
oversight hearing into ``Know Your Customer'' regulations. The 
hearing focused on procedural, administrative, and policy 
aspects of the proposed regulations. Testimony from the 
following witnesses was received at the hearing: Representative 
Barr (R-GA); John D. Hawke, Jr., Comptroller, Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency; Richard A. Small, Assistant 
Director, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; Board 
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Christie A. 
Sciacca, Associate Director, Division of Supervision, Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation; Timothy Burniston, Managing 
Director, Compliance Policy and Specialty Examinations, Office 
of Thrift Supervision; David Medine, Associate Director, 
Financial Practices Division, Federal Trade Commission; Jere W. 
Glover, Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, Small Business 
Administration; Professor Robert A. Anthony, George Mason 
University; James McLaughlin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, 
American Bankers Association; Solveig Singleton, Director of 
Information Studies, CATO Institute; and Gregory T. Nojeim, 
Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union.
    The ``Know Your Customer'' proposals engendered widespread 
criticism from a variety of quarters. Financial institutions 
and regulators claimed that the proposed rules would pose a 
grave threat to customer privacy. In addition, a number of 
bills were introduced in both the House (see e.g. H.R. 516, 
H.R. 530, H.R. 575, H.R. 621) and Senate (see e.g. S. 403 and 
S. 406) to overturn these proposed rules in the event that they 
became final. In response to overwhelming public and 
congressional opposition to the ``Know Your Customer'' rules 
during the proposed regulations' notice and comment period, all 
four of the regulating agencies that noticed the proposed 
regulations withdrew them in March of 1999.
Oversight hearing on novel procedures in FCC license transfer 
        proceedings
    On May 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on administrative aspects of the Federal Communication 
Commission's (FCC) license transfer authority under the 
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 310 (Supp. 1994)). Under the 
law, the FCC has authority to determine whether ``public 
interest'' and ``convenience'' is served by allowing 
telecommunications companies to freely transfer operating 
licenses for specific services between and among communications 
firms. The impetus for the hearing was perceived FCC regulatory 
mishandling of license transfer request between Southwestern 
Bell Communications (SBC) and Ameritech after the companies 
announced plans to merge in May of 1998.
    FCC review of license transfers raises important 
administrative practice and procedure issues. The determination 
of ``public interest'' and ``convenience'' may not be 
identifiable legal standards by which the FCC can determine 
whether or not to approve such requests. Furthermore, the 
absence of regularized procedures to examine license transfer 
applications might also lead to arbitrary and discriminatory 
treatment of regulated entities while undermining public 
confidence in the fairness and predictability of agency 
adjudication. The following witnesses testified at the May 25, 
1999 hearing: Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Commissioner, Federal 
Communications Commission; professor Lars Noah, University of 
Florida College of Law; and Brian More, Esq. Moir & Hardman 
representing the International Communications Association. 
While the Subcommittee did not have a legislative hearing on 
bills tailored to address this problem, the Judiciary Committee 
held a hearing on H.R. 2533, the ``Fairness in 
Telecommunications License Transfer Act'' and H.R. 2701, the 
``Justice for MAS (Multiple Address System) Applicants Act of 
1999'' on November 3, 1999. No further action was taken on 
these bills.
Oversight hearing on the franchising relationship
    On June 24, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the franchising relationship. The hearing was held 
in response to the important role franchising plays in the 
nation's economy, particularly in the retail and service 
industries. It is estimated that more than 40 percent of retail 
sales in the United States are generated by franchised 
businesses. The hearing was also intended to air the various 
issues associated with a federal regulatory role in this 
relationship suggested in the past several Congresses and most 
recently by H.R. 4841, the ``Small Business Franchise Act of 
1998,'' which was introduced in the 105th Congress by 
Representative Howard Coble (R-NC).
    Witnesses who testified at this hearing included the 
following: Representatives Howard Coble (R-NC); John J. LaFalce 
(D-NY); and Jay Dickey, (R-AR); Susan Kezios, President of the 
American Franchise Association; Micahel F. Adler, Chairman, 
President & Chief Executive Officer of Moto-Photo, 
Incorporated, on behalf of the International Franchise 
Association; Patrick J. Leddy, Jr., Baskin-Robbins Franchisee; 
Arleen Goodman, Goodman & Company, on behalf of the KOA 
Franchisee Association; Darrell Dunafon, Dunafon Real Estate 
Development; Lawrence ``Doc'' Cohen, President and Chief 
Executive Officer of Doc & Associates; Professor Timothy Bates, 
College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs at Wayne State 
University; Dennis E. Wieczorek, Rudnick & Wolf; Peter Singler, 
Jr., Law Offices of Peter Singler; and Larry I. Tate, Vice 
President of Franchising at Golden Corral Corporation.
Oversight hearing on Legal Services Corporation
    On September 29, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on Legal Services Corporation, a private, non-profit, 
federally funded corporation established by legislation enacted 
in 1974. Witnesses who testified at the hearing included the 
following: Edouard R. Quatrevaux Inspector General for the 
Legal Services Corporation; Dr. Laurie E. Ekstrand, General 
Accounting Office; John McKay, President of the Legal Services 
Corporation; and John N. Erlenborn, Vice Chair of the Board of 
Directors of the Legal Services Corporation; Virginia L. 
Thomas, Senior Fellow in Government Studies at the Heritage 
Foundation; Kenneth F. Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal 
and Policy Center and; John Pickering of Wilmer Cutler and 
Pickering.
    Since its inception, LSC has been controversial, 
particularly with regard to the types of activities that 
federally funded attorneys undertake. As a result, LSC has 
lacked authorizing legislation since 1980. The Subcommittee, in 
1995, held an extensive series of hearings on the 
reauthorization of LSC, resulting in legislation recommended by 
the Judiciary Committee, but not considered by the full House. 
In the absence of reauthorization, LSC's continued operation 
has depended upon the appropriation process, which typically 
has included legislative provisions restricting the activities 
of LSC-funded grantees.
    In early 1998, the LSC Office of Compliance and Enforcement 
identified certain case reporting problems with two grantees. 
Beginning in the spring of 1998, the Inspector General 
conducted field audits of three LSC grantees with regard to 
their 1997 case service reporting statistics. Based on the 
initial results of these audits, it became apparent by the 
summer of 1998 that there were serious problems with the case 
reporting statistics supplied by certain of the audited LSC 
grantees. Additional audits were thereafter conducted of three 
other grantees. The first official audit issued by the 
Inspector General, however, was not issued until October of 
1998 and the final audit report was not submitted until August 
2, 1999. Based on these reports, the Inspector General 
estimated that the six audited grantees erroneously reported 
41,272 cases.
    Among the matters examined over the course of the hearing 
were the reasons for and the impact of the extensive case 
statistics over-reporting by LSC grantees; the remedial efforts 
that LSC has undertaken since this problem was brought to its 
attention; and whether LSC and/or the Inspector General 
intentionally failed to timely bring information about the case 
over-reporting problem to the attention of the Congress.
Joint oversight hearing on bankruptcy judgeship needs
    On November 2, 1999, the Subcommittee held a joint 
oversight hearing with the Senate Subcommittee on 
Administrative Oversight and the Courts on bankruptcy judgeship 
needs. Witnesses who testified included the following: 
Representatives Jack Kingston (R-GA); Michael N. Castle (R-DE); 
Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD); Ed Bryant (R-TN); Howard Coble (R-NC); 
the Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States District Chief 
Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, on behalf of the 
Judicial Conference of the United States; the Honorable Mary 
Davies Scott, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern 
and Western Districts of Arkansas, on behalf of the National 
Conference of Bankruptcy Judges; Hugh M. Ray, Andrews & Kurth; 
and Ford Elsaesser on behalf of the American Bankruptcy 
Institute.
    The hearing was held in response to a judicial resource 
assessment prepared by the Judicial Conference of the United 
States in March 1999. That report, based on a judgeship survey 
conducted in the fall of 1998, cited the need for six temporary 
bankruptcy judgeships in addition to the 18 previously 
requested. The Judicial Conference asserted that the need for 
the 24 additional judgeships was ``critical.''
            SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

  HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, 
             Chairman

HOWARD BERMAN, California            F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          Wisconsin
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California              BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
                                     CHRIS CANNON, Utah
                                     JAMES E. ROGAN, California
                                     MARY BONO, California

Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the subcommittee

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................    84
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    17
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee..............     0
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee.     0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee....     1
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................     4
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     2
Legislation reported to the House.................................    18
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................     8
Legislation pending in the House..................................     5
Legislation passed by the House...................................    21
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     7
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overriden)...............     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     4
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another measure....    17
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    19
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    21
Private legislation referred to the Subcommittee..................     1
Private legislation pending in the Subcommittee...................     1

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

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

                         Legislative Activities


                                 courts

Quality Child Care for Federal Employees Act, H.R. 28

    Introduced by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman, for 
himself, Ms. Kelly, Ms. Maloney, Ms. Morella, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo, Mr. Shays, and Mr. Waxman, H.R. 28 directs the 
Administrator of General Services to: (1) establish health, 
safety, and facility standards and compliance requirements for 
child care in executive branch facilities; (2) issue 
regulations requiring any entity sponsoring a child care center 
to comply with certain accreditation standards; and (3) 
establish an interagency council to facilitate cooperation and 
sharing of best practices. On September 15, 1999, the Committee 
on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of 
the bill.

To amend rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to restore the 
        stenographic preference for recording depositions, H.R. 771

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for 
himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Barr, Mr. Berman, Mr. Blagojevich, 
Mr. Canady, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Frank, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Hastings, 
Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Kind, Mr. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Murtha, 
Mr. Rothman, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, H.R. 771 amends rule 30 of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require that 
depositions be recorded by stenographic or stenomask means 
unless the court upon motion orders, or the parties stipulate 
in writing, to the contrary.
    On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 771, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. No further action was taken on the bill.

Multiparty, Multiform Jurisdiction Act of 1999, H.R. 967

    Introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr., for 
himself, and Mr. Coble, H.R. 967 amends the Federal judicial 
code to grant Federal district courts original jurisdiction 
over civil actions arising out of a single accident that 
results in the death or injury of 25 or more natural persons, 
provided the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 per person 
and minimaldiversity of citizenship exists. See H.R. 1852 and 
H.R. 2112 for further action.

To allow media coverage of court proceedings, H.R. 1281

    Introduced by Representative Steve Chabot, for himself, Mr. 
Baker, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Borski, 
Mr. Bryant, Ms. Chenoweth-Hage, Mr. Coble, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. 
DeLay, Mr. Dixon, Mr. English, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. 
Gonzalez, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Hayes, Mr. Hefley, Mr. 
Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, 
Mr. Lewis, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. McCollum, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. 
Meehan, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Portman, Mr. 
Rahall, Mr. Riley, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Salmon, Mr. 
Scarborough, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Watkins, Mr. 
Wiener, and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 1281 authorizes the presiding 
judge of a U.S. appellate court or U.S. district court to 
permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, 
or televising to the public of court proceedings over which 
that judge presides. It also authorizes the Judicial Conference 
of the United States to promulgate advisory guidelines to which 
a presiding judge may refer in making decisions regarding the 
management and administration of photographing, recording, 
broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings. H.R. 1281 was 
incorporated into H.R. 1752, the ``Federal Courts Improvement 
Act of 1999.''

Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, H.R. 1714

    Introduced by Representative Tom Bliley, Mr. Burr, Mr. 
Cannon, Mr. Davis, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Oxley, Mr. 
Pickering, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Towns, H.R. 1714 
facilitates the continued success of electronic commerce by 
enabling parties to agree to use electronic signatures and 
electronic records in commercial transactions affecting 
interstate commerce. This will provide uniformity among State 
and Federal laws and give parties engaged in electronic 
commerce certainty that electronic signatures and electronic 
contracts will have the same legal effect and enforceability as 
paper signatures and contracts.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1714 on September 
30, 1999. Testimony was received from Andrew Pincus, General 
Counsel, Department of Commerce; Ivan K. Fong, Deputy Associate 
Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Pamela 
Meade Sargent, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 
State Laws; Scott Cooper, Manager, Technology Policy, Hewlett 
Packard; David Peyton, Director, Technology Policy, National 
Association of Manufacturers; and Margot Freeman Saunders, 
Managing Attorney, National Consumer Law Center, Inc.
    On October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1714, amended, by 
a voice vote, a quorum being present. On October 13, 1999, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 1714, as amended with additional full Committee 
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1714 
was reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on 
October 15, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-341, Part II). On November 9, 
1999, the House passed H.R. 1714. The Senate counterpart, S. 
761, passed in the Senate on November 19, 1999, by unanimous 
consent. On February 16, 2000, the House took S. 761 from the 
desk and struck all after the enacting clause and inserted the 
provisions of H.R. 1714 and passed it. On March 29, 2000, the 
Senate disagreed with the House amendments. Both bodies 
requested a conference. On June 14, 2000, the House agreed to 
the conference report, H. Rept. 106-661, by the Yeas and the 
Nays; 426-4. On June 16, 2000, the Senate agreed to the 
conference report by Yea-Nay vote, 87-0. On June 30, 2000, the 
President signed S. 761 and it is Public Law 106-229.

Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1999, H.R. 1752

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Coble, by request, H.R. 
1752 contains several provisions that are needed to improve the 
Federal Court System. It is designed to improve administration 
and procedures, eliminate operational inefficiencies, and, to 
the extent prudent, reduce operating expenses.
    On June 16, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
1752. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable Joel B. Rosen, United States 
Magistrate Judge, Camden, New Jersey, President, Federal 
Magistrate Judges Association; The Honorable Robert B. 
Collings, United States Magistrate Judge, Boston, 
Massachusetts; and The Honorable Harvey F. Schlesinger, Judge, 
United States District Court for the Middle District of 
Florida.
    On July 15, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1752, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On July 27, 1999, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 1752, as amended with additional full Committee 
amendments, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1752 
was reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on 
September 9, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-312). H.R. 1752 was passed by 
the House under suspension of the rules on May 22, 2000. The 
Senate companion to H.R. 1752, S. 2915, was passed by the 
Senate on October 19, 2000. The House passed S. 2915, with 
amendments, by unanimous consent on October 25, 2000. The 
Senate agreed to the House amendments and passed S. 2915 by 
unanimous consent on October 27, 2000. The President signed S. 
2915 on November 13, 2000, and it is Public Law 106-518.

Multidistrict Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999, H.R. 1852

    Introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr., for 
himself, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Coble, H.R. 1852 amends the 
Federal judicial code to allow a civil action transferred for 
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings to be 
transferred for trial purposes, by the judge or judges of the 
transferee district to whom the action was assigned, to the 
transferee or other district in the interest of justice and for 
the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
    On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1852, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. H.R. 1852 and H.R. 967 were combined to 
form H.R. 2112, the ``Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999.''

Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act, H.R. 2031

    H.R. 2031 grants federal court jurisdiction to actions for 
injunctive relief brought by state attorneys' general seeking 
to enforce their state liquor importation and transportation 
laws. The sole remedy available under the bill is injunctive 
relief--no damages, no civil fines or criminalpenalties can be 
imposed by the federal courts under this legislation. The legislation 
requires prior notice to the adverse party or parties, applies 
traditional proof requirements for preliminary injunctions and requires 
that a hearing be held before the issuance of any preliminary or 
permanent injunction occurs. A State must prove by a preponderance of 
the evidence that a violation of State law has taken place or is taking 
place.
    Under the authority of the Twenty-First Amendment and the 
Webb-Kenyon Act, states are permitted to regulate the 
distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages (i.e., distilled 
spirits, wine and beer) within their borders. Consequently, 
most states have passed legislation to either prohibit direct 
shipment of alcoholic beverages into their state or severely 
limit the amount of alcoholic beverages that may be shipped 
directly to any unlicensed individual in their state.
    In recent years, several new players have entered the 
alcoholic beverage industry. These groups include small 
wineries and breweries. With the advent of the Internet, they 
have been able to advertise their product nationally and have 
been able to widely expand their market access. Because they do 
not typically produce a large amount of their product, they 
sometimes depend on direct shipment sales for economic 
survival. The proponents of H.R. 2031 point out that illegal 
direct shipping is a growing problem, including illegal sales 
to minors using the Internet to order alcohol. Over the last 2-
3 years, several states, including Utah, Florida, and Missouri, 
have brought legal action against companies illegally shipping 
alcohol into their state. Neither the Twenty-First Amendment 
nor the Webb-Kenyon Act includes any criminal or civil 
penalties for violations of its provisions. Thus, states 
wanting to bring an action against violators in federal court 
have encountered difficulty to obtaining jurisdiction over the 
violators. Congress responded by passing this legislation to 
confer jurisdiction on federal courts to provide injunctive 
relief against persons or entities violating a state law 
regulating the importation or transportation of intoxicating 
liquor.
    The bill reflects the respectful comity that exists between 
the federal government and the states. In this bill, Congress 
is granting to the states the privilege of using the forum of 
the federal courts for limited jurisdictional purposes--so, the 
legislation is procedural in nature. Congress is acting under 
its powers to establish the lower federal courts and to define 
their jurisdiction. Congress is not pre-judging or endorsing 
the validity of the various state liquor statutes and whether a 
particular state law on this subject is a valid exercise of 
state power is, and will continue to be, a matter for the 
courts to decide.
    On July 15, 1999, the Subcommittee was discharged from 
further consideration of the bill. On July 20, 1999, the full 
Committee marked up the bill, H.R. 2031, the Twenty-First 
Amendment Enforcement Act. The Committee ordered the bill 
favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present. H.R. 2031 was reported by the Committee on July 27, 
1999 (H. Rept. 106-265). No hearing was held on H.R. 2031 prior 
to the July 20, 1999, Judiciary Committee markup session. The 
Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act passed the House, as 
amended, 325-99 on August 3, 1999. The Senate Judiciary 
Committee passed a similar version of H.R. 2031, S. 577, on 
March 3, 2000 (no report was filed). S. 577 was incorporated 
into the conference report for H.R. 3244, which became Public 
Law 106-386 on October 28, 2000.

Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999, 
        H.R. 2112

    Introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr., for 
himself, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Hyde, H.R. 2112 would allow a 
designated U.S. district court (a so-called ``transferee'' 
court) under the multidistrict litigation statute to retain 
jurisdiction over referred cases arising from the same fact 
scenario for purposes of determining liability and punitive 
damages, or to send them back to the respective courts from 
which they were transferred. In addition, the legislation would 
streamline the process by which multidistrict litigation 
governing disasters are adjudicated. The bill would save 
litigants time and money, but would not interfere with jury 
verdicts or compensation rates for attorneys. The bill is 
comprised of H.R. 967 and H.R. 1852.
    On June 16, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
2112. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable John F. Nangle, Chairman, Judicial 
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and United States District 
Judge, Southern District for Georgia; Thomas J. McLaughlin, 
Attorney-at-law on behalf of the Boeing Company; and Brian 
Wolfman, Staff Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group.
    On July 15, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2112, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On July 27, 1999, the full Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
2112, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 2112 
was reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on 
July 30, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-276). H.R. 2112 was passed by the 
House under suspension of the rules on September 13, 1999. On 
October 21, 1999, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary ordered 
to be reported H.R. 2112 with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute favorably. On October 27, 1999, H.R. 2112 passed the 
Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. The House 
disagreed with the Senate amendment and requested a conference. 
No further action was taken on the bill.

College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 1999, H.R. 3210

    Introducted by Representative Fred Upton, for himself, and 
Ms. McKinney, H.R. 3210 enhances protections against fraud in 
the offering of financial assistance for college education. No 
action was taken on the bill. A similar bill, S. 1455, passed 
the Senate with amendment by unanimous consent on November 4, 
1999. On September 25, 2000, the House passed S. 1455 under 
suspension of the rules. S. 1455 was signed by the President on 
November 1, 2000, and it is Public Law 106-420.

Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 1999, H.R. 
        3333

    Intorduced by Representative Tom Udall, for himself, and 
Mr. Miller, H.R. 3333 directs the Attorney General to provide 
technical and legal assistance to tribal justice systems and 
members of Indian tribes. No action was taken on the bill. A 
similar bill, S. 1508, was passed by the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent on November 19, 2000. On 
September 6, 2000, the Committee on Judiciary was discharged 
from further consideration of the bill. On October 23, 2000, 
the House passed S. 1508, as amended, under suspension of the 
rules. On December 11, 2000, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment by unanimous consent. S. 1508 is cleared for the 
White House.

Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000, H.R. 5369

    Introduced by Representative Deborah Pryce, for herself, 
Mr. Camp, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Hyde, and Ms. Johnson, H.R. 5369 seeks 
to improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of 
the Nation's abuse and neglect courts. The Senate counterpart, 
S. 2272, passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous 
consent on September 26, 2000. On October 3, 2000, S. 2272 was 
passed by the House under suspension of the rules. On October 
17, 2000, S. 2272 was signed by the President and became Public 
Law 106-314.

Multidistrict Litigation Act of 2000, H.R. 5562

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for 
himself, H.R. 5562 amends title 28, United States Code, to 
allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain 
jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for 
trial. On December 15, 2000, the House passed H.R. 5565.

A bill to provide for the holding of court at Natchez, Mississippi in 
        the same manner as court is held at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and 
        for other purposes, S. 1418

    Introduced by Senator Thad Cochran, S. 1418 amends the 
Federal judicial code to: (1) repeal a condition that court for 
the western division of the southern district of Mississippi be 
held at Natchez only if suitable quarters and accommodations 
are furnished at no cost to the United States; and (2) provide 
that court for the eastern division of the northern district of 
Illinois shall be held at Chicago and Wheaton.
    On November 15, 1999, the Senate passed S. 1418 by 
unanimous consent. On November 17, 1999, the House passed S. 
1418, amended, under suspension of the rules. On November 19, 
1999, the Senate agreed to the House amendment by unanimous 
consent. On December 6, 1999, the President signed S. 1418, and 
it is Public Law 106-130.

                         Intellectual Property


                               copyrights

Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act, H.R. 768

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for 
himself, and Mr. Cannon, H.R. 768 amends title 17, United 
States Code, to reform the copyright law with respect to 
satellite retransmissions of broadcast signals. H.R. 768: (1) 
reauthorizes the satellite copyright compulsory license for 
five years; (2) allows new satellite customers who have 
received a network signal from a cable system within the three 
months prior to introduction to sign up immediately for 
satellite service for those signals; (3) provides a discount 
for the copyright fees paid by the satellite carriers; (4) 
allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television 
station to households within that station's local market; and 
(5) allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national signal 
of the Public Broadcasting Service.
    On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 768. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: William J. (``Bill'') Roberts, Jr., Senior 
Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Copyright Office of 
the United States, The Library of Congress; Mr. Cullie M. 
Tarleton, General Manager, WCCB-TV, on behalf of the National 
Association of Broadcasters; David Moskowitz, Senior Vice 
President and General Counsel, Echostar Communications 
Corporation; John H. Hutchinson, Executive Vice President, 
Chief Operating Officer, Local TV on Satellite; Fritz E. 
Attaway, Senior Vice President for Congressional Affairs and 
General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America; and 
Thomas J. Ostertag, General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner 
of Baseball. The provisions of H.R. 768 were later incorporated 
into H.R. 1027.

Save Our Satellites Act of 1999, H.R. 851

    Introduced by Representative W.J. (Billy) Tauzin, for 
himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Barcia, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Bass, Mr. 
Bereuter, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. 
Boucher, Mr. Burton, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Capps, Mr. 
Castle, Mr. Collins, Ms. Cubin, Mr. Deal, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
Dickey, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms. Emerson, Mr. Ewing, Mr. 
Gillmor, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Goss, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. 
Hinchey, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. John, Ms. Kelley, Mr. Lampson, Mr. 
Largent, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Markey, 
Mr. McHugh, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Miller, Mr. Minge, Mr. Moore, Mr. 
Ney, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Olver, Mr. Oxley, Mr. 
Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Petri, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Reyes, 
Mr. Rush, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
Stearns, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, 
Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Traficant, Mr. 
Turner, Mr. Upton, Mr. Walsh, Ms. Wilson, and Mr. Young, H.R. 
851 promotes competition in the market for multichannel video 
programming distribution (``MVPD'') through the availability of 
satellite-delivered local broadcast television programming. 
H.R. 851: (1) clarifies the scope of local broadcast station's 
rights in granting retransmission consent to satellite 
carriers; (2) delays implementation of satellite must-carry 
rules until January 1, 2002; (3) imposes network non-
duplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout rules 
for satellite-delivered broadcast programming; (4) provides 
satellite carriers with a permanent compulsory copyright 
license to transmit both local and distant broadcast television 
programming; and (5) reduces the copyright royalty fees that 
satellite carriers pay for the out-of-market distribution of 
broadcast programming.
    On April 16, 1999. the Committee on Judiciary was 
discharged from further consideration of the bill. No further 
action was taken on H.R. 851. The provisions of H.R. 851 were 
later incorporated into H.R. 1554.

Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act, H.R. 1027

    Introduced by Representative Howard Coble, for himself, 
H.R. 1027 extends and enhances the statutory framework for the 
retransmission of television broadcast signals by satellite 
carriers to their subscribers. H.R. 1027: (1) creates a new 
copyright statutory license for the retransmission of local 
television broadcast stations; (2) extends the expiration date 
of the section 119 copyright compulsory license for the 
retransmission of distant television broadcast stations, and 
reduces the royalty fee for that license; (3) creates full 
must-carry rights for all television broadcast stations in a 
local market once a satellite carrier begins local service in 
thatmarket, and prohibits the importation of distant signals in 
that market that duplicate the network programming of a local station 
as conditions of the copyright license; and (4) protects local 
broadcaster programming exclusivity rights through imposition of 
network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports blackout 
modeled after the rules applicable to the cable industry, making the 
protection of such rights a condition of the copyright license.
    On Thursday, February 25, 1999, the Committee held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 768, the ``Copyright Compulsory 
License Improvement Act.'' The provisions of H.R. 768 were 
incorporated by amendment into H.R. 1027 during consideration 
by the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property on 
March 11, 1999.
    On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1027 with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, and one amendment to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On March 24, 1999, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1027 
as amended with additional full Committee amendment, by a voice 
vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1027 was reported, amended, 
by the Committee on Judiciary on April 12, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-
86, Part I). The provisions of H.R. 1027 were later 
incorporated into H.R. 1554.

To make technical corrections to title 17, United States Code, and 
        other laws, H.R. 1189

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for 
himself, and Mr. Berman, H.R. 1189 makes purely technical 
amendments to the Copyright Act and other laws. It renumbers 
sections and paragraphs. It clarifies section titles and 
corrects clerical errors. H.R. 1189 does not make any 
substantive changes in the law.
    On March 22, 1999, the Subcommittee was discharged from 
considering the bill. On March 24, 1999, the full Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
1189, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1189 was 
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on April 12, 1999 
(H. Rept. 106-84). H.R. 1189 was passed by the House under 
suspension of the rules on April 13, 1999. The Senate companion 
to H.R. 1189, S. 1260, was passed in the Senate by unanimous 
consent on July 1, 1999. The House passed S. 1260 under 
suspension of the rules on July 26, 1999. The President signed 
S. 1260 on August 5, 1999, and it is Public Law 106-44.

Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999, 
        H.R. 1554

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for 
himself, Mr. Berman, Mr. Bliley, Ms. Bono, Mr. Boucher, Mr. 
Cannon, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Gallegly, 
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hyde, 
Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Markey, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Oxley, 
Mr. Pease, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Stupak, Mr. 
Tauzin, Mr. Upton, and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 1554 enables the 
satellite industry to help consumers by establishing parity 
between cable and satellite regarding their copyright licenses 
and the conditions of those licenses. This will result in 
better competition, which means better service at lower prices. 
The legislation: (1) reauthorizes the Section 119 (distant 
signal) satellite compulsory license for five years; (2) 
authorizes local-to-local retransmission of broadcast signals 
via satellite; (3) removes the restriction which prevents for 
90 days a customer who currently receives network signals via 
cable from receiving them through satellite; (4) authorizes a 
satellite carrier to offer a national signal of the Public 
Broadcasting Service; (5) provides for a discount on the 
copyright fees paid by satellite carriers (30% for 
superstations, 45% for distant network signals); (6) provides 
for must-carry of all broadcast stations via satellite, as it 
applies to local-to-local copyright license, on or before 
January 1, 2002; (6) places a moratorium for shutting off Grade 
B viewers until the FCC has fully implemented the new 
predictive model system of more accurately identifying unserved 
households; (7) requires the FCC to promulgate rules for the 
satellite industry concerning network nonduplication, 
syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackouts; and (8) shifts 
the cost for testing a household for determining if it is 
entitled to receive distant network signals from the customer 
to the broadcaster and satellite company equally.
    H.R. 1554 incorporates the provisions of H.R. 768, H.R. 
851, and H.R. 1027. On April 27, 1999 the Committee on 
Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of the 
bill. The House passed H.R. 1554 under suspension of the rules 
on April 27, 1999. On May 20, 1999, the Senate struck all after 
the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S. 247, 
amended, and passed H.R. 1554 by unanimous consent. The House 
and Senate requested a conference on H.R. 1554. On November 9, 
1999, the conference filed a report on H.R. 1554 (H. Rept. 106-
464). On November 9, the House agreed to the conference report. 
The conference report was incorporated into S. 1948 the 
``Intellectual Property Omnibus Communications Act'' which was 
signed into law as part of H.R. 3194, an omnibus appropriation 
act, on November 29, 1999, and is Public Law 106-113.

Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, H.R. 1761/Digital Theft 
        Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, H.R. 
        3456

    Introduced by Representative James E. Rogan, for himself, 
and Mr. Coble, H.R. 1761 provides more stringent deterrents to 
copyright infringement and stronger enforcement of the laws 
enacted to protect intellectual property rights. H.R. 1761 
accomplishes this by increasing the statutory penalties in the 
Copyright Act for copyright infringement, creating a new 
statutory penalty for situations where infringement is part of 
a ``repeated pattern or practice'' of infringement, and 
clarifying Congress' intent that the United States Sentencing 
Commission ensure that the sentencing guideline for 
intellectual property offenses provide for consideration of the 
retail price of the legitimate infringed-upon item and the 
quantity of infringing items in order to make the guideline 
sufficiently stringent to deter such crime.
    On May 12, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on ``Implementation of the NET Act and Enforcement against 
Internet Piracy.'' Testimony was received from Kevin V. 
DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Computer Crimes 
Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Timothy B. McGrath, 
Interim Staff Director, U.S. Sentencing Commission; Batur 
Oktay, Corporate Counsel, Adobe Systems, Inc., on behalf of the 
Business Software Alliance (BSA); Tim Starback, Emigre, Inc., 
on behalf of the Software and Information Industry Association 
(SIIA); and Tod Cohen, Vice President and Counsel, New 
Technology, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
    On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1761, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 26, 1999, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 1761, as amended,with additional full Committee 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1761 was 
reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 1, 1999 
(H. Rept. 106-216). The Senate passed its companion bill, S. 1257, by 
unanimous consent on July 1, 1999. On August 2, 1999, the House struck 
all after the Enacting Clause of S. 1257 and inserted the provisions of 
H.R. 1761 and passed S. 1257 by unanimous consent. On November 19, 
2000, the Senate concurred in the House amendment with an amendment by 
unanimous consent. On November 18, 1999, Mr. Coble introduced H.R. 
3456, the ``Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement 
Act of 1999,'' which incorporated the Senate amendments to H.R. 1761. 
On November 18, 1999, the House passed H.R. 3456 by unanimous consent. 
On November 19, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 3456 by unanimous consent. 
On December 9, 1999, the President signed H.R. 3456 and it is Public 
Law 106-160.

Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, H.R. 3615

    Introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, for himself, 
Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Baker, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. 
Barrett, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Bass, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Berry, Mr. 
Bishop, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Bonilla, Ms. Bono, Mr. Boswell, Mr. 
Boucher, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Canady, Ms. 
Capps, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Chenoweth-Hage, Ms. Clayton, Mr. 
Coble, Mr. Collins, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Creamer, Ms. Cubin, Mr. 
Davis, Mr. Deal, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
Duncan, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms. Emerson, Mr. 
Ewing, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Foley, Ms. Fowler, Mr. 
Frost, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Goode, Mr. 
Goodling, Mr. Goss, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 
Ms. Hayes, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. 
Holden, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Jenkins, 
Ms. Johnson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kind, Mr. Klink, Mr. 
LaHood, Mr. Latham, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lucas, Mr. McHugh, Mr. 
McInnis, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Minge, Mr. Moran, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. 
Norwood, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Olver, Mr. Oxley, Mr. 
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Phelps, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Portman, Mr. 
Quinn, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Riley, Mr. 
Rodriguez, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Shaffer, Mr. Sherwood, 
Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shows, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Skeen, 
Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. 
Tauzin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Thune, 
Mr. Traficant, Mr. Udall, Mr. Upton, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Walden, 
Mr. Walsh, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Weller, and Mr. Wicker, 
H.R. 3615 amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to 
ensure improved access to the signals of local television 
stations by multichannel video providers to all households 
which desire such service in unserved and underserved rural 
areas by December 31, 2006. On March 31, 2000, the Committee on 
the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of the 
bill. On April 13, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3615 by the Yeas 
and Nays: 375-37. The Senate did not act on the bill.

National Recording Preservation Act of 2000, H.R. 4846

    Introduced by Representative William M. (Bill) Thomas, for 
himself, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Davis of 
Florida, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Ewing, Ms. Fattah, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. 
Jenkins, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. Ney, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Tanner, and 
Mr. Wamp, H.R. 4846 establishes the National Recording Registry 
in the Library of Congress to maintain and preserve sound 
recordings and collections of sound recordings that are 
culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.
    On July 25, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
discharged from further consideration of the bill. On July 25, 
2000, the House passed H.R. 4846, amended, under suspension of 
the rules. On October 25, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4946 
with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by unanimous 
consent. On November 1, 2000, the House disagreed with the 
Senate amendments. On November 1, 2000, the Senate receded from 
its amendments by unanimous consent. On November 9, 2000, the 
President signed H.R. 4846 and it is Public Law 106-474.

Copyright Technical Corrections Act of 2000, H.R. 5106

    Introduced by Representative Howard Coble, Mr. Berman, and 
Ms. Bono, H.R. 5106 makes purely technical amendments to Title 
I of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus 
Reform Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-113 (IPCORA), and title 17, 
United States Code. H.R. 5106 corrects errors in references, 
spelling, and punctuation; conforms the table of contents with 
section headings; restores the definitions in chapter 1 to 
alphabetical order; deletes an expired paragraph; and creates 
continuity in the grammatical style used throughout title 17.
    On September 8, 2000, the Subcommittee was discharged from 
further consideration of the bill. On September 13, 2000, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 5106, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 
5106 was reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary 
on September 18, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-860). On September 19, 
2000, the House passed H.R. 5106 under suspension of the rules. 
The Senate did not act on the bill.

Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000, H.R. 5107

    Introduced by Representative Howard Coble, Mr. Berman, Ms. 
Bono, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Goodlatte, 
Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Rogan, 
Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 5107 restores 
the status quo as it existed before November 29, 1999, as to 
the issue of whether a sound recording can qualify as a ``work 
made for hire'' under the second part of the definition of that 
term in Section 101 of the Copyright Act, and to do so in a 
manner that does not prejudice any person or entity that might 
have interests concerning this question. H.R. 5107 also makes 
other non-controversial corrections to the Copyright Act. These 
amendments remove expired sections and clarify miscellaneous 
provisions governing fees and record keeping procedures.
    The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the issue of 
sound recordings as works made for hire on Thursday, May 25, 
2000. Testimony was received from: The Honorable Marybeth 
Peters, Registrar of the United States Copyright Office; Hilary 
Rosen, President and CEO of the Recording Industry Association 
of America; Paul Goldstein, Lillick Professor of Law, Stanford 
Law School; Michael Greene, President and CEO of the National 
Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences; Marci Hamilton, Thomas 
H. Lee, Chair in Public Law, Cardozo School of Law; and Sheryl 
Crow, recording artist.
    On September 8, 2000, the Subcommittee was discharged from 
further consideration of the bill. On September 13, 2000, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorablyreported the 
bill H.R. 5107, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 5107 was 
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on September 18, 2000 (H. 
Rept. 106-861). On September 19, 2000, the House passed H.R. 5107, 
amended, under suspension of the rules. On October 12, 2000, the Senate 
passed H.R. 5107 by unanimous consent. On October 27, 2000, the 
President signed H.R. 5107, and it is Public Law 106-379.

                                Patents

Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999, H.R. 209

    Introduced by Representative Constance A. Morella, for 
herself, and Mr. Brown of California, H.R. 209 amends the 
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to revise 
requirements regarding enumerated authority under a cooperative 
research and development agreement to permit Government 
laboratories to grant licenses to a federally owned invention 
for which a patent application was filed before the signing of 
the agreement, and directly within the scope of work under such 
agreement.
    On May 6, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
discharged from considering the bill. On May 11, 1999, the 
House passed H.R. 209 under suspension of the rules. On October 
5, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 209 with an amendment by 
unanimous consent. On October 17, 2000, the House agreed to the 
Senate amendment and passed H.R. 209 under suspension of the 
rules. On November 1, 2000, H.R. 209 was signed by the 
President and is Public Law 106-404.

United States Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act, Fiscal 
        Year 2000, H.R. 1225

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for 
himself, H.R. 1225 enables the Patent and Trademark Office 
(PTO), a self-sustaining federal agency, to generate as much 
revenue through the collection of user fees as necessary to 
operate, and to retain all of those funds for this purpose. The 
bill will prevent the diversion of these funds to other federal 
programs or for other endeavors, such as deficit reduction, and 
will proscribe the creation of new statutory surcharges which 
have been used in the past for activities unrelated to PTO 
operations.
    On March 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the Patent and Trademark Office reauthorization. 
Testimony was received from nine witnesses, representing seven 
organizations.
    On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1225 by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On May 26, 1999, the full Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
1225 by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1225 was 
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on June 9, 1999 (H. 
Rept. 106-177). The Senate counterpart, S. 1258, passed the 
Senate on July 1, 1999, by unanimous consent. On July 26, 1999, 
the House passed S. 1258 under suspension of the rules. On 
August 5, 1999, the President signed S. 1258 and it is Public 
Law 106-42.

Patent Fairness Act of 1999, H.R. 1598

    Introduced by Representative Ed Bryant, for himself, Mr. 
Aderholt, Mr. Archer, Mr. Baker, Mr. Barr, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. 
Blagojevich, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehner, Ms. Bono, Mr. Callhan, Mr. 
Cannon, Mr. Castle, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Clement, Mr. Collins, 
Mr. Conyers, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. DeMint, 
Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. 
Filner, Mr. Ford, Mr. Franks, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Frost, Mr. 
Gibbons, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Green, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Hefley, Mr. 
Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
Isakson, Mr. Istook, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Johnson, 
Mr. Linder, Mr. Maloney, Mr. Matsui, Mr. McCrery, Mr. 
McDermott, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Ney, Ms. 
Northrup, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Payne, Mr. Pickering, 
Mr. Price, Mr. Riley, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Roukema, Mr. Sandlin, 
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shays, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith of 
Washington, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
Stump, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Tanner, Ms. Tauscher, Mr. Thornberry, 
Mr. Wamp, Mr. Watt, Mr. Weldon and Mr. Wicker, H.R. 1598 amends 
Federal law to require, if the Commissioner of Patents and 
Trademarks determines that certain standards are met, 
restoration of the term of any patent, in force on September 
24, 1984, and on the filing date of a patent term restoration 
application under this Act, that claims: (1) a drug product; 
(2) a method of using a drug product; or (3) a method of 
manufacturing a drug product.
    On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
1598. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: 
Senator Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey; The Honorable Ed 
Bryant, Member of Congress, 7th District of Tennessee; The 
Honorable Jim McDermott, Member of Congress, 7th District of 
Washington; The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Member of Congress, 
29th District of California; The Honorable Marion Berry, Member 
of Congress, 1st District of Arkansas; Peter Barton Hutt, 
Partner, Covington & Burling; Bruce L. Downey, Chairman & Chief 
Executive Officer and President, Barr Laboratories; Andrew M. 
Berdon, Vice President and General Counsel, Purepac 
Pharmaceutical Company; Jonathan R. Spicehandler, M.D., 
President, Schering-Plough Research Institute; Gerald Meyer, 
Senior Consultant, AAC Consulting Group, Inc; Bruce Lehman, 
President and Chief Executive Officer International 
Intellectual Property Institute; William Orr, Chairman, 
National Alternative Fuels Association; Maura Kealey, Deputy 
Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch; Richard Selden, 
M.D., Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer Transkaryotic Therapies, 
Inc., (TKT); Gordon Binder, Chief Executive Officer, Amgen; and 
Richard P. Burgoon, Jr., Vice President, General Counsel & 
Assistant Secretary Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. No further 
action was taken on the bill.

American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, H.R. 1907

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, H.R. 1907 
guarantees 17 years of patent protection to diligent 
applicants; makes technology which is accessible to citizens of 
other countries available to Americans as well; allows earlier 
inventors limited relief when they cannot endure the 
prohibitively high costs of patenting every process or method 
that contributes to the development of an ``end'' product; 
reduces patent litigation by improving the reexamination 
process; protects inventors from scam promoters; and 
streamlines operations at the Patent and Trademark Office 
(PTO).
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on the Committee Print of 
the ``American Inventors Protection Act'' (later introduced as 
H.R. 1907) on March 25, 1999. Testimony was received from seven 
witnesses representing seven organizations, along with two 
Members of Congress.
    On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered reported the Committee Print on the ``American 
Inventors Protection Act'' by voice vote, a quorum being 
present. On May 26, 1999, the full Committee met in open 
session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 1907 with 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 1907 was 
reported, amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on August 
3, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-287, Part I). On August 4, 1999, the 
House passed H.R. 1907, as amended, under suspension of the 
rules as agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 376-43. Senator Lott 
introduced the Senate companion to H.R. 1907, S. 1948, on 
November 17, 1999. The House passed H. Rept. 106-479, the 
conference report accompanying an omnibus appropriation act, 
H.R. 3194, on November 18, 1999, by a vote of 296-135. The 
Senate incorporated S. 1948 by reference into H.R. 3194, and 
passed H. Rept. 106-479 by a vote of 80-8 on November 19, 1999. 
The President signed H.R. 3194 on November 29, 1999, and it is 
Public Law 106-113.

Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act, H.R. 4034

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for 
himself, Ms. Bono, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Frank, Mr. Norwood, Mr. 
Pease, and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 4034 ensures that the PTO is vested 
with the authority to retain all the user fees it collects for 
agency expenditures. This change will maximize the ability of 
the PTO to serve the growing demand for its services by the 
inventor and trademark communities.
    On March 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the Patent and Trademark Office reauthorization. 
Testimony was received from nine witnesses, representing seven 
organizations.
    On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4034 by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On May 9, 2000, the Committee met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4034 by 
unanimous consent, a quorum being present. H.R. 4034 was 
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 11, 2000 (H. 
Rept. 106-722). No further action was taken on the bill.

Intellectual Property Technical Amendments Act of 2000, H.R. 4870

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, and Mr. 
Berman, H.R. 4870 remedies miscellaneous technical and clerical 
drafting errors currently set forth in the U.S. Code and will 
also clarify provisions of last year's American Inventor's 
Protection Act (AIPA). This bill aims to make these remedial 
changes in three primary areas: patent law, trademark law, and 
the organization of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). 
The bill contains no provisions regarding copyright law or the 
U.S. Copyright Office.
    On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4870 by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On July 25, 2000, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 4870 
by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 4870 was reported, 
amended, by the Committee on the Judiciary on September 14, 
2000 (H. Rept. 106-853). On September 19, 2000, the House 
passed H.R. 4870 under suspension of the rules. The Senate did 
not act on the bill.

                               Trademark

Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, H.R. 769

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, and Mr. 
Berman, H.R. 769 implements the Madrid Protocol Agreement 
(``Protocol'') which provides for an international registration 
system for trademarks.
    On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 769, by voice vote, 
quorum being present. On March 24, 1999, the full Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
769, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 769 was 
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on April 12, 1999 
(H. Rept. 106-81). On April 13, 1999, H.R. 769 passed the House 
under suspension of the rules. The Senate did not act on the 
bill.

To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to increase the penalties for 
        infringing the rights pertaining to famous performing groups 
        and to clarify the law pertaining to the rights of individuals 
        who perform services as a group, H.R. 1125

    Introduced by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, and Mr. 
Norwood, H.R. 1125 amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to declare 
it is not a violation of Federal or State law for an individual 
who had been a member of a group under a common famous name, 
but subsequently terminated any relationship with such group, 
to be able to represent, in any promotions, advertisements, or 
performances that such individual had formerly been a member of 
such group performing under such famous name, if such 
representations do not tend to deceive or confuse as to the 
nature, characteristics, qualities geographic origin, 
sponsorship, or approval of his or her services with such 
group.
    The provisions of H.R. 1125 were included in H.R. 1565. The 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1565 on May 5, 1999. 
Testimony was received from the Honorable Todd Dickinson, 
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Acting Commissioner 
of Patents and Trademarks, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office; 
Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual 
Property Law Association (AIPLA); Kimbley L. Muller, Vice 
President, International Trademark Association (INTA); Garo 
Partoyan, Chairman, Trademark Committee, Intellectual Property 
Owners (IPO); Jon Bauman, (a/k/a Bowzer, formerly of Sha Na 
Na); and Chuck Blasko, original member of the Vogues. The 
provisions were ultimately removed from H.R. 1565.

Trademark Amendments Act of 1999, H.R. 1565

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, H.R. 1565 
makes significant improvements in trademark law. Section two 
provides holders of famous marks with a right to oppose or seek 
cancellation of a mark that would cause dilution as provided in 
the ``Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995.'' Pub. L. 104-98, 
109 Stat. 985 (1996), Lanham Act Sec. 43(c), 15c U.S.C. Section 
three seeks to clarify that in passing the Dilution Act, 
Congress did intend to allow for injunctive relief and/or 
damages against a defendant found to have wilfully intended to 
engage in commercial activity that would cause dilution of a 
famuous mark. Section four provides private citizens and 
corporate entities the right to sue the Federal Government for 
trademarkinfringement. Section five amends section 43(a) of the 
Trademark (Lanham) Act of 1946 to provide that in an action for trade 
dress infringement, where the matter sought to be protected is not 
registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the plaintiff has 
the burden of proving that the trade dress is not functional. Section 
six makes technical amendments. Section seven seeks to resolve the 
problem of ``imposter'' celebrity musical groups by creating an 
authenticity certification mark that can only be used by qualifying 
members of a musical group.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1565 on May 5, 
1999. Testimony was received from The Honorable Todd Dickinson, 
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Acting Commissioner 
of Patents and Trademarks, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office; 
Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual 
Property Law Association (AIPLA); Kimbley L. Muller, Vice 
President, International Trademark Association (INTA); and Garo 
Partoyan, Chairman, Trademark Committee, Intellectual Property 
Owners (IPO).
    On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1565, amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 26, 1999, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 1565, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.H.R. 1565 was reported, amended, by the Committee on 
Judiciary on July 22, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-250). the Senate 
counterpart, S. 1259, passed in the Senate on July 1, 1999, 
under unanimous consent. The House passed S. 1259 on July 26, 
1999. On August 5, 1999, the President signed S. 1259 and it is 
Public Law 106-43.

Antitampering Act of 1999, H.R. 2100

    Introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, for himself, 
Mr. Frank, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Holden, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Latham, Ms. 
Lofgren, Ms. Meek, Mr. Price, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Shays, Mr. Smith 
of Texas, and Mr. Toomey, H.R. 2100 amends the Trademark Act of 
1946 (Lanham Act) and the Federal Criminal code to declare 
unlawful unauthorized modification of product identification 
codes, including: (1) specified acts of tampering with the 
product identification code of any good; and (2) importing, 
exporting, distributing, or brokering goods whose product 
identification codes have been tampered with.
    On October 21, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2100. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: 
John S. Bliss, Esq., Executive Director, Coalition Against 
Product Tampering; Gilbert Lee Sandler, Counsel, American Free 
Trade Association; Aaron Graham, Director of Assets Protection, 
Matrix Essentials, Inc.; John Paul DeJoria, Chairman and Chief 
Executive Officer, John Paul Mitchell Systems; Mardi Mountford, 
Executive Director, International Formula Council; and James A. 
Dahl, President, Integrity Resource Group, Inc.
    On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2100, amended, by the 
Yeas and Nays: 6-3. No further action was taken on the bill.

Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act, H.R. 3028

    Introduced by Representative James E. Rogan, for himself, 
Mr. Boucher, Mr. Coble, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Salmon, H.R. 
3028.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on Wednesday, July 28, 
1999, on Internet Domain Names and Intellectual Property 
Rights. The following witnesses appeared at the hearing: Andrew 
Pincus, General Counsel, United States Department of Commerce; 
Francis Gurry, Assistant Director General & Legal Counsel, 
World Intellectual Property Organization; Michael Roberts, 
Interim President and CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers (ICANN); Michael A. Daniels, Chairman of the 
Board, Network Solutions, Incorporated; Jonathan Cohen, 
President, Intellectual Property Constituency of the Domain 
Name Supporting Organization of ICANN; Ken Stubbs, Chairman of 
the Executive Committee, Internet Council of Registrars (CORE); 
Kathlene Karg, Director of Intellectual Property and Public 
Policy. Interactive Digital Software Association, for the 
Copyright Coalition on Domain Names; Mike Kirk, Executive 
Director, American Intellectual Property Law Association 
(AIPLA); and Anne Chasser, President, International Trademark 
Association (INTA).
    On October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3028, by voice 
vote, a quorum being present. On October 13, 1999, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 3028, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present. H.R. 3028 was reported, amended, by the committee on 
Judiciary on October 25, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-412). H.R. 3028 was 
incorporated into the conference report on H.R. 1554 (H. Rept. 
106-464). On November 9, the House agreed to the conference 
report. The conference report was incorporated into S. 1948 the 
``Intellectual Property Omnibus Communications Act'' which was 
signed into law as part of H.R. 3194, an omnibus appropriation 
act, on November 29, 1999, and is Public Law 106-113.

                   Other Intellectual Property Rights

Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, H.R. 354

    Introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, for 
himself, Mr. Barr, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Barrett of 
Wisconsin, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Bass, Mr. Bereuter, Ms. Berkley, 
Mr. Berman, Ms. Biggert, Ms. Bono, Mr. Canady, Mr. Cannon, Mr. 
Chabot, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Doolittle, 
Mr. Filner, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ford, Mr. Frank, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. 
Goodlatte, Mr. Goss, Mr. Granger, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hall of 
Texas, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hobson, Mr. 
Hutchinson, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Jackson, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Lahood, 
Mr. Lantos, Ms. Lee, Mr. Linder, Mr. Luther, Ms. Maloney, Mr. 
Maloney, Mr. Matsui, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mr. George Miller of 
California, Mr. Minge, Mr. Moakley, Ms. Morella, Ms. Myrick, 
Ms. Holmes-Norton, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Pease, Mr. Peterson, Mr. 
Petri, Mr. Portman, Ms. Pryce, Mr. Regula, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. 
Rothman, Mr. Royce, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Shaffer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
Shaw, Mr. Shays, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Shows, Mr. Sununu, Mr. 
Tancredo, Ms. Tauscher, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Vento, Mr. Weldon, 
and Mr. Wexler, H.R. 354 responds to a need to supplement 
copyright law to prevent the wholesale copying of another's 
collection of information in a manner which harms the market 
for that collection. The bill ensures incentives for investment 
in the production and dissemination of collections of 
information, while maintaining continued access to information 
contained in such collections for public interest purposes such 
as education, science and research.
    The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act prohibits the 
misappropriation of commercially valuable collections by those 
who pirate data that has been collected by others through 
substantial effort and expense, and use it in a way that causes 
market injury to the producer of the original collection. This 
protection is modeled in part on the Lanham Act, which already 
makes various types of unfair competition a civil wrong under 
federal law. Importantly,existing protections for collections 
of information afforded by other bodies of law, most notably copyright 
and contract rights, are maintained in their present form. The bill is 
intended to supplement these legal rights, not replace them.
    H.R. 354 was the topic of a legislative hearing on 
Thursday, March 18th, 1999. Testifying at the hearing was 
Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of 
the United States, Library of Congress; Andrew Pincus, general 
Counsel, United States Department of Commerce; James G. Neal, 
University Libraries, Johns Hopkins University; Terrance M. 
McDermott, Executive Vice President, The National Association 
of Realtors; Marilyn G. Winokur, Executive Vice President, 
Microdex, Incorporated, Dr. Joshua Lederberg, Professor, 
Sackler Foundation Scholar, The Rockfeller University; Lynn 
Henderson, President, Doane Agricultural Services Company; 
Michael Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual 
Property Lawyers Association; Charles E. Phelps, Provost, 
University of Rochester; and Dan Duncan, Vice President, 
Government Affairs, Software and Information Industry 
Association.
    On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 354 with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 26, 
1999, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported 
favorably the bill H.R. 354 with one amendment, by a voice 
vote, a quorum being present, H.R. 354 was reported, amended, 
by the Committee on Judiciary on September 30, 1999 (H. Rept. 
106-349, Part I).
Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act, H.R. 850
    Introduced Representative Bob Goodlatte, for himself, Mr. 
Ackerman, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Archer, Mr. Armey, Mr. Bachus, Mr. 
Baird, Mr. Baker, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Barcia, Mr. 
Barr, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. 
Barton, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehner, 
Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Bonior, Ms. Bono, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Brady of 
Texas, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Brown, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
Bryant, Mr. Burr, Mr. Burton, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Camp, Mr. 
Campbell, Mr. Cannon, Ms. Capps, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. 
Chenoweth-Hage, Ms. Christensen, Ms. Clayton, Mr. Clement, Mr. 
Clyburn, Mr. Coble, Mr. Collins, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cook, Mr. 
Cooksey, Mr. Cox, Mr. Crane, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Cubin, Mr. 
Cummings, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Davis of 
Virginia, Mr. Deal, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. 
DeLay, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Dickey, 
Mr. Dooley, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Duncan, 
Ms. Dunn, Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Emerson, Mr. Engel, Mr. English, Ms. 
Eshoo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr. 
Fletcher, Mr. Foley, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Ford, Mr. Fossella, Mr. 
Frank, Mr. Franks, Mr. Frost, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. 
Gekas, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Goode, Mr. 
Goodling, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Green, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Hall of 
Texas, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hastings of 
Washington, Ms. Hayes, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. 
Hilliard, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Hoeskstra, 
Mr. Holt, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Horn, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Hutchinson, 
Mr. Inslee, Mr. Istook, Mr. Jackson, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. 
Jefferson, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Ms. Johnson of Connecticut, 
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Kasich, Ms. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy, 
Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Kind, Mr. King, Mr. Kingston, Mr. 
Knollenberg, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Largent, 
Mr. Latham, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Lewis of 
Kentucky, Mr. Linder, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Luther, Mr. 
Maloney, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Markey, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Matsui, 
Ms. McCarthy, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McInnis, Mr. 
McIntosh, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Meehan, Ms. Meek, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
Metcalf, Mr. Mica, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Gary Miller of 
California, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Minge, Mr. 
Moakley, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Ms. 
Morella, Ms. Myrick, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Napolitano, Mr. Neal, Mr. 
Nethercutt, Mr. Ney, Ms. Northrup, Ms. Holmes-Norton, Mr. 
Norwood, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Olver, Mr. Ose, Mr. Packard, Mr. 
Pallone, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Pease, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Pickering, 
Mr. Pombo, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Price, Ms. Pryce, Mr. Quinn, Mr. 
Radanovich, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Riley, 
Ms. Rivers, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. 
Rush, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Salmon, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
Sanford, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shays, Mr. 
Sherman, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shows, Ms. McIntosh-Slaughter, Mr. 
Smith of Washington, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Smith of 
Texas, Mr. Souder, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stark, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. 
Sununu, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Talent, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Tanner, Ms. 
Tauscher, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Terry, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Tierney, 
Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Underwood, 
Mr. Upton, Mr. Vento, Mr. Walden, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Wamp, Ms. 
Waters, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Watt, Mr. Watts, Mr. Weldon, Mr. 
Weller, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wise, Ms. 
Woolsey, and Mr. Wu, H.R. 850 makes a series of changes to U.S. 
encrption policy which will facilitate the use of encryption. 
Current policy does not restrict the domestic use, sale, or 
import of encryption. Section 2 of H.R. 850 generally codifies 
that policy by affirmatively prohibiting restrictions on the 
domestic use and sale of encryption. It also prohibits the 
government from imposing a mandatory key escrow system, 
allowing voluntary systems to develop in the marketplace, and 
provides criminal penalties for the knowing and willful use of 
encryption to avoid detection of other federal felonies. At the 
same time, however, the export of strong encryption products is 
tightly restricted under the export control laws. Section 3 of 
H.R. 850 significantly relaxed those export controls. In 
addition, section 4 requires that the Attorney General compile 
statistics on instances in which these new policies may 
interfere with the enforcement of federal criminal laws.
    On Thursday, March 4, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on H.R. 850. The following individuals testified: William 
Reinsch, Undersecretary of Commerce for Export Administration, 
United States Department of Commerce; Ronald D. Lee, Associate 
Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; 
Barbara McNamara, Deputy Director, National Security 
Adminstration; Tom Parenty, Data and Communications Security, 
Sybase, Incorporated; Craig McLaughlin, Chief Technology 
Officer, Privada, Incorporated; Grover Norquist, President, 
Americans for Tax Reform; Professor Dorothy E. Denning, 
Georgetown, University; Alan B. Davidson, Staff Counsel, Center 
for Democracy and Technology; Ed Gillespie, Executive Director, 
Americans for Computer Privacy; and Dave McCurdy, President, 
Electronic Industries Alliance.
    On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open session and 
orderly favorably reported the bill H.R. 850, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On March 24, 1999, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 850, 
by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 850 was reported by 
the Committee on Judiciary on March 27, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-117, 
Part I). The bill was also referred to the Committees on 
International Relations, Armed Services, Commerce and 
Intelligence. Due to the legislation the Administration 
revisited their encryption policy to be more in line with the 
bill, thereby obviating the need for the legislation.

Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999, H.R. 1858

    Representative Tom Bliley introduced H.R. 1858 It was 
referred to the Committees on Commerce and Judiciary. It was 
held at full Committee for purposes of markup and floor 
consideration. On September 30, 1999, the Committee on Commerce 
reported on H.R. 1858 (H. Rept. 106-350). On October 8, 1999, 
the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from considering 
the bill. No further action was taken on the bill.

                          Oversight Activities


U.S. Patent and trademark Office

    On March 9, 2000, the Subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing on the administration and operations of the Patent and 
Trademark Office. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Q. Todd Dickinson, Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and 
Trademarks; Charles Van Horn, Board of Directors, American 
Intellectual Property Law Association; Kim Muller, President, 
International Trademark Association; Ronald Myrick, President, 
Intellectual Property Owners; Colleen M. Kelley, National 
President, National Treasury Employees Union; Ronald J. Stern, 
President, Patent Office Professional Association; Kina 
Lamblin, Vice President and General Counsel, VISX, Inc.; 
Gregory J. Maier, Chair, Section of Intellectual Property Law, 
American Bar Association; Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss, 
Director, Engelberg Center for Innovation Law and Policy, New 
York University School of Law.

U.S. Copyright Office

    On May 25, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on the administration and operation of the Copyright Office of 
the United States. The Subcommittee received testimony from The 
Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright 
Office of the United States.

Article III Courts

    On July 22, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the Structural Alternatives for the United States 
Court of Appeals. The Subcommittee received testimony from: The 
Honorable Tom Campbell, Member of Congress, 15th District of 
California; Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska; Senator Slade Gorton 
of Washington; Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona; Senator Dianne 
Feinstein of California; Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska; 
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; The Honorable Procter Hug, Jr., 
Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; The Honorable 
Charles E. Wiggins, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of 
Appeals, Ninth Circuit; The Honorable Pamela Ann Rymer, Circuit 
Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; The Honorable Diarmuid 
O'Scannlain, Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, The 
Honorable William D. Browning, District Judge For the District 
of Arizona; The Honorable David R. Thompson, Circuit Judge, 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Eleanor Acheson, Assistant 
Attorney General, Office of Policy development Department of 
Justice; Arthur Hellman, Professor of Law, University of 
Pittsburgh School of Law; Ronald L. Olson, Esq., Munger, Tolles 
& Olson; and William N. LaForge, Chairman, Committee on 
Government Relations Federal Bar Association.

Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's decision to bypass the random case 
        assignment system in six politically sensitive cases

    After reviewing a July 31, 1999 Associated Press report 
that the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia bypassed the normal random case assignment 
system in two politically sensitive cases, the Committee asked 
the Chief Judge about this matter in an August 26, 1999, 
letter. When she failed to respond to the legitimate concerns 
of the Subcommittee, she was again contacted by letter on 
November 3, 1999. When it became clear that she would not 
respond, investigative staff were directed to look into the 
matter further. The Subcommittee discovered that the Chief 
Judge made four additional special assignments of campaign 
finance related cases for a total of six.
    After conducting an inquiry, the Subcommittee filed a 
judicial complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 372(c)(1) on 
January 10, 2000. The Subcommittee supplemented its complaint 
with more information on February 16, 2000. On March 28, 2000, 
the Clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals informed the 
Subcommittee that the complaint (Judicial Complaint 00-1) was 
referred to a special committee on judges for investigation. 
The special committee then hired outside counsel to conduct 
fact finding in this matter. At the time of this writing, no 
decision has been issued by the Judicial Council. In response 
to the Subcommittee's oversight, the District Court for the 
District of Columbia abolished its policy that allowed the 
court's chief judge to bypass the traditional random assignment 
process. They substituted a system in which protracted cases 
would be assigned on a random basis.
    The Subcommittee did not file its complaint lightly. The 
Subcommittee felt compelled to determine whether or not these 
unusual special assignments were proper. It was done in the 
most judicious manner possible--by seeking review first by the 
Judicial Council. The Subcommittee is hopeful that the current 
Judicial Council investigation will answer the concerns laid 
out in the Subcommittee's complaint. In addressing the 
Subcommittee's concerns, the Judicial Council should seek to 
establish confidence in our courts, the impartial 
administration of justice, and the principle of judicial 
independence. This can only be done by a thorough, fair, and 
honest review of the facts and the law.
    The Subcommittee is concerned about the length of time it 
has taken to review this matter. The Subcommittee understands 
that the investigative phase of this investigation was 
completed by mid-September, 2000. Furthermore, the Subcommittee 
is concerned generally about the perception that judges are 
unwilling to vigorously pursue complaints against other judges. 
The proper operation of the Judicial Councils Reform and 
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec.  372, 
depends on the willingness of judges to police their 
colleagues. The Subcommittee may, in the next Congress, review 
the operation and effectiveness of this statute to determine 
whether thorough reviews of credible complaints are vigorously 
pursued and whether appropriate disciplinary measures are taken 
when warranted.

Copyrighted webcast programming on the Internet

    On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on ``Copyrighted Webcast Programming on the Internet.'' 
The Subcommittee received testimony from the following: The 
Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyright, Copyright 
Office of the United States, Library of Congress; Jack Valenti, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Motion Picture 
Association of America on behalf of the Copyright Assembly; 
Thomas J. Ostertag, General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner 
of Baseball; Jonathan Potter, Executive Director, Digital Media 
Association; Ian Mccallum, Cofounder, iCraveTV.com; Peggy 
Miles, Chairman, International Webcasting Association and 
President, Intervox Communication; Hilary Rosen, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Association of 
America, Inc.; Edward O. Fritts, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, National Association of Broadcasters; Dean Kay, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Lichelle Music Company 
on behalf of the American Society of Composers, Authors and 
Publishers; Charles P. Moore, Vice President, Business 
Development, RadioAMP.com; and Scott Purcell, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, WWW.com.

              Summary of Oversight Plan and Implementation

    Pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule X of the House, the 
Committee on the Judiciary submitted, in February, 1999, an 
oversight plan including matters to be referred to the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. Following is 
a summary of the portions of that plan relating to the 
Subcommittee and a summary of the Subcommittee's activities to 
implement the oversight plan.

Article III Courts

    In its oversight plan, the Subcommittee proposed to 
continue to devote considerable time and resources to improving 
the delivery of justice by Article III Federal courts through 
its oversight responsibility for (1) the Administrative Office 
of the U.S. Courts; (2) the Federal Judicial Center; (3) the 
Judicial Conference of the United States; and (4) United States 
Attorneys within the Department of Justice.
    Subcommittee hearings and legislation focused on the needs 
and recommendations of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 
and the federal judiciary, recommended changes under the Rules 
Enabling Act, judicial reform and discipline, and prosecutorial 
policies of U.S. Attorneys.

The U.S. Copyright System

    The Subcommittee also proposed to continue to devote 
considerable time to oversee the operation of the copyright 
system in a world or ever changing technology, recognizing that 
it is vital to the protection of our copyright industry that 
the Subcommittee be vigilant in its exercise of its 
jurisdiction to carry out its constitutional mandate to 
``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing 
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right 
to their respective writings and discoveries;'' (Art. I, Sec. 
8, cl. 8).
    Subcommittee hearings and legislation focused on the 
operation of the U.S. Copyright Office, which is part of the 
Library of Congress, greater protection for copyrighted 
information that could be accessed by users of the Internet, 
and annual losses of U.S. property to domestic and 
international piracy.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Systems

    The Subcommittee proposed to exercise its oversight 
responsibilities for the operation of the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office.
    Subcommittee hearings and legislation focused on government 
corporation status for the USPTO, the cost to U.S. companies 
and inventors of applying for and obtaining separate patents in 
each of 150 or more countries, the fairness and status of 
reexamination procedures for applicants, the implementation of 
trademark treaties, and the effects of the new patent term.
                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS

   LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BILL McCOLLUMN, Florida
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California              EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      MARY BONO, California \1\
                                     CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
                                     BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
                                     JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \2\

----------
\1\ Mary Bono, California, reassigned from the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims to the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law on March 24, 1999.
\2\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, assigned to the Subcommittee on March 24, 
1999.

Tabulation of Subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee..........................   195
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee..............    14
Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee..............     0
Legislation reported without recommendation to the full Committee.     0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee....     4
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................    22
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     6
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................    17
Legislation reported to the House.................................    17
Legislation pending in the House..................................     8
Legislation passed by the House...................................    26
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     5
Legislation included in Appropriations bill.......................     1
Legislation vetoed by the President...............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................    21
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    20
Days of hearings (legislative and oversight)......................    27
Private Bills:
    Claims bills referred to Subcommittee.........................    34
    Immigration bills referred to Subcommittee....................    93
    Bills on which hearings were held.............................     0
    Claims bills heard/reported favorably to the full Committee...     5
    Immigration bills heard/reported favorably to the full 
      Committee...................................................    19
    Claims bills ordered reported to the House....................     5
    Immigration bills ordered reported to the House...............    19
    Claims bills which passed the House...........................     5
    Immigration bills which passed the House......................    18
    Claims bills pending in the House.............................     0
    Immigration bills pending in the House........................     1
    Claims bills pending in the Senate............................     2
    Immigration bills pending in the Senate.......................     0
    Claims bills which became law.................................     3
    Immigration bills which became law............................    18

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

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

                  Public Legislation Enacted Into Law


                              immigration

Driver's license standards

    Section 355 of title III (general provisions) of H.R. 2084, 
the ``Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2000'', which the President signed into law 
on October 9, 1999 (Public Law 106-69), repealed section 656(b) 
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996. Section 656(b) had provided that a federal agency 
could accept for any identification-related purpose a driver's 
license, or other comparable identification document, issued by 
a State on or after October 1, 2000, only if the application 
process and form of the document met certain security 
standards.

H.R. 441, the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999

    H.R. 441 creates a new temporary registered nurse visa 
program designated ``H-1C'' that would provide up to 500 visas 
a year and that would sunset in four years. To be able to 
petition for an alien, an employer would have to meet four 
basic conditions. First, the employer would have to be located 
in a health professional shortage area as designated by the 
Department of Health and Human Services. Second, the employer 
would have to have at least 190 acute care beds. Third, a 
certain percentage (35%) of the employer's patients would have 
to be Medicare patients. Fourth, a certain percentage (28%) of 
patients would have to be Medicaid patients. The bill contains 
the most important safeguards found in the expired H-1A 
temporary registered nurse visa program and has added ones of 
its own.
    The legislation requires the Attorney General to grant a 
national interest waiver on behalf of an alien physician if the 
alien works full time as a physician for five years in an area 
or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or 
at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs. A federal agency or a department 
of public health in a state must have previously determined 
that the alien physician's work in such an area or at such 
facility was in the public interest.
    The legislation also makes a clarification regarding the 
acceptable organizational structure for purposes of L visas and 
employment based visas for multinational executives and 
managers of firms providing accounting or management consulting 
services.
    On February 2, 1999, Representative Bobby Rush introduced 
H.R. 441.
    On March 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims reported H.R. 441 to the Judiciary Committee by voice 
vote.
    On March 24, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 441 
reported by voice vote to the House.
    On May 12, 1999, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 441 
(H. Rept. 106-135).
    On May 24, 1999, the House passed H.R. 441 under suspension 
of the rules by voice vote.
    On June 24, 1999, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered 
H.R. 441 favorably reported to the Senate.
    On October 22, 1999, H.R. 441 passed the Senate as amended 
by unanimous consent.
    On November 2, 1999, the House passed H.R. 441 as amended 
by the Senate by voice vote.
    On November 12, 1999, the President signed H.R. 441 into 
law (Public Law 106-95).

H.R. 3061, to extend the S-Visa Program and Refugee Resettlement 
        Funding

    H.R. 3061 reauthorizes the S-visa program, which provides 
250 visas per year to be issued by the Justice Department to 
informants in international organized crime cases, through 
September 13, 2001. The bill also reauthorizes funding of the 
refugee resettlement program through September 30, 2002.
    On October 12, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith 
introduced H.R. 3061.
    On October 26, 1999, the House passed H.R. 3061 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On November 8, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 3061 by 
unanimous consent.
    On November 13, 1999, the President signed H.R. 3061 into 
law (Public Law 106-104).

Discipline of INS employees

    Title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2000,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed 
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113), directs the 
Attorney General to impose disciplinary action, including 
termination of employment, pursuant to policies and procedures 
applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
for any employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
who violates policies and procedures set forth by the 
Department of Justice relative to the granting of citizenship 
or who willfully deceives the Congress or department leadership 
on any matter.

Shortage of health care professionals waiver

    Section 117 of the general provisions (Department of 
Justice) of Title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2000,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed 
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113). The 
legislation requires the Attorney General to grant a national 
interest waiver on behalf of an alien physician if the alien 
works full time as a physician for five years in an area or 
areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a 
health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs. A federal agency or a department of public 
health in a state must have previously determined that the 
alien physician's work in such an area or at such facility was 
in the public interest.

Prohibition of fund use for countries refusing to accept return of 
        their nationals

    Section 627 of the general provisions of Title VI of the 
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,'' contained in 
H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000'', 
which the President signed into law on November 29, 1999 
(Public Law 106-113), prohibits the use of funds appropriated 
in the Act for the purpose of granting either immigrant or 
nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, 
or residents of countries that the Attorney General has 
determined deny or unreasonably delay accepting the return of 
their citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents under section 
243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Prohibition of fund use regarding involuntary return of refugees

    Section 251 of Title II, the Department of State 
Authorities and Activities, of the ``Admiral James W. Nance and 
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
2000 and 2001,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed 
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113), prohibits 
the use of funds made available to effect the involuntary 
return by the United States of any person to a country in which 
the person has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of 
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 
group, or political opinion, except on grounds recognized as 
precluding protection as a refugee under the United Nations 
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of July 28, 1951, 
and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of January 
31, 1967, subject to the reservations contained in the United 
States Senate Resolution of Ratification. Also, no funds may be 
used to effect the involuntary return of any person to any 
country unless the Secretary of State first notifies the 
appropriate congressional committees, except that in the case 
of an emergency involving a threat to human life, the Secretary 
of State shall notify the appropriate congressional committees 
as soon as practicable.

Guidelines for overseas refugee processing

    Section 253 of Title II, the Department of State 
Authorities and Activities, of the ``Admiral James W. Nance and 
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
2000 and 2001,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed 
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113), requires 
the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney 
General, to issue guidelines to ensure that persons with 
potential biases against any refugee applicant, including 
persons employed by, or otherwise subject to influence by, 
governments known to be involved in persecution on account of 
religion, race, nationality, membership in a particular group, 
or political opinion, shall not in any way be used in 
processing determinations of refugee status, including 
interpretation of conversations or examination of documents 
presented by such applicants.

Gender-related persecution task force and report

    Section 254 of Title II, the Department of State 
Authorities and Activities, of the ``Admiral James W. Nance and 
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
2000 and 2001,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', which the President signed 
into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113), requires 
the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney 
General and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a 
task force with the goal of determining eligibility guidelines 
for women seeking refugee status overseas due to gender-related 
persecution. The Secretary of State must also prepare and 
submit a report to Congress outlining the guidelines determined 
by the task force.

Eligibility for in-country refugee processing in Vietnam

    Section 255 of Title II, the Department of State 
Authorities and Activities, of the ``Admiral James W. Nance and 
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
2000 and 2001,'' contained in H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for FY2000'', was signed into law by the 
President on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113). It 
provides that for purposes of eligibility for in-country 
refugee processing for nationals of Vietnam during fiscal years 
2000 and 2001, an alien who is the son or daughter of a 
qualified national, is 21 years of age or older, and was 
unmarried as of the date of acceptance of the alien's parent 
for resettlement under the Orderly Departure Program or through 
the United States Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City, shall 
be considered to be a refugee of special humanitarian concern 
to the United States and shall be admitted to the United States 
for resettlement if the alien would be admissible as an 
immigrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act. A 
``qualified national'' is a national of Vietnam who: (1) was 
formerly interned in a re-education camp in Vietnam by the 
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or is the widow 
or widower of an individual so interned, (2) qualified for 
refugee processing under the Orderly Departure Program re-
education subprogram and on or after April 1, 1995, is or has 
been accepted under the Orderly Departure Program or through 
the United States Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City for 
resettlement as a refugee or for admission to the United States 
as an immediate relative immigrant, and (3) is presently 
maintaining a residence in the United States or was approved 
for refugee resettlement or immigrant visa processing and is 
awaiting departure formalities from Vietnam.

Inadmissibility of foreign nationals engaged in forced abortion or 
        sterilization

    Section 801 of Title VIII, the Miscellaneous Provisions of 
the ``Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001,'' contained in 
H.R. 3194, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000'', 
was signed into law by the President on November 29, 1999 
(Public Law 106-113). It prohibits the Secretary of State from 
issuing a visa to, and the Attorney General from admitting to 
the United States, any foreign national whom the Secretary 
finds, based on credible and specific information, to have been 
directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of 
population control policies forcing a woman to undergo an 
abortion against her free choice or forcing a man or woman to 
undergo sterilization against his or her free choice, unless 
the Secretary has substantial grounds for believing that the 
foreign national has discontinued his or her involvement with, 
and support for, such policies. The prohibitions described 
above do not apply in the case of a foreign national who is a 
head of state, head of government, or cabinet level minister. 
The Secretary of State may waive the above prohibitions if the 
Secretary determines that it is important to the national 
interest of the United States to do so and provides written 
notification to the appropriate congressional committees 
containing a justification for the waiver.

H.R. 2886, to provide that an adopted alien who is less than 18 years 
        of age may be considered a child if adopted with or after a 
        child sibling

    Under prior law, a foreign-born child who has been adopted 
by a United States citizen parent was classified as an 
immediate relative child for purposes of immigration to the 
United States if the child was under the age of 16 at the time 
the adoptive U.S. citizen parent(s) filed an immigrant visa 
petition on the child's behalf. However, in cases involving 
siblings, adoptive parents frequently wish to adopt older 
children in order to keep a family group intact. H.R. 2886 
allows an alien child age 16 or 17 to qualify as an immediate 
relative child if the U.S. citizen adoptive parent(s) has also 
adopted a sibling of that child who is under the age of 16.
    On September 21, 1999, Representative Stephen Horn 
introduced H.R. 2886.
    On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims reported H.R. 2886 to the Judiciary Committee by voice 
vote.
    On October 5, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
2886 reported by voice vote.
    On October 14, 1999, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
2886 (H. Rept. 106-383).
    On October 18, 1999, the House passed H.R. 2886 under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 404-0.
    On October 19, 1999, the Senate Judiciary Committee was 
discharged from consideration of H.R. 2886 and the Senate 
passed the bill by unanimous consent.
    On December 7, 1999, the President signed H.R. 2886 into 
law (Public Law No. 106-139).

H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000, and H.R. 5234

    The Hmong are a mountain people from southern China and 
parts of Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Hmong soldiers 
fought the Communist Pathet Lao movement in Laos, and many 
Hmong later assisted U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. After 
the war ended in 1975, the Pathet Lao gained control of Laos 
and persecuted and imprisoned many of the Hmong allies of the 
United States. Between 130,000 and 150,000 Laotian Hmong have 
entered the U.S. as refugees since 1975. Many Hmong refugees 
have found it difficult to naturalize because of their 
difficulty in learning English (because their language did not 
have a written form until recent decades). In order to 
naturalize, permanent residents must generally demonstrate an 
understanding of the English language, including an ability to 
read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English 
language.
    H.R. 371 exempts naturalization applicants from the English 
requirement if they served with special guerilla units or 
irregular forces operating from bases in Laos in support of the 
United States during the Vietnam War (or were spouses such 
persons on the day on which such persons applied for admission 
as refugees) and who came to the United States as refugees from 
Laos. The legislation also provides these aliens with special 
consideration as to the civics requirement for naturalization 
(Naturalization applicants must demonstrate a knowledge and 
understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the 
principles and form of government, of the United States.). H.R. 
5234 clarifies that these benefits are also available to 
refugees from Laos who are the surviving spouses of guerilla 
fighters who had died in Laos, Thailand or Vietnam.
    Aliens are required to submit documentation of their, or 
their spouse's, service with a special guerilla unit, or 
irregular forces which the Attorney General shall evaluate. A 
maximum of 45,000 permanent residents can take advantage of the 
benefits provided. This provision was added as an anti-fraud 
measure, given the extreme difficulty in determining which 
Hmong actually served in guerilla units.
    On January 19, 1999, Representative Bruce Vento introduced 
H.R. 371.
    On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims was discharged from consideration of H.R. 371.
    On March 30, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 371 
reported as amended by voice vote to the House.
    On April 6, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 371 
(H. Rept. 106-563).
    On May 2, 2000, the House passed H.R. 371 as amended under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On May 18, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered 
H.R. 371 as amended favorably reported to the Senate.
    On May 18, 2000, H.R. 371 passed the Senate as amended by 
unanimous consent.
    On May 23, 2000, the House passed H.R. 371 as amended by 
the Senate by unanimous consent.
    On May 26, 2000, the President signed H.R. 371 into law 
(Public Law 106-207).
    On September 20, 2000, Representative George Radanovich 
introduced H.R. 5234.
    On September 25, 2000, the House passed H.R. 5234 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On October 19, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 5234 by 
unanimous consent.
    On November 1, 2000, the President signed H.R. 5234 into 
law (Public Law 106-415).

H.R. 4489, Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management 
        Improvement Act of 2000

    H.R. 4489 modifies the requirements of section 110 of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996 that the INS collect data on every alien entering and 
exiting the United States with a requirement that the Attorney 
General implement an integrated electronic data system 
regarding the entry and exit of aliens into and from the United 
States using available data. Section 110 will place no new 
documentary or data collection requirements on any alien. The 
bill contains staggered deadlines for implementing the system 
at the three types of ports of entry: airports, seaports and 
land border ports.
    Once the INS implements the entry/exit data system at a 
defined group of ports of entry, the Attorney General is 
required to submit an annual fiscal year report to the 
Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate. These reports 
will contain and analyze the following information: (1) the 
number of aliens for whom departure data was collected, 
including country of nationality; (2) the number of departing 
aliens whose departure data was successfully matched to the 
alien's arrival data, including country of nationality and an 
alien's classification as an immigrant or nonimmigrant; (3) the 
number of aliens who arrived with a nonimmigrant visa or under 
the visa waiver program for whom no matching departure date was 
obtained as of the end of the alien's authorized stay, 
including the country of nationality and date of arrival in the 
U.S.; and (4) the number of nonimmigrants identified as having 
overstayed their visas, including the country of nationality.
    The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, will determine which officers and employees of the 
Justice and State Departments may enter data into and have 
access to the data contained in the entry/exit data system. 
Likewise, the Attorney General has the discretion to permit 
other federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to 
have access to the data for law enforcement purposes.
    The Attorney General is expected to continuously update and 
improve the integrated entry and exit data system as technology 
improves and using the recommendations of the task force 
established by this legislation. The task force is to be 
chaired by the Attorney General and composed of government and 
private sector representatives. The task force is instructed to 
evaluate: (1) how the Attorney General can efficiently and 
effectively carry out the data system, (2) how the U.S. can 
improve the flow of traffic at airports, seaports and land 
border ports of entry by, among other things, enhancing systems 
for data collection and data sharing by better use of 
technology, resources, and personnel, and (3) the cost of 
implementing each of its recommendations. The task force is to 
submit an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on 
the Judiciary containing its findings, conclusions and 
recommendations. The Attorney General shall make such 
legislative recommendations as he or she deems appropriate to 
implement the task force's recommendations and to obtain 
authorization for the appropriation of funds to implement the 
recommendations.
    Finally, H.R. 4489 contains a sense of Congress regarding 
international border management cooperation.
    On May 18, 2000, Representative Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 
4489.
    On May 23, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4489 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On May 25, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4489 by unanimous 
consent.
    On June 15, 2000, the President signed H.R. 4489 into law 
(Public Law 106-215).

H.R. 2909, the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000

    This legislation implements the ``Hague Convention on 
Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect to 
Intercountry Adoption,'' which was signed by the U.S. in 1994.
    The purpose of the Convention is to streamline 
international adoptions by providing a standard framework for 
intercountry adoptions between countries that have ratified the 
Convention. The Convention sets standards designed to protect 
the rights and interests of children, birth parents and 
adoptive parents and to prevent abuses of the intercountry 
adoption process, such as the illegal trafficking in children. 
The Convention provides that each signatory country establish a 
national Central Authority to oversee the Convention's 
implementation in that country. Among other responsibilities, 
the Central Authority will monitor both cases involving 
children immigrating to the country and of children being 
adopted abroad. Convention signatories must also establish a 
process for accreditation of adoption service providers to 
ensure that every provider meets minimal standards.
    H.R. 2909 makes the minimum changes to the Immigration and 
Nationality Act necessary to facilitate adoptions under the 
Convention. Principally, the legislation allows children under 
the age of 16 who are adopted under the provisions of the 
Convention to qualify as immediate relatives under the INA if 
(1) the Attorney General is satisfied that proper care will be 
furnished the child if admitted to the United States, (2) the 
child's natural parents (or parent, in the case of a child who 
has one sole or surviving parent because of the death or 
disappearance of, or abandonment or desertion by, the other 
parent), or other persons or institutions that retain legal 
custody of the child, have freely given their written 
irrevocable consent to the termination of their legal 
relationship with the child, and to the child's emigration and 
adoption, (3) in the case of a child having two living natural 
parents, the natural parents are incapable of providing proper 
care for the child, and (4) the Attorney General is satisfied 
that the purpose of the adoption is to form a bona fide parent-
child relationship, and the parent-child relationship of the 
child and the natural parents has been terminated (and in 
carrying out both obligations the Attorney General may consider 
whether there is a petition pending to confer immigrant status 
on one or both of such natural parents).
    On September 22, 1999, Representative Benjamin Gilman 
introduced H.R. 2909.
    On March 22, 2000, the International Relations Committee 
ordered H.R. 2909 reported to the House by a vote of 28-0.
    On June 22, 2000, the Judiciary, Education and the 
Workforce, and Ways and Means Committees were discharged from 
consideration of H.R. 2909.
    On July 18, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2909 as amended 
under suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
    On July 27, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 2909 as amended by 
unanimous consent.
    On September 18, 2000, the House further amended and passed 
by unanimous consent H.R. 2909 as amended by the Senate.
    On September 20, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 2909 as 
amended by the House by unanimous consent.
    On October 6, 2000, the President signed H.R. 2909 into law 
(Public Law 106-279).

S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act 
        of 2000, and H.R. 5362

            Background

  The H-1B Nonimmigrant Worker Program Prior to S. 2045 and H.R. 5362

    ``H-1B'' visas are available for workers coming temporarily 
to the United States to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. Such an occupation is one that requires ``(A) 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and (B) attainment of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in the specific speciality (or its equivalent) as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.'' 
The total number of aliens who could be issued visas or 
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status as H-1B workers during 
fiscal year 2000 was 115,000. The period of authorized 
admission was up to 6 years. An earlier 65,000 annual quota was 
raised by the American Competitiveness and Workforce 
Improvement Act of 1998 (``ACWIA)'' after it began to be 
reached before the end of the fiscal year in 1997. Under ACWIA, 
the cap was to drop to 107,500 in fiscal year 2001 and 65,000 
in following years.
    Because of the need of employers to bring H-1B aliens on 
board in the shortest possible time, the H-1B program's 
mechanism for protecting American workers is not a lengthy pre-
arrival review of the availability of suitable American workers 
(such as the labor certification process necessary to obtain 
most employer-sponsored immigrant visas). Instead, an employer 
files a ``labor condition application'' with the Department of 
Labor making certain basic attestations (promises) and the 
Department then investigates complaints alleging noncompliance.
    There are six attestations a petitioning employer must 
make:
     The employer will pay H-1B aliens wages that are 
the higher of the actual wage level paid by the employer to all 
other individuals with similar experience and qualifications 
for the specific employment in question or the prevailing wage 
level for the occupational classification in the area of 
employment, and the employer will provide working conditions 
for H-1B aliens that will not adversely affect those of workers 
similarly employed. Pursuant to ACWIA, an employer must offer 
an H-1B alien benefits and eligibility for benefits on the same 
basis, and in accordance with the same criteria, as the 
employer offers to American workers, and universities and 
certain other employers onlyhave to pay the prevailing wage 
level of employees at similar institutions.
     There is no strike or lockout in the course of a 
labor dispute in the occupational classification at the place 
of employment.
     At the time of the filing of the application, the 
employer has provided notice of the filing to the bargaining 
representative of the employer's employees in the occupational 
classification and area for which the H-1B aliens are sought, 
or if there is no such bargaining representative, the employer 
has posted notice in conspicuous locations at the place of 
employment.
     The application will contain a specification of 
the number of aliens sought, the occupational classification in 
which the aliens will be employed, and the wage rate and 
conditions under which they will be employed.
     Pursuant to ACWIA, two attestations--the no-lay 
off/non-displacement attestation and the recruitment 
attestation--apply to job contractors/shops, defined in the 
bill (for larger companies) as H-1B dependent employers 15% or 
more of whose workforces are composed of H-1B nonimmigrants and 
to employers who have been found to have willfully violated the 
rules of the H-1B program. The H-1B dependent employers (+15%) 
are subject to these attestations in those instances where they 
petition for aliens without masters degrees in their 
specialties or who will not be paid at least $60,000 a year.
     The no-lay off attestations prohibits an employer 
from laying off an American worker from a job that is 
essentially the equivalent of the job for which an H-1B alien 
is sought (involves essentially the same responsibilities, was 
held by a United States worker with substantially equivalent 
qualifications and experience, and is located in the same areas 
of employment) during the period beginning 90 days before and 
ending 90 days after the employer files a visa petition for the 
alien. Additionally, if an H-1B dependent employer places an H-
1B nonimmigrant with another employer and the alien works at 
the other employer's worksite and there are indicia of an 
employment relationship between the alien and the other 
employer, the H-1B dependent employer must inquire with the 
other employer as to whether the other employer will displace 
any American workers with the alien (and receive assurances 
that it will not). Regardless of this inquiry, if it turns out 
that the other employer has so laid off an American worker, the 
placing employer is subject to penalty (not the ``other'' 
employer with which the nonimmigrant is placed).
    The recruitment attestation requires an employer to have 
taken good faith steps to recruit American worker (using 
industry-wide standards) for the job an H-1B alien will perform 
and to offer the job to any American worker who applies and is 
equally or better qualified than the alien.
    These two attestations created by ACWIA have never been 
implemented because the Office of Management and Budget has yet 
to approve final regulations written by the Labor Department.
    Departmental investigations as to whether an employer has 
failed to fulfill its attestations or has misrepresented 
material facts in its application are triggered by complaints 
filed by aggrieved persons or organizations (including 
bargaining representatives). Investigations can be conducted 
where there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has 
occurred. Pursuant to ACWIA, the Labor Department can 
investigate an employer using the H-1B program without having 
received a complaint from an aggrieved party in certain 
circumstances where it receives specific credible information 
that provides reasonable cause to believe that the employer has 
committed a willful failure to meet conditions of the H-1B 
program, has shown a pattern or practice of failing to meet the 
conditions, or has substantially failed to meet the conditions 
in a way that affects multiple employees. In addition, ACWIA 
allows the Labor Department to subject an employer to random 
investigations for up to five years after the employer is found 
to have committed a willful failure to meet the conditions of 
the H-1B program.
    The Labor Department enforces all aspects of the program 
except in instances where an American worker claims that a job 
should have been offered to him or her instead of an H-1B 
alien. In such cases, an arbitrator appointed by the Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service will decide the issue.
    An employer is subject to penalties for failing the 
attestations and for making a misrepresentation of material 
fact in an application. Potential penalties include back pay, 
civil monetary penalties of up to $1,000 per violation (up to 
$5,000 per willful violation, and up to $35,000 per violation 
where a willful violation was committed along with the improper 
layoff of an American worker), and debarment from the H-1B 
program for from one to three years. Whistleblower protection 
is provided to employees.
    Pursuant to ACWIA, a $500 fee per alien is charged to all 
employers except universities and certain other institutions. 
The funds go principally for scholarship assistance for low-
income students studying mathematics, computer science, or 
engineering, for federal job training services, and for 
administrative and enforcement expenses.

            Labor Department Concerns About the H-1B Program

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

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

    The State of the Labor Market for Information Technology Workers

    The INS has found that almost 62% of H-1B aliens now work 
in computer-related occupations. There is a widespread belief 
that the United States is facing a severe shortage of workers 
who are qualified to perform skilled information technology 
jobs. This belief has been fostered, in part, by a number of 
studies designed to document a shortage of information 
technology workers, including Help Wanted: The IT Workforce Gap 
at the Dawn of a New Century (by the Information Technology 
Association of America), America's New Deficit: The Shortage of 
Information Technology Workers (by the U.S. Commerce 
Department), and Help Wanted 1998: A Call for Collaborative 
Action for the New Millennium (by ITAA).
    These studies estimated that there were up to 346,000 
vacancies in information technology professions. However, in 
March of 1998, the U.S. General Accounting Office issued a 
report criticizing the methodology of Help Wanted and America's 
New Deficit. GAO found that ``Commerce's report has serious 
analytical and methodological weaknesses that undermine the 
credibility of its conclusions that a shortage of [information 
technology] workers, exists.''
    Late in 1999, a study sponsored by the United Engineering 
Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation assessed the 
demand for information technology workers. The study concluded 
that ``spot shortages may exist, and strong demand can be seen 
for some kinds of people, but on the whole there is no 
compelling evidence to suggest a national shortage of 
[information technology] workers, either now or in the near 
future,''
    The report looked at indicators such as the facts that 
unemployment among experienced information technology 
professionals has been rising since 1997 and that there was a 
lack of any consistent evidence of unusually strong wage growth 
for such workers that would be consistent with a shortage.
    It is possible that there currently exists a significant 
shortage of information technology workers. The evidence for 
such a shortage is inconclusive. However, because the success 
of our economy is so indebted to advances in computer 
technology, the industry should be given the benefit of the 
doubt. Claims that there is a shortage and that it can only be 
alleviated through an increase of foreign workers through the 
H-1B program should be accepted for the time being.

                       Fraud in the H-1B Program

    The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held a hearing 
on May 5, 1999, in which it was found that widespread fraud 
exists in the H-1B program. Inspector General Jacquelyn 
Williams-Bridgers of the State Department testified that ``[w]e 
have been increasingly faced with more [fraud] allegations and 
cases recently in the H-1B areas.''
    Cases were disclosed at the hearing in which H-1B petitions 
were filed on behalf of paper or front companies and in which 
falsified educational credentials or claims of job experience 
were submitted on behalf of unqualified applicants. INS field 
investigations of suspect H-1B petitioners have identified 
``mail drop'' addresses where no legitimate business activity 
takes place and numerous instances of companies that filed 
fraudulent petitions in exchange for payments by unqualified 
applicants. In many cases, H-1B nonimmigrants turn out not to 
be highly skilled workers. Inspector General Williams-Bridgers 
states that ``[w]hat we are increasingly seeing are cases where 
* * * individual * * * enter the U.S. on the premise that they 
will assume a highly technical job only to find that the 
individuals are low skilled workers, slated for employment as 
janitors or nurse's aides or store clerks in companies that 
have handsomely paid the brokers.''

     H.R. 4227, the Technology Worker Temporary Relief Act of 2000

    H.R. 4227, as reported by the House Judiciary Committee, 
removed the cap on H-1B visas for fiscal years 2000 through 
2002.
    The bill added a number of safeguards for American workers 
to the H-1B program. It provided that the additional visas made 
available over and above current law in fiscal years 2001 and 
2002 would only be available to employers who could demonstrate 
that they had increased the median wage paid to their American 
workers over the previous year. The bill provided that 
employers must pay H-1B aliens at least $40,000 a year unless 
working at universities or public or private elementary or 
secondary schools (new college graduates in 1999 with degrees 
in computer engineering started out earning a median of $46,200 
($45,000 with degrees in electrical and electronics 
engineering, $45,000 with degrees in computer science and 
$40,300 with degrees in computer programming)). The bill also 
required the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of 
the measures taken by employers using the H-1B program to 
recruit for these jobs qualified American workers from 
underrepresented groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics, 
women, and individuals with a disability and to conduct a study 
on the measures taken by employers using the H-1B program to 
continually train and update the existing skills of their 
present employees, and to promote these employees whenever 
possible.
    H.R. 4227 added a number of anti-fraud measures to the H-1B 
program. Among these were provisions to require a college 
degree for all petitioned-for aliens, to require petitioning 
employers to pay a fee of $100 which will be earmarked for H-1B 
anti-fraud work at INS and the State Department, to require 
non-governmental petitioning employers without assets of at 
least $250,000 to provide documentation of their business 
activity and to require that employers utilizing the H-1B 
program provide to the Department of Labor in electronic for 
specified information about each H-1B alien employed (including 
country of origin, academic degree, job title, start date and 
salary level).

S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act 
        of 2000

    The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century 
Act of 2000, as enacted into law, increases the H-1B visa quota 
to 195,000 in fiscal years 2001-03. To ensure that an 
accumulated backlog of petitions does not count against these 
limits, the legislation provides thatpetitions received before 
the end of fiscal year 2000 are to be counted against that year's cap 
(which is to be accordingly increased). The quotas for 2001-03 do not 
apply to H-1B aliens who are employed at or have received offers from 
institutions of higher education or affiliated nonprofit entities or at 
nonprofit research organizations or governmental research 
organizations. If an alien who was counted against the visa cap is 
found to have been issued a visa or provided status by fraud or 
willfully misrepresenting a material fact and the visa or status is 
revoked, then one number shall be restored to the cap in the fiscal 
year in which the petition is revoked.
    S. 2045 provides that aliens employed under H-1B visas can 
accept new employment upon the filing by the prospective 
employer of a new H-1B petition (employment authorization will 
continue until the petition is denied). Prior law required the 
prospective employer's petition to be first approved. The 
legislation also provides that if a petition for an employment 
based immigrant visa has been filed for an alien working under 
an H-1B visa and a year or more has elapsed since the filing of 
the visa (or a labor certification request on the alien's 
behalf), the alien can continue to work under the H-1B visa 
beyond the normal six year limit until such time as the INS has 
made a final decision on the petition.
    Provision of ACWIA due to expire at the end of fiscal year 
2001 are extended through the end of fiscal year 2003.
    S. 2045 makes a number of changes to employment based 
immigrant visa program. First, the per-country limitation on 
the distribution of visas each year in the five employment 
based preference categories is essentially repealed. Second, if 
an employer's immigrant visa petition for an alien worker has 
been filed and remains unadjudicated for at least 180 days, the 
petition shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the 
alien changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same 
or a similar occupational classification as the job for which 
the petition was filed. In addition, an approved labor 
certification will remain valid with respect to such an alien. 
Third, unused employment based visas in fiscal years 1999 and 
2000 will be made available in future fiscal years.
    The legislation modifies the allocation of the $500 per 
alien fee charged to petitioning employers, including setting 
aside some funding for private-public partnerships in K-12 
education. It also modifies the program requirements of the 
fee-funded demonstration programs that provide technical skills 
training for workers.
    The legislation authorizes $20 million in each of fiscal 
years 2001 through 2006 for the ``KIDS 2000 Crime Prevention 
and Computer Education Initiative'' that will provide grants to 
the Boys and Girls Clubs to fund after-school technology 
programs. It also requires that the National Science Foundation 
conduct a study on the ``digital divide''.
    Finally, S. 2045 includes the ``Immigration Services and 
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000.'' This legislation 
requires the INS to take such measures as may be necessary to 
reduce the backlog in the processing of immigration benefits 
applications, with the objective of the total elimination of 
the backlog within one year of enactment and with no 
reoccurrence. Within 90 days after enactment, the Attorney 
General must submit a report to Congress concerning her backlog 
reduction plan. Progress reports (that also describe the 
additional resources and process changes needed) are required 
after each fiscal year in which monies authorized under this 
legislation are appropriated.

H.R. 5362

    This legislation increases the per alien fee on H-1B 
petitions from $500 to $1,000 and extends the fee's life 
through fiscal year 2003. It also extends the fee exemption to 
employers that are primary or secondary educational 
institutions and certain other entities.
            Procedural history
    On February 9, 2000, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 
2045.
    On March 9, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S. 
2045 favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    On April 11, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported 
S. 2045 (S. Rept. 106-260).
    On April 11, 2000, House Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith 
introduced H.R. 4227.
    On April 12, 2000, the House Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims ordered H.R. 4227 reported as amended by voice vote.
    On May 17, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
4227 reported as amended to the House by a vote of 18-11.
    On June 23, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee reported 
H.R. 4227 (H. Rept. 106-692).
    On October 3, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2045 as amended by 
a vote of 96-1.
    On October 3, 2000, the House passed S. 2045 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On October 3, 2000, Representative David Dreier introduced 
H.R. 5362.
    On October 6, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was discharged 
from consideration of H.R. 5362 and the house passed H.R. 5362 
by unanimous consent.
    On October 10, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 5362 by 
unanimous consent.
    On October 17, 2000, the President signed S. 2045 into law 
(Public Law 106-313) and signed H.R. 5362 into law (Public Law 
106-311).

H.R. 4681, to provide for the adjustment of status of certain Syrian 
        nationals

    H.R. 4681 expedites adjustment of status to permanent 
residence for up to 2,000 Syrian Jews who arrived in the United 
States after 1991 and were granted asylum. To accommodate the 
Syrian Government, the U.S. initially admitted the aliens as 
visitors and then granted asylum rather than initially 
admitting them as refugees. This arrangement resulted in long 
delays in their adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, 
because of the 10,000 annual cap on asylee adjustments of 
status.
    On June 15, 2000, Representative Rick Lazio introduced H.R. 
4681.
    On July 11, 2000, the House suspended the rules and passed 
H.R. 4681, as amended, by voice vote.
    On October 13, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4681 by 
unanimous consent.
    On October 27, 2000, the President signed H.R. 4681 into 
law (Public Law 106-378).

H.R. 3244, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000

    H.R. 3244 combats trafficking of persons, especially into 
the sex trade and slavery in the United States and countries 
around the world through prosecution of traffickers and through 
protection and assistance to victims of trafficking.
    H.R. 3244 creates a new nonimmigrant ``T'' visa for persons 
who: (1) are victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons 
(sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by 
force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to 
perform such acts has not attained 18 years of age or the 
recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining 
of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, 
fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary 
servitude, peonage, debt bondage or slavery), (2) are in the 
United States or at a United States port of entry on account of 
such trafficking, (3) have complied with any reasonable request 
for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of 
trafficking or have not attained 15 years of age, and (4) would 
suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon 
removal from the United States. H.R. 3244 also permits the 
Attorney General to grant a ``T'' visa, if necessary to avoid 
extreme hardship, to the victim's spouse, children, and parents 
if the victim is under 21 years of age, and the victim's spouse 
and children if the victim is 21 years of age or older.
    H.R. 3244 precludes anyone from receiving a ``T'' visa if 
there is substantial reason to believe that the person has 
committed an act of a severe form of trafficking in persons. It 
also places an annual cap of 5,000 on ``T'' visas for 
trafficking victims. The legislation permits the Attorney 
General to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility.
    H.R. 3244 requires the Attorney General to grant a 
trafficking victim authorization to engage in employment in the 
United States during the period the alien is in lawful 
temporary resident status as a trafficking victim. H.R. 3244 
states that the INS is not prohibited from instituting removal 
proceedings against an alien admitted with a ``T'' visa for 
conduct committed after the alien's admission into the United 
States, or for conduct or a condition that was not disclosed to 
the Attorney General prior to the alien's admission.
    H.R. 3244 permits the Attorney General to adjust the status 
of a ``T'' visa holder to that of a permanent resident if the 
alien: (1) has been physically present in the United States for 
a continuous period of at least three years since the date of 
admission, (2) has throughout such period been a person of good 
moral character, and (3) has, during such period, complied with 
any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or 
prosecution of acts of trafficking, or would suffer extreme 
hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal from 
the United States. H.R. 3244 also permits the Attorney General 
to adjust the status of the victim's spouse, parent, or child, 
if admitted with a ``T'' visa, to that of an alien lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence. The Attorney General may 
waive certain grounds of inadmissibility. An annual cap of 
5,000 is placed on adjustments of status for trafficking 
victims.
    Finally, H.R. 3244 excludes significant traffickers, 
persons who knowingly assist them, and their spouses, sons, or 
daughters who knowingly benefit from the proceeds of their 
trafficking activities from entry into the United States. A son 
or daughter who was a child at the time he or she received the 
benefit is exempt from such exclusion from the United States.
    On November 8, 1999, Representative Chris Smith introduced 
H.R. 3244.
    On November 8, 1999, the International Relations Committee 
ordered H.R. 3244 reported by voice vote.
    On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims reported H.R. 3244 as amended to the Judiciary Committee 
by voice vote.
    On April 4, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 3244 
as amended reported to the House by voice vote.
    On April 13, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
3244 (H. Rept. 106-487, part II).
    On April 14, 2000, the Banking and Financial Services 
Committee was discharged from consideration of H.R. 3244.
    On May 9, 2000, the Ways and Means Committee's time for 
consideration expired.
    On May 9, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3244 as amended under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On July 27, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 3244 as amended by 
unanimous consent and appoints conferees.
    On September 14, 2000, the House agreed to conference and 
instructed conferees by voice vote regarding immigration 
provisions.
    On September 14, 2000, the Speaker appointed House 
conferees.
    On October 5, 2000, the conference report was filed (H. 
Rept. 106-939) and conferees agreed to conference report.
    On October 6, 2000, the House passed a rule and agreed to 
the conference report by a vote of 371-1.
    On October 11, 2000, the Senate agreed to the conference 
report by a vote of 95-0.
    On October 28, 2000, the President signed H.R. 3244 into 
law (Public Law 106-386).

H.R. 3244, the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000

    H.R. 3244 creates the term ``intended spouse,'' which is 
defined as the spouse of a United States citizen or lawful 
permanent resident whose marriage is not legitimate because of 
bigamy by the United States citizen or lawful permanent 
resident. Intended spouses who have been battered or abused may 
self-petition for visas.
    H.R. 3244 allows an alien whose United States citizen or 
lawful permanent resident spouse, intended spouse, or parent 
has died, lost citizenship or resident status due to domestic 
abuse, or divorced within the past two years, to self-petition 
for visas and cancellation of removal, without adversely 
affecting the classification of the alien. The legislation also 
permits abused spouses, intended spouses, and children of 
United States citizens and lawful permanent residents living 
abroad to self-petition for visas. It permits the Attorney 
General to find that a self-petitioner has good moral character 
if the petitioner's act or conviction for domestic abuse was 
connected to thepetitioner having been abused. It also allows 
an applicant who filed a self-petition before reaching 21 years of age 
to continue to pursue the application after turning 21 years old. Such 
applicants may also receive work authorization and deferred action.
    H.R. 3244 permits abused aliens who were married to United 
States citizens, but divorced, to naturalize in three years. It 
also requires the Attorney General to parole into the United 
States a child of an abused alien granted suspension of 
deportation or cancellation of removal and a parent of an 
abused alien child granted such relief.
    H.R. 3244 creates a waiver for aliens unlawfully present in 
the United States after previous immigration violations if an 
alien has been granted a self-petition and there was a 
connection between the abuse of the alien and the alien's 
removal, departure from the United States, reentry or reentries 
into the United States, or attempted reentry into the United 
States.
    H.R. 3244 permits the Attorney General to waive the 
application of a crime of domestic abuse if the abused alien 
was not the primary perpetrator of violence, did not commit 
serious bodily injury, and there was a connection between the 
abused alien's crime and the alien having been abused. It also 
extends the waivers for misrepresentation, health-related 
grounds, and certain crimes for battered spouses of United 
States citizens and lawful permanent residents who have self-
petition visas.
    The legislation requires the Attorney General to submit an 
annual report to Congress detailing the INS policy regarding 
abused aliens and removal proceedings, the number of requests 
filed under the policy, the number of requests granted, and the 
average length of time an abused alien must wait before 
appearing before an immigration judge to apply for relief from 
deportation.
    H.R. 3244 enables abused aliens eligible to self-petition 
for permanent residence to adjust their status, regardless of 
whether they are illegal aliens. In removal cases of abused 
aliens, the legislation ends using the notice to appear date in 
terminating continuous physical presence. It also eliminates 
time limitations on motions to reopen removal and deportation 
proceedings for victims of domestic abuse. It eliminates 
remarriage of an abused alien with a self-petition visa as a 
basis for revocation of the visa.
    H.R. 3244 allows abused alien spouses and children of Cuban 
Adjustment Act, Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American 
Relief Act, and Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act 
applicants to self-petition for the respective relief.
    Finally, the legislation creates a new ``U'' nonimmigrant 
visa classification for victims of domestic abuse who are 
helpful to authorities investigating or prosecuting such 
criminal activity. The Attorney General is given the discretion 
to convert the status of nonimmigrants to that of permanent 
residents for humanitarian grounds, family unity, or when it is 
in the public interest.
    On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 3083, the ``Battered Immigrant 
Women Protection Act of 1999''. Testimony was received from 
Representative Janice Schakowsky; Barbara Strack, Acting 
Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Dwayne ``Duke'' Austin, 
Former INS Senior Spokesman; Jackie Rishty, Staff Attorney, 
Catholic Charities; Leslye Orloff, Director, Immigrant Women 
Program, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Maria Ortiz, 
Shelter for Abused Women; Bree Buchanan, Director of Public 
Policy, Texas Council on Family Violence.
    On October 5, 2000, the ``Violence Against Women Act of 
2000'' was included as Division B of the conference report for 
H.R. 3244, the ``Trafficking Victims Protection Act''. Title V 
of Division B was the ``Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act 
of 2000''.
    [See above entry for H.R. 3244]

H.R. 2883, the Adopted Citizenship Act of 2000

    Under prior law, a child born abroad to two U.S. citizen 
parents was considered a U.S. citizen at birth as long as one 
of the parents had had a residence in the United States prior 
to the birth of the child. In addition, a child born abroad to 
a U.S. citizen and an alien parent was considered a U.S. 
citizen at birth if the U.S. citizen parent was, prior to the 
birth of the child, physically present in the United States for 
a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least 
two of which were after attaining the age of 14. However, if 
American parents adopted a foreign child, or if a child born 
abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) was not considered a citizen 
at birth, the child arrived in the United States a permanent 
resident and a parent had to apply for a certificate of 
naturalization for the child to become a citizen.
    H.R. 2883 provides for automatic citizenship for foreign-
born adopted children when they enter the United States--but 
not retroactively to birth. The bill provides the same 
automatic citizenship upon entry to the United States for 
foreign-born children of a U.S. citizen(s) who are not 
considered citizens at birth under current law. And the bill 
utilizes this same process for children receiving citizenship 
on the basis of a parent(s) naturalizing.
    The bill provides that a child automatically becomes a U.S. 
citizen when the following conditions are met: (1) at least one 
parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether 
by birth or naturalization, (2) the child is under 18, and (3) 
the child is residing in the United States in the legal and 
physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful 
admission for permanent residence. In the case of an adopted 
child, the adoption must meet the requirements of current 
immigration law. The bill does reserve a certificate of 
naturalization process when the foreign-born will reside 
outside of the United States.
    The bill also provides a limited class of aliens with 
exemptions from the penalties in the Immigration and 
Nationality Act and title 18 of the United States Code 
governing illegal voting in federal, state, or local elections 
and false claims of citizenship by aliens for the purpose of 
registering to vote or to procure benefits under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or any other federal or state 
laws. In some cases, individuals may have a reasonable--if 
mistaken--belief that they were citizens of the United States. 
This could have occurred with foreign-born children brought to 
the United States at a young age whose parents did not realize 
that the children did not become citizens automatically. The 
enactment of H.R. 2883 and its expansion of automatic 
citizenship to more foreign-born children of U.S. citizens will 
greatly reduce in the future the number of cases in which such 
a mistake can be made.
    If an alien can show that (1) each natural or adoptive 
parent of the alien is or was a citizen of the United States, 
(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to 
attaining the age of 16, and (3) the alien reasonably believed 
at the time of voting or falsely claiming citizenship (to 
obtain an immigration or other benefit under federal or state 
law) that he or she was a citizen of the United States, the 
alien is protected against a finding that the alien was not of 
good moral character (among other things, a bar to 
naturalization), and is protected against being considered 
inadmissible or deportable. In addition, an alien who meets 
this standard shall not be subject to prosecution under 
sections 611 and 1015 of title 18.
    On September 21, 1999, Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 2883, which dealt 
solely with foreign-born adopted children and provided that 
once brought to the United States by their U.S. citizen 
parent(s) they would be considered citizens at birth.
    On February 15, 2000, Representative William Delahunt 
introduced H.R. 3667.
    On February 17, 2000, The Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2883. Testimony was received from 
Gerri Ratliff, Director of Business Process and Reengineering 
Immigration Services Division and Acting Director of the Office 
of Congressional Relations, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization 
Service; Edward A. Betancourt, Director of the Office of Policy 
Review and Interagency Liaison, Overseas Citizens Services, 
Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. State Department; Susan Soon-
Keum Cox, Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs, 
Holt International Children's Services; and Ms. Maureen Evans, 
Executive Director, Joint Council on International Children's 
Services.
    On July 11, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims reported H.R. 2883 to the Judiciary Committee by voice 
vote.
    On July 26, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 2883 
reported to the House as amended by voice vote.
    On September 14, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported 
H.R. 2883 (H. Rept. 106-852).
    On September 19, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2883 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On October 12, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 2883 by 
unanimous consent.
    On October 30, 2000, the President signed H.R. 2883 into 
law (Public Law 106-395).

H.r. 3767, the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act

    The Visa Waiver Pilot Program allows aliens traveling from 
certain designated countries to come to the United States as 
temporary visitors for business or pleasure without having to 
obtain the nonimmigrant visa normally required to enter the 
United States. There are currently 29 countries participating 
in this program. The Attorney General, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, has the authority to designate countries to 
the program. To qualify for admission to the program, a country 
must extend reciprocal visa-free entry privileges to U.S. 
citizens, have a low (less than 3 percent) nonimmigrant visa 
refusal rate and have or be developing a machine readable 
passport. Finally, the admission of the country to the program 
must not compromise U.S. law enforcement interests.
    Since its initial enactment as a temporary program in 1986, 
the Visa Waiver Pilot Program has been regularly extended by 
Congress. The latest extension expired on April 30, 2000. H.R. 
3767 makes the visa waiver program permanent. The program is of 
great importance to the U.S. travel and tourism industry and 
provides benefits to American citizens (through reciprocity) 
who travel abroad. Additionally, without the program, U.S. 
taxpayers would have to bear the burden of restaffing 
Department of State consular offices to issue visas to the 
millions of visitors who currently enter through the program.
    H.R. 3767 makes certain changes to the program that will 
ensure that it in the future not pose a threat to the safety 
and well-being of the United States or allows large numbers of 
aliens to use the program to circumvent immigration laws
     The legislation strengthens the requirement that 
participating countries develop a program to issue machine 
readable passports to its citizens by establishing a October 1, 
2003, date certain by which all countries currently in the 
program to implement a machine readable passport (meeting 
internationally-set criteria). Additionally, beginning on 
October 1, 2007, all aliens seeking admission under the program 
must have a valid unexpired machine-readable passport. A 
machine readable passport allows INS officials to use their 
limited time to evaluate aliens seeking admission rather than 
simply inputting data.
     The legislation requires that the INS check the 
identity of aliens seeking admission under the program with 
automated electronic databases containing information about 
inadmissible aliens. The INS and State Department must develop 
a system that permits them to share data in electronic form 
from their respective records systems.
     The legislation requires the INS to develop a 
fully automated system for tracking the entry and departure of 
visa waiver travelers entering by air and sea.
     The legislation establishes procedures for 
periodic reviews of countries already in the program and for 
suspending a country's participation in the program during 
emergency situations such as the overthrow of a democratically 
elected government, war on the country's territory, economic 
collapse, or a breakdown in law and order. Such procedures are 
designed to ensure that the visa waiver program does not pose a 
threat to the law enforcement and security interests of the 
United States and to minimize the possibility that aliens 
admitted under the program do not leave the United States at 
the conclusion of their authorized terms of stay.
    H.R. 3767 allows corporate aircraft to utilize the visa 
waiver program under the same conditions and with the same 
safeguards as may commercial air carriers. And it requires that 
the State Department provide Congress with visa refusal data 
regarding countries under consideration for inclusion in the 
visa waiver program that has not been manipulated by consular 
officers so as to favor a country's qualification.
    H.R. 3767 includes additional provisions not relating to 
the visa waiver program. The first deals with the immigration 
law consequences of the privatization of INTELSAT, the 
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization. Prior 
to privatization, foreign INTELSAT employeesin the United 
States received ``G-4'' nonimmigrant visas which are available to 
officers and employees (and their family members) of international 
organizations. Such employees (and their family members) are eligible 
for permanent residence upon retirement (and under certain other 
circumstances) pursuant to the special immigrant visa program.
    Without legislative action, INTELSAT's foreign employees 
would be forced to leave the United States upon the entity's 
privatization. H.R. 4767 provides that foreign employees (and 
their family members) who worked for INTELSAT in the United 
States for at least six months prior to privatization can 
continue to use their G-4 visas for as long as they work for 
INTELSAT or a successor or separated entity. The legislation 
further provides that these foreign employees (and their 
families) can continue to make use of the special immigrant 
visa program despite INTELSAT's privatization. Finally, it 
provides that those qualifying foreign employees of INTELSAT 
who work in a managerial or executive capacity may seek 
permanent residence under the multinational executive and 
manager employment based immigrant visa program.
    H.R. 3767 extends the lengths of the regional center pilot 
program of the employment creation immigrant visa program 
through October 1, 2003. This pilot program sets aside 3,000 
visas a year for aliens investing in regional centers that 
promote economic growth. Under the pilot as amended by this 
bill, qualifying regional centers may create jobs indirectly 
through revenues generated from increased exports, improved 
regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic 
capital investment.
    H.R. 3767 modifies the program set up under the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to 
collect information on alien post-secondary students and 
exchange visitors. IIRIRA required the implementation (first as 
a pilot program) of a system which would collect electronically 
information from schools on foreign students including identity 
and address, current academic status and any disciplinary 
action taken by a school against a student as a result of the 
commission of a crime. The system is soon to go into effect 
nationwide. The legislation clarifies that the fee funding this 
program shall be collected by the Attorney General prior to the 
issuance of a visa, and not by the institution of higher 
education or exchange visitor program when the alien registers 
or first commences activities. In addition, it provides that 
aliens subject to the program who are admitted under ``J'' 
exchange visas as au pairs, camp counselors, or participants in 
summer work travel programs shall pay a fee of no more than $40 
[later reduced to $35; see H.R. 4942].
    Finally, H.R. 3767 provides that employers utilizing the H-
1B program do not have to file amended petitions for alien 
workers as a result of their being involved in corporate 
restructurings, including but not limited to mergers, 
acquisitions, or consolidations, where new corporate entities 
succeed to the interest and obligations of the original 
employers and where the terms and conditions of employment 
remain the same.
    On March 1, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 3767.
    On April 4, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 3767 
reported to the House as amended by voice vote.
    On April 6, 2000, the Judiciary Committed reported H.R. 
3767 (H. Rept. 106-564).
    On April 11, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3767 as amended 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On October 3, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 3767 as amended 
by unanimous consent.
    On October 10, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3767 as amended 
by the Senate under suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
    On October 30, 2000, the President signed H.R. 3767 into 
law (Public Law 106-396).

H.R. 2961, the International Patient Act of 2000

    H.R. 2961 creates a three year pilot program under which 
the Attorney General may extend the period of voluntary 
departure in the case of certain aliens who require medical 
treatment in the United States and were admitted under the visa 
waiver program.
    Under the visa waiver program, a visit cannot exceed 90 
days, and no extensions are available. The only relief that the 
INS can offer an alien admitted under the visa waiver program 
who has a compelling need to remain in the U.S. for more than 
90 days is to authorize the alien to depart voluntarily after a 
specified period of time pursuant to section 240B of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. This section allows the 
Attorney General to permit an alien who otherwise is no longer 
authorized to remain in the United States to depart voluntarily 
at the alien's own expense in lieu of being placed in removal 
proceedings or prior to the completion of such proceedings. 
However, the period of time after which the alien must depart 
can not exceed 120 days. Thus, an alien admitted under the visa 
waiver program who faces an emergency situation can be 
authorized to remain in the United States only for 120 days 
beyond the initial 90-day admission.
    H.R. 2961 establishes a pilot program authorizing the 
Attorney General to waive the 120-day cap on voluntary 
departure for a limited number of patients and attending family 
members who enter the U.S. under the visa waiver program. An 
alien seeking a waiver would be required to provide a 
comprehensive statement from the attending physician detailing 
the treatment sought and the alien's anticipated length of stay 
in the U.S. In addition, the alien and attending family members 
would be required to provide proof of their ability to pay for 
the treatment and their daily living expenses. The bill caps 
the total number of waivers at 300 annually and limits the 
number of family members who can enjoy the benefits of a 
waiver. The bill also requires the INS to provide Congress with 
an annual report detailing the number of waivers granted each 
fiscal year and provides for the suspension of the Attorney 
General's authority to authorize such waivers during any period 
in which an annual reports is past due.
    On September 28, 1999, Representative Ken Bentsen 
introduced H.R. 2961.
    On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims reported H.R. 2961 to the Judiciary Committee by voice 
vote.
    On October 5, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
2961 reported to the House by voice vote.
    On July 11, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
2961 (H. Rept. 106-721).
    On July 18, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2961 under 
suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
    On October 19, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 2961 by 
unanimous consent.
    On November 1, 2000, the President signed H.R. 2961 into 
law (Public Law 106-406).
H.R. 4068, the Religious Workers Act of 2000
    ``Special immigrant'' visas (9,940 each year) are available 
for a number of different categories of aliens. One such 
category is religious worker. An alien (along with spouse and 
children) can qualify for a special immigrant visa if the alien 
has been a member for the immediately preceding two years of a 
religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious 
organization in the United States and seeks to enter the United 
States to (1) Serve as a minister, (2) serve in a professional 
capacity in a religious vocation or occupation at the request 
of the organization, or (3) serve in a religious vocation or 
occupation at the request of the organization, and in each case 
has been carrying out such work continuously for at least the 
prior two years. The two non-minister categories are limited to 
5,000 visas a year and were set to sunset on October 1, 2000. 
H.R. 4068, the ``Religious Workers Act of 2000,'' extends the 
sunset date to October 1, 2003.
    On March 23, 2000, Representative Edward Pease introduced 
H.R. 4068.
    On September 19, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4068 under 
suspension of the rules by a voice vote.
    On October 19, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4068 by 
unanimous consent.
    On November 1, 2000, the President signed H.R. 4068 into 
law (Public Law 106-409).
Indochinese Adjustment Act
    The ``Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2001,'' which the President signed 
into law on November 6, 2000 (Public Law 106-429), permits 
Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians who were paroled into the 
United States by October 1, 1997, to apply for adjustment of 
status. The provision waives certain grounds of 
inadmissibility. The number of adjustments is limited to 5,000.
S. 2812, waiver of oath of renunciation and allegiance for 
        naturalization of aliens having certain disabilities
    The Act provides a waiver of the oath of renunciation and 
allegiance for naturalization if in the opinion of the Attorney 
General the applicants are unable to understand, or to 
communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of 
physical or developmental disabilities or mental impairments.
    On June 29, 2000, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 2812.
    On July 12, 2000, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 
introduced H.R. 4838, an identical bill to S. 2812.
    On July 20, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S. 
2812 reported to the Senate.
    On July 21, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2812 by unanimous 
consent.
    On October 10, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4838 as amended 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote, inserted the 
language into S. 2812 in lieu of its Senate-passed language, 
and then passed S. 2812 by unanimous consent.
    On October 19, 2000, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment to S. 2812 by unanimous consent.
    On November 6, 2000, the President signed S. 2812 into law 
(Public Law 106-448).
S. 484, the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000
    S. 484 requires the Attorney General to provide refugee 
status to any alien (and his or her parent, spouse, or child) 
who is a national of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, or any of 
the independent states of the former Soviet Union, who 
personally delivers into the custody of the U.S. government a 
living American prisoner of war from the Vietnam War. It grants 
similar status to any alien and his or her family members who 
are nationals of North Korea, China, or the independent states 
of the former Soviet Union, who delivers a living American 
prisoner of war from the Korean War.
    On February 25, 1999, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell 
introduced S. 484.
    On May 18, 2000 the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered S. 
484 favorably reported to the Senate.
    On May 24, 2000, the Senate passed S. 484 as amended by 
unanimous consent.
    On May 25, 1999, Representative Joel Hefley introduced a 
similar bill (H.R. 1926).
    On October 24, 2000, the House Judiciary and International 
Relations Committees were discharged from consideration of S. 
484.
    On October 24, 2000, the House passed S. 484 by unanimous 
consent.
    On November 9, 2000 the President signed into law (Public 
Law 106-484).
S. 3239, to provide special immigrant status for certain United States 
        international broadcasting employees
    S. 3239 makes available 100 special immigrant visas a year 
for broadcasters at the Voice of America, Radio Liberty, Radio 
Free Europe, Radio Marti, Radio Free Iraq, Radio Free Asia and 
other international broadcasting services of the Broadcasting 
Board of Governors.
    On October 25, 2000, Senator Jesse Helms introduced S. 
3239.
    On October 25, 2000, the Senate passed S. 3239 by unanimous 
consent.
    On October 31, 2000, the House passed S. 3239 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On November 22, 2000, the President signed S. 3239 into law 
(Public Law 106-536).
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act
    Title XI of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2001'', contained in H.R. 4942, the ``District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act, 2001'', which the President signed into law 
on December 21, 2000 (Public Law 106-554), as modified by title 
XV of division B of the ``Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 
2001,'' contained in H.R. 4942, includes the Legal Immigration 
Family Equity Act.''
    There are more than one million spouses and minor children 
of permanent resident aliens who are on a waiting list for the 
limited number of immigrant visas available to them each year. 
Currently, they must wait for up to six years for visas to 
become available, making them endure longseparations from their 
loved ones (as they generally cannot visit the United States while on 
the waiting list).
    The LIFE Act creates a new nonimmigrant ``V'' visa for such 
spouses and children who have waited at least three years for 
their immigrant visas that they can continue their wait while 
living in the United States with their husbands or wives and 
their parents. A V visa is available if (1) An immigrant visa 
petition (filed on or before the date of enactment) has been 
pending for three years, (2) an immigrant visa petition (filed 
on or before the date of enactment) has been approved but the 
alien is still on the waiting list for an immigrant visa, or 
(3) an immigrant visa petition (filed on or before the date of 
enactment) has been approved but an application for an 
immigrant visa is still pending. The Attorney General may grant 
V visa holders work authorization.
    If the immigrant's visa petition, application for immigrant 
visa, or adjustment of status application is denied, a V visa 
holder's period of authorized admission ends 30 days after the 
denial. Entry without admission, unlawful presence, and certain 
other grounds of inadmissibility do not apply to V visa 
applicants.
    Even though an unlimited number of visas are available each 
year for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, 
citizens who marry foreigners overseas must wait for up to 18 
months before their spouses can join them in the United States 
while the INS processes the applications. To remedy this 
hardship, the LIFE Act makes available ``K'' nonimmigrant visas 
to aliens (and their minor children) who have concluded valid 
marriages with United States citizens, are the beneficiaries of 
visa petitions, and seek to enter the U.S. to await approval of 
the visa petitions. If the immigrant visa petition or the 
adjustment of status application based on such petition is 
denied, the alien's period of authorized admission ends 30 days 
after the denial.
    About 400,000 ``late amnesty'' aliens claim that they met 
the conditions set out for amnesty under the Immigration Reform 
and Control Act of 1986 and yet were wrongly prevented by the 
INS from receiving amnesty. After the IRCA application deadline 
for amnesty passed, these aliens filed class action lawsuits 
claiming that the INS wrongly refused to accept their 
applications or discouraged them from applying for amnesty even 
though they met the amnesty's requirements. The LIFE Act allows 
those aliens who were members of the Catholic Social Services 
v. Reno, LULAC v. INS, and Zambrano v. INS class action 
lawsuits to apply anew for the IRCA amnesty during the one year 
period following the issuance of final regulations implementing 
this provision. If such aliens can show that they meet IRCA's 
requirements for amnesty (primarily, that they entered the U.S. 
before January 1, 1982, and resided continuously as unlawful 
aliens through May 4, 1988, have not been convicted of any 
felony or of three or more misdemeanors in the United States, 
and possess basic citizenship skills), they will be granted 
permanent residence. The LIFE Act requires the Attorney General 
to establish a process for eligible applicants to apply from 
abroad. The Act also grants spouses and unmarried children (who 
entered the U.S. before December 1, 1988, and resided in the 
U.S. on such date) relief from certain grounds of removal and 
authorizes them to work. The Attorney General shall establish 
an application process for eligible spouses and unmarried 
children living abroad.
    The LIFE Act also restores ``section 245(i)'' for a 
temporary period. Section 245(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act was adopted on a temporary basis in 1994. It 
allowed aliens who were eligible for an immigrant visa but who 
were illegally present in the United States to adjust their 
status in the United States upon payment of a penalty fee. In 
the absence of section 245(i), such aliens must pursue their 
visa applications at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the 
United States and are potentially subject to the three and 10 
year bars on admissibility instituted by section 301(b) of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 
(Public Law 105-119) sunsetted section 245(i) as of January 14, 
1998. However, it allowed aliens who had applications for 
immigrant visas filed on their behalf before this date to be 
processed under section 245(i) regardless of the date of 
processing. The LIFE Act further extends this ``grandfather'' 
clause. The LIFE Act permits aliens who are present in the 
United States by its date of enactment and who have an 
immigrant visa petition filed on their behalf on or before 
April 30, 2001, to utilize section 245(i). This requirement 
will ensure that section 245(i) will not encourage further 
illegal immigration. The LIFE Act also provides that 245(i) 
fees received on behalf of aliens grandfathered under the Act 
shall (after up to $200 is deducted for the alien's processing 
costs) be equally split between the Breached Bond/Detention 
Fund and the Immigration Examinations Fee Account.
    The LIFE Act also makes minor modifications to immigration 
law regarding aliens eligible for relief under the Nicaraguan 
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 and the 
Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998. The LIFE Act 
provides that Nicaraguan, Cubans and Haitians eligible for 
adjustment of status to permanent residence under NACARA and 
HRIFA may receive this relief despite having been previously 
removed under an order of removal and may make one motion to 
reopen exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings to apply 
for such adjustment notwithstanding time and number limitations 
on motions to reopen. The LIFE Act also provides that aliens 
(primarily from El Salvador and Guatemala) who were the 
beneficiaries of special rules for suspension of deportation 
and cancellation of removal under NACARA may also receive 
relief despite having been previously removed under an order of 
removal and may make one motion to reopen deportation or 
removal proceedings to apply for such relief notwithstanding 
time and number limitations on motions to reopen.

Program to collect information relating to nonimmigrant foreign 
        students and other exchange program participants

    Section 110 of the general provisions--Department of 
Justice of title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2001,'' contained in H.R. 4942, ``District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act, 2001'', which the President signed into law 
on December 21, 2000 (Public Law 106-554), modifies the program 
set up under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 to collect information on alien 
post-secondary students and exchange visitors. The provision 
provides that aliens subject to the program who are admitted 
under ``J'' exchange visas as au pairs, camp counselors, or 
participants in summer work travel programs shall pay a fee of 
no more than $35.

Genealogy fee

    Section 112 of the general provisions--Department of 
Justice of title I of the ``Departmentsof Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2001,'' contained in H.R. 4942, ``District of Columbia Appropriations 
Act, 2001'', which the President signed into law on December 21, 2000 
(Public Law 106-554), establishes a genealogy fee for providing 
genealogy research and information services.

Premium fee for employment-based petitions and applications

    Section 112 of the general provisions--Department of 
Justice of title I of the ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2001,'' contained in H.R. 4942, ``District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act, 2001'', which the President signed into law 
on December 21, 2000 (Public Law 106-554), authorizes the 
Attorney General to establish a $1,000 fee (in addition to any 
normal petition/application fee) that will be used to provide 
premium processing services to employers submitting employment-
based petitions and applications who meet certain criteria.

                                 CLAIMS

H.R. 456

    H.R. 456 would make $100,000 payments to each of the 
survivors of the Americans who were killed on April 14, 1994, 
when two United States helicopters were shot down over Iraq, so 
as to provide those survivors with payments similar to the 
payments already made by the Department of Defense to the 
survivors of foreign nationals killed in the same incident.
    On April 14, 1994, two American Blackhawk helicopters on a 
humanitarian mission in the no-fly zone of Iraq were shot down 
by two American F-15 fighter planes when the helicopters were 
mistakenly identified as Iraqi helicopters. There were 15 
Americans (14 active military and one State Department 
employee) and 11 foreign nationals aboard the helicopters. 
There were no survivors. The Kurd foreign nationals killed in 
the shootdown were employed by the United States. Therefore, 
their families received compensation under the Federal 
Employees Compensation Act. A decision was made by the 
Secretary of Defense, under authority provided in 10 U.S.C. 
127, to provide compensation beyond those benefits that when 
combined with their FECA benefits would total $100,000. The 
foreign military families received an ex gratia payment of 
$100,000 from the Secretary of Defense with no offset for any 
other benefits. No such payments was made to the families of 
the Americans killed in the shootdown. The law does not provide 
a mechanism for this type of payment to the American families 
of active military personnel. The Military Claims Act provides 
that a claim for personal injury or death is not allowed by or 
on behalf of U.S. active duty personnel if that injury or death 
is incident to service. Further, suit by or on behalf of active 
duty personnel against the Government for damages arising from 
government action or inaction is precluded because of the 
doctrine of Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950).
    There has been no other situation where both American 
government employees (military and civilian) and foreign 
nationals were killed in the same incident and the Secretary 
has made ex gratia payments to the families of the foreign 
nationals. The Committee thoroughly reviewed the arguments put 
forth by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice 
concerning need for uniformity of benefits for all Americans 
serving their country and the setting of a precedent that would 
lead to bills in the future based on friendly fire incidents. 
While respecting the need to provide uniform treatment to all 
our military and government employees, the Committee found that 
this standard was compromised by the Secretary of Defense when 
he made the ex gratia payments. The Committee concluded that 
this case was unique because it is the only friendly fire 
incident where the Secretary of the Defense Department chose to 
make ex gratia payments to the families of the foreign 
nationals killed in the same incidents with Americans. The 
Committee provided this remedy based solely on the fact ex 
gratia payments were made from the Secretary of Defense's 
discretionary funds to the foreign nationals' survivors.
    On February 2, 1999, Representative Mac Collins introduced 
H.R. 456.
    On May 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held a hearing on H.R. 456 (The Subcommittee also held hearings 
in the 105th and 106th Congresses.). Testimony was received 
from U.S. Representative Mac Collins; U.S. Representative Mark 
Udall; Captain Elliott L. Bloxom, Director of Compensation, 
Military Personnel Policy, Office of Under Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness), Department of Defense; Donald M. 
Remy, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 
Department of Justice; and Mrs. Georgia Bergmann.
    On June 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims reported H.R. 456 as amended to the Judiciary Committee 
by voice vote.
    On July 20, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered reported 
H.R. 456 to the House as amended by voice vote.
    On July 29, 1999, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 456 
(H. Rept. 106-270).
    The text of the bill was enacted into law as part of H.R. 
3194, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000'', 
which the President signed into law on November 29, 1999 
(Public Law 106-113).

S. 1515--Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000

    The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 was enacted 
to affirm the responsibility of the federal government to 
compensate individuals who were harmed by radioactive fallout 
from atomic testing, or were harmed by being a test site 
participant, or in the mining of the uranium necessary for the 
production of nuclear weapons. S. 1515 amends the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act to revise eligibility requirements 
for claims relating to: (1) leukemia contracted as a result of 
atmospheric nuclear testing as well as expansion of the areas 
in States affected, (2) uranium mining as it pertains to 
individuals employed in the milling and transport of uranium 
ore or vanadium-uranium ore and the States in which they are 
eligible, (3) written documentation of pertinent diagnoses and 
modification of the diseases which constitute a condition 
covered under the Act, (4) determination and payment of claims, 
(5) application of Native American law and Native American 
consideration to claims, and (6) resubmittal of previously 
denied claims. It also revises the limitations on attorney fees 
for services rendered in connection with a claim. The ten 
percent maximum fee included in the original Act is replaced 
with an applicable percentage consisting of two percent for the 
filing of an initial claim and ten percent for any claim for 
which a service contract had already been entered into prior to 
enactment or for any resubmittal of a denied claim. The General 
Accounting Office is directed to periodically submit a status 
report to Congress on the implementation of the Act. The Public 
Service Health Service Act is amended to establish aprogram of 
grants to Federal, State or local medical centers, or nonprofit 
organizations for education, prevention, and early detection of 
radiogenic cancers and diseases. Appropriations are authorized for FY 
2000-2010.
    On August 5, 1999, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 1515.
    On November 2, 1999, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered 
S. 1515 reported as amended to the Senate.
    On November 19, 1999, S. 1515 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On May 24, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee ordered S. 
1515 reported as amended by voice vote.
    On June 26, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee reported S. 
1515 (H. Rept. 106-697).
    On June 27, 2000, the House passed S. 1515 as amended under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On June 28, 2000, the Senate passed S. 1515 as amended by 
the House by unanimous consent.
    On July 10, 2000, the President signed S. 1515 into law 
(Public Law 106-245).

                   Action on Other Public Legislation


             legislation passed by the house and the senate

H. Con. Res. 122, recognizing the United States Border Patrol's 
        seventy-five years of service since its founding

    On May 27, 1999, Representative Silvestre Reyes introduced 
H. Con. Res. 122, recognizing the United States Border Patrol's 
seventy-five years of service since its founding.
    On November 10, 1999, the House suspended the rules and 
passed H. Con. Res. 122 by voice vote.
    On November 19, 1999, the Senate passed H. Con. Res. 122 by 
unanimous consent.

                    Legislation Passed by the House


                              immigration

H.R. 3879, the Sierra Leone Peace Support Act of 2000

    Section 8 of this bill as introduced would have granted 
nationals of Sierra Leone who had been continuously physically 
present in the United States since January 1, 1998, temporary 
protected status under section 244 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act until such time as the President certified that 
conditions were sufficiently improved to allow them to return. 
The bill as passed by the House did not contain this provision.
    On March 9, 2000, Representative Sam Gejdenson introduced 
H.R. 3879.
    On April 13, 2000, the International Relations Committee 
ordered H.R. 3879 reported as amended to the House.
    On May 3, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was discharged from 
consideration of H.R. 3879.
    On May 3, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3879 as amended under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.

H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000

    H.R. 4678 was designed to improve the collection and 
distribution of child support payments, and for other purposes. 
Section 604 provided that nonimmigrant aliens would be 
inadmissible if they had child support arrearages of greater 
than $2,500 (subject to waiver by the Attorney General). In 
addition, immigration officers would have been authorized to 
serve on any alien who was an applicant for admission legal 
process with respect to any action to enforce or establish a 
child support obligation.
    On June 15, 2000, Representative Nancy Johnson introduced 
H.R. 4678.
    On July 26, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was discharged 
from consideration of H.R. 4678.
    On September 7, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4678 by a vote 
of 405-18.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4678 in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 5062, to establish the eligibility of certain aliens for 
        cancellation of removal

    Legal permanent residents may apply for cancellation of 
removal if they have been in this status for five years, have 
continuously resided in the U.S. for seven years, and have not 
committed any offense classified as an ``aggravated felony.'' 
It is in the Attorney General's sole and unreviewable 
discretion whether to grant cancellation of removal in 
particular cases. In 1996, Congress through the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act retrospectively 
expanded the aggravated felony definition to include additional 
offenses and provided that legal permanent residents convicted 
of aggravated felonies are ineligible for cancellation of 
removal. Legal permanent residents who committed such now-
aggravated felonies before 1996 are still deportable and 
ineligible for relief.
    H.R. 5062 would have provided that criminal offenses 
committee before 1996 that were retrospectively classified as 
``aggravated felonies'' in 1996 (except for rape or sexual 
abuse of a minor) would not bar cancellation of removal. Legal 
permanent residents already removed because of such offenses 
would have been able to reopen their removal proceedings to 
apply for cancellation of removal.
    On July 27, 2000, Representative Bill McCollum introduced 
H.R. 5062.
    On September 19, 2000, the House passed H.R. 5062 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5062 in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 238, to increase penalties for alien smuggling

    Under current law, individuals convicted of alien smuggling 
crimes often receive lenient sentences. The General Accounting 
Office has found that convicted smugglers, including those 
responsible for death or serious injury, receive an average 
sentence only 10 months, which may be suspended, plus an 
average fine of about $140.
    H.R. 238 would have directed the United States Sentencing 
Commission to double terms of imprisonment and fines for alien 
smuggling crimes, except those committed on behalf of a close 
family member, to render emergency assistance, or for a purpose 
other than profit. The bill would also have enhanced penalties 
in cases involving use of a firearm, serious injury, or death. 
Finally, H.R. 238 would have increased the number of INS 
investigators assigned to alien smuggling by 50 in each of the 
fiscal years 2001-2005.
    On January 6, 1999, Representative James Rogan introduced 
H.R. 238.
    On May 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held a hearing on H.R. 238. Testimony was received from 
Representative Rogan and from Mr. Bo Cooper, Acting General 
Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
    On March 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 238 as amended reported to the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote.
    On July 25, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 238 
as amended favorably reported to the House by voice vote.
    On September 14, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported 
H.R. 238 (H. Rept. 106-850).
    On October 3, 2000, the House passed H.R. 238 as amended 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 238 in the 106th 
Congress.

          Legislation Rejected by the House of Representatives


H.R. 4892--the Scouting for All Act

    H.R. 4892 would have repealed the Federal charter granted 
to the Boy Scouts of America.
    On July 19, 2000, Representative Lynn Woolsey introduced 
H.R. 4892.
    On September 12, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4892.
    On September 13, 2000, the House failed to pass the bill 
under suspension of the rules by a vote of 12-362 (with 51 
present).

                                 CLAIMS

H.R. 3485, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act

    The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act would have amended 
the Federal judicial code to revise the definition of ``agency 
of instrumentality of a foreign sate'' for purposes of 
provisions regarding exceptions to: 1) the jurisdictional 
immunity of a foreign state where money damages are sought 
against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was 
caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft 
sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support 
or resources for such an act, and 2) the immunity from 
attachment or execution where the judgment relates to a claim 
for which the foreign state is not immune. H.R. 3485 directed 
that monies due from or payable by the United States to any 
State against which a judgment is pending under the 
jurisdictional provisions be subject to attachment and 
execution in like manner and to the same extent as if the 
United States were a private person. The bill authorized the 
President, upon determining on an asset-by-asset basis that a 
waiver is necessary in the national security interest, to waive 
attachment provisions in connection with any judicial order 
directing attachment in aid of execution against the premises 
of a foreign diplomatic mission to the United States, or any 
funds held by or in the name of such foreign diplomatic mission 
determined by the President to be necessary to satisfy actual 
operating expenses of such foreign diplomatic mission. The bill 
specified that a waiver shall not apply to the proceeds of such 
use if the premises of the foreign diplomatic mission have been 
used for any non-diplomatic purpose, or a sale or transfer if 
any asset of a foreign diplomatic mission is sold or otherwise 
transferred for value to a third party. All assets of any 
agency or instrumentality of a foreign state were considered 
assets of that foreign state.
    On November 18, 1999, Representative Bill McCollum 
introduced H.R. 3485.
    On April 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 3485. Testimony was received from 
Terry A. Anderson; Stephen M. Flatow; and Maggie A. Khuly.
    On June 21, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 3485 
as amended reported to the House by voice vote.
    On July 13, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
3485 (H. Rept. 106-733).
    On July 18, 2000, the Judiciary Committee filed a 
supplemental report (H. Rept. 106-733, Part 2).
    On July 25, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3485 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    Similar legislative language to H.R. 3485 was subsequently 
placed in H.R. 3244 by the conference committee. On October 5, 
2000, the conference report on H.R. 3244 was filed (H. Rept. 
106-939) and conferees agreed to the conference report.
    On October 6, 2000, the House passed a rule and agreed to 
the conference report on H.R. 3244 by a vote of 371-1.
    On October 11, 2000, the Senate agreed to the conference 
report on H.R. 3244 by a vote of 95-0.
    On October 28, 2000, the President signed H.R. 3244 into 
law (Public Law 106-386).

             Legislation Passed by the Judiciary Committee


H.R. 1520, the Child Status Protection Act of 1999

    Immediate relatives (spouses, unmarried children under age 
21, and parents) of United States citizens are eligible for 
permanent residence without numerical limitation. Other 
relatives of U.S. citizens and certain relatives of alien 
permanent residents may enter as family-based preference 
immigrants, which are subject to numerical limitations. To 
ensure that only the authorized numberof visas are issued each 
fiscal year, the Department of State's Visa Office sets a constantly 
updated ``cutoff date'' for each preference category.
    Subject to reasonable time for processing, the spouses, 
children and parents of U.S. citizens should receive their 
visas without delay. Unfortunately, many children of U.S. 
citizens are in jeopardy of losing their entitlement to a visa 
as an immediate relative because of the enormous backlog of 
adjustment of status cases that has developed at the INS. 
According to the INS, the backlog of unprocessed adjustment of 
status applications approaches one million and the servicewide 
average processing time for adjustment of status applications 
has approached three years.
    Because of these delays, many immediate relative children 
will reach age 21 before they have a chance to receive a visa. 
When a child of a U.S. citizen ``ages out'' by turning 21, the 
child's application automatically shifts to the family first 
preference category. Depending on when the child's petition was 
initially filed and how quickly the cutoff date advances, the 
child can face a wait of anywhere from eighteen months to two 
years in addition to the adjustment of status processing delay. 
Because of the per-country limitation, the wait for some 
nationalities is much longer. For applicants from Mexico, the 
cutoff date is April 22, 1994. For applicants from the 
Philippines, it is May 1, 1988.
    H.R. 1520 would have addressed the predicament of these 
children who, through no fault of their own, lose the 
opportunity to obtain a visa before they reach age 21. Under 
the bill, they still would have been processed in the family 
first preference category. However, they would no longer have 
had to wait for a visa based on the date of their petition but 
would have gone to the head of the line.
    On April 22, 1999, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 1520.
    On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 1520 reported to the Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote.
    On October 5, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
1520 reported to the House by voice vote.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1520 in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 1788, the Nazi Benefits Termination Act of 1999

    H.R. 1788 would have rendered individuals who were 
determined to have been participants in Nazi persecution 
ineligible for federal public benefits. The Department of 
Justice's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) is responsible 
for investigating former Nazi persecutors who entered and 
established residence in the United States under false 
pretenses after the Second World War. In many cases OSI 
investigations lead to formal denaturalization and deportation 
proceedings that result in loss of federal public benefits, but 
in some cases former Nazi persecutors, once discovered, leave 
the United States voluntarily for fear of public disclosure and 
deportation. Those who leave voluntarily may continue to 
receive federal public benefits. Records indicate that 44 
individuals who were charged as former Nazi persecutors had 
continued thereafter to collect Social Security benefits, and 
eight such individuals continued to receive such benefits as of 
June 1999. In addition, OSI continues to pursue hundreds of 
additional individuals who are believed to have participated in 
Nazi persecution and are still living in the United States. 
Former Nazi persecutors who evade final deportation orders may 
continue to receive federal public benefits for many years.
    Under H.R. 1788, an immigration judge would have been able 
to hold a hearing to determine whether an individual was a 
participant in Nazi persecution, and the immigration judge's 
determination would have been subject to review by the Attorney 
General. If an individual was found to have been a participant 
in Nazi persecution, an immigration judge (or the Attorney 
General) would have issued an order prohibiting the individual 
from receiving federal public benefits. The individual would 
have been able to appeal such an order to the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit.
    On May 13, 1999, Representative Bob Franks introduced H.R. 
1788.
    On June 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 1788 reported to the Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote.
    On July 20, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 1788 
reported to the House by voice vote.
    On July 21, 1999, the Government Reform Committee's 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and 
Technology ordered H.R. 1788 favorably reported to the 
Government Reform Committee by voice vote.
    On September 14, 1999, the Judiciary Committee reported 
H.R. 1788 (H. Rept. 106-321, Part 1).
    On September 30, 1999, the Government Reform Committee 
ordered H.R. 1788 reported to the House as amended by voice 
vote.
    On October 6, 1999, the Government Reform Committee 
reported H.R. 1788 (H. Rept. 106-321, Part 2).
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1788 in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 2121, the Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 1999

    H.R. 2121 would have eliminated the Alien Terrorist Removal 
Court and generally prevented the Justice Department from 
continuing its longstanding practice of using classified or 
confidential evidence in selected national-security-related 
immigration proceedings.
    Under H.R. 2121, in removing an alien who is a national 
security threat, opposing an application for admission, or 
opposing an application for discretionary relief from removal, 
the Department would have had to request that a federal 
district court judge prepare an unclassified summary of 
classified information for use in the proceeding. In other 
immigration proceedings, such as removal of illegal or criminal 
aliens, or applications for refugee status, asylum, permanent 
residence, or citizenship, neither the classified or 
confidential evidence, nor any unclassified summary thereof, 
would have been available to the Department.
    To request an unclassified summary in the three types of 
cases described above, the Department would first have had to 
certify that the information could not be developed from open 
sources. The district court would have decided what, if any, 
classified summary could be providedto the alien, to the 
alien's attorney, and to the immigration judge adjudicating the 
proceeding. The immigration judge would not have seen the classified 
evidence, only the summary, and would have decided whether the summary 
should be used.
    Outside that limited context, the bill would have 
prohibited the use of classified or confidential information in 
removal proceedings, bond proceedings relating to detention, 
proceedings to exclude aliens arriving in the United States, 
and adjudications of immigration benefits.
    On June 10, 1999, Representative David Bonior introduced 
H.R. 2121.
    On February 10, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2121. Testimony was received from 
Representative Bonior; U.S. Representative Campbell; Professor 
David Cole of Georgetown University Law Center; Ms. Nahla Al-
Arian; and Mr. Larry Parkinson, General Counsel, Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, with additional material submitted by six 
individuals and organizations.
    On May 23, 2000, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on 
H.R. 2121. Testimony was received from Representatives Bonior 
and Campbell; Mr. Parkinson; Mr. Bo Cooper, General Counsel, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mr. Gregory Nojeim, the 
American Civil Liberties Union; Professor Cole; Mr. Hany 
Kiareldeen; Ms. Al-Arian; Mr. Bruce Ramer, the American Jewish 
Committee; Mr. Thomas Homburger, the Anti-Defamation League; 
Mr. Steven Emerson; and Mr. Stephen Flatow.
    On September 26, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
2121 as amended reported to the House by voice vote.
    On October 17, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
2121 (H. Rept. 106-981).
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2121 in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 4548, the Agricultural Opportunities Act

            Background

 The Fruit, Vegetable, and Horticultural Specialty Industry and Labor 
                                 Force

    The branch of agriculture that relies most heavily on hired 
farmworkers, and hired immigrant farm workers, is that composed 
of fruit, vegetable, and horticultural specialty crops 
(``FVH''). As the Commission on Agricultural Workers states, 
``many farmers with several hundred acres of land raise crops 
which can be mechanically planted, tended and harvested, and 
need only one or two `hired hands' to maintain their 
operations. In contrast, FVH-producing farmers are likely to 
need hundreds of seasonal employees to accomplish the same 
tasks.'' Many fruits and vegetables are still hand harvested 
and packed because they are so perishable and easily bruised.
    FVH farmers rely on seasonal hiring that employs between 1 
and 2 million workers annually. The average wage in 1998 for 
hired farmworkers was $6.18. In 1998-99, 52% of seasonal 
agricultural workers admitted to being illegal, up from 7% in 
1989. Some estimate that the figure is up to 80%.
    A FVH representative has stated that ``The combination of 
increased INS enforcement activity, the verification programs 
of the Social Security Administration, shortages of legal U.S. 
workers of unprecedented proportions and an unworkable program 
for the legal admission of alien workers are having serious 
negative consequences on the agricultural industry and the 
agricultural work force.  * * * [There is an] increasing 
frequency of farm labor shortages and crop losses and 
precipitated a problem which is rapidly reaching crisis 
proportions.'' On the other hand, the Department of Labor 
believes there is an oversupply of farm labor. In a 1997 
report, the General Accounting Office stated that ``[t]here 
appears to be no national agricultural labor shortage now, 
although localized labor shortages may exist for individual 
crops and in specific geographical areas.'' The GAO based its 
conclusion that major shortages will not develop on the theory 
that future INS enforcement efforts are unlikely to 
significantly reduce the number of illegal alien farmworkers. 
However, even if this prediction proves true, it is not good 
public policy to endorse a labor supply mechanism that relies 
on illegal labor.

             The H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Program

    The ``H-2A'' temporary agricultural worker program allows 
for aliens to come to perform agricultural labor or services of 
a temporary or seasonal nature. The Attorney General can 
approve an employer's petition for an alien only after the 
employer has applied to the Secretary of Labor for a 
certification that:

          (A) there are not sufficient workers who are able, 
        willing, and qualified, and who will be available at 
        the time and place needed, to perform the labor or 
        services involved in the petition, and
          (B) the employment of the alien in such labor or 
        services will not adversely affect the wages and 
        working conditions of workers in the United States 
        similarly employed.

    A certification cannot be issued by the Secretary (1) 
during a strike or lockout, (2) if the employer has in the 
previous two year period substantially violated a material term 
or condition of a labor certification, (3) where the worker 
will not be covered under worker's compensation unless the 
employer has given assurances that it will provide adequate 
insurance, or (4) if the employer has not made positive 
recruitment efforts within a region of traditional or expected 
labor supply where the Secretary finds that there are a 
significant number of qualified United States workers, who, if 
recruited, would be willing to work (this is in addition to the 
circulation through the interstate employment service system of 
the employer's job offer). The employer's job offer to U.S. 
workers shall offer no less than the same benefits, wages, and 
working conditions offered to H-2A workers.
    Among additional requirements, (1) charges for food cannot 
exceed $5.26 per day, (2) free transportation must be provided 
between living quarters and worksites, (3) the employer shall 
guarantee to offer H-2As work for at least three fourths of the 
workdays of the period the work contract is in effect, (4) free 
housing must be provided to the H-2As meeting applicable 
standards, (5) wages, if paid by the hour, must be at least the 
adverse effect wage rate (the annual weighed average hourly 
wage rate for field and livestock workers for the region as 
determined by the Department of Agriculture), the prevailing 
hourly rate, or the minimum wage, whichever is highest, and (6) 
wages, if paid at a piece rate, must be supplemented if 
necessary to equal at least what theworker would have to be 
paid if he were paid hourly and must also not be less than the 
prevailing piece rate.
    The Labor Department cannot require that applications be 
filed more than 60 days before the first date that the H-2As 
are needed. Applications must be approved not later than 20 
days before the date the aliens are needed if the employer has 
met the certification criteria and the employer ``does not 
have, or has not been provided with referrals of, qualified 
eligible individuals who have indicated their availability to 
perform such labor or services. * * *'' Normally, an alien's 
stay can be for up to one year.
    Expedited procedures are provided for denials or 
revocations of certifications.
    Expectations were that applications would be made for 
200,000 or more aliens each year. In 1996, only 9,635 aliens 
were admitted under the program. While utilization has 
increased somewhat since 1996 (the Department of Labor 
certified 41,827 workers in 1999, compared with 17,557 in 
1996), it has never reached expectations.
    Why the low numbers? A grower representative has testified 
that:

          The current H-2A temporary agricultural worker 
        program is not working for three principal reasons. One 
        is the structural problems built into the program. [The 
        Department of Labor] ignored some of the most important 
        of the H-2A streamlining provisions of the Immigration 
        Reform and Control [Act. Second, t]he program is 
        administered in a highly adversarial fashion. DOL 
        regards H-2A applicants as potential, if not actual, 
        lawbreakers and acts as though its mission is to keep 
        employers out of the program rather than to help them 
        use this program which Congress provided. The third 
        reason the program is not working has to do with 
        compliance enforcement and litigation. So-called 
        farmworker advocates have for years strongly opposed 
        the H-2A program. They have made both DOL and H-2A 
        users targets for harassment and litigation. They have 
        attempted to accomplish in the courts what they were 
        unable to accomplish in Congress.

    The General Accounting Office has found that ``a large 
number of Labor's certifications are issued too late to ensure 
that employers will be able to get workers by the specified 
date of need.'' The Department of Labor ``has acknowledged 
problems with the current H-2A program and is working 
administratively * * * to reengineer and streamline the program 
to better assure growers an adequate, predictable labor supply. 
* * *''

H.R. 4548, the Agricultural Opportunities Act

    H.R. 4548 would have created a three year pilot program for 
agricultural guest workers using a new ``H-2C'' visa, with no 
cap on the number of visas available annually. Each visa would 
have been valid for up to ten months, plus an additional two-
month extension if necessary. The bill would have created a 
central registry of American agricultural workers maintained by 
the Labor Department. When qualified American workers were not 
available from the registry, growers would have been allowed to 
recruit and employ alien labor under the H-2C program. As a 
grower representative has noted:

          The registry mechanism offers significant 
        improvements over the current labor certification 
        system. One of the most important of these is 
        timeliness. Currently, employers seeking H-2A workers 
        are required to file a labor certification application 
        a minimum of 45 days in advance of the date workers are 
        needed. This is followed by the cumbersome procedures 
        for processing job orders and recruiting U.S. workers. 
        * * *
          The registry mechanism is based on searching a 
        computerized data bank of workers who have already 
        indicated their interest in agricultural employment.

    At least twenty-eight days before workers were needed, a 
grower would have had to apply for American workers from the 
registry before he could bring in H-2C workers. The grower's 
application would have had to include assurances that the work 
was temporary or seasonal, that he would advertise locally for 
American workers and contact former workers, and that he was 
not using aliens as strikebreakers.
    The Labor Department would then have referred a sufficient 
number of qualified American workers from the registry by seven 
days before the grower's date of need, or, if there was a 
shortfall, notified the Departments of Justice and State of the 
number of H-2C visas that would have to be issued to eligible 
aliens to make up the difference. If the Labor Department 
failed to process the application in time, the grower could 
have applied directly to the State and Justice Departments for 
issuance of the necessary visas. The bill also provided 
expedited emergency procedures for obtaining H-2C workers if 
American workers referred from the registry were unwilling or 
unable to perform the job, of if a grower encountered 
unexpected and urgent labor requirements.
    The Attorney General would have been required to establish 
a verification system to ensure that growers who hire H-2C 
workers did not also hire illegal aliens.
    The bill would also have required growers to pay H-2C 
workers prevailing wages, provide them with housing (or a 
housing allowance under certain circumstances), and reimburse 
them for transportation costs. Each H-2C worker would have been 
given a reliable identification document that was counterfeit-
resistant, tamper-resistant, and compatible with federal law 
enforcement databases. The Attorney General would have been 
required to verify that H-2C workers departed from the United 
States after the expiration of their visas.
    On May 25, 2000, Representative Richard W. Pombo introduced 
H.R. 4548.
    On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 4548. Testimony was received from 
Representative Pombo; Mr. John R. Fraser, U.S. Department of 
Labor; Ms. Cindy Fagnoni, U.S. General Accounting Office; Dr. 
James S. Holt, National Council of Agricultural Employers; Mr. 
Robert Dolibois, American Nursery and Landscape Association; 
Mr. Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies; Mr. Marcos 
Camacho, United Farmworkers Union; Ms. Michelle Williamson, 
Williamson Berry Farms; Mr. Dewey L. Hukill, Texas Farm Bureau; 
Mr. William Buchanan, American Council for Immigration Reform; 
and Ms. Cecilia Munoz, National Council of La Raza, with 
additional material submitted by five individuals and 
organizations.
    On July 27, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 4548 as amended reported to the Judiciary 
Committee by a vote of 7-0.
    On September 20, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
4548 as amended reported to the House by a vote of 16-11.
    On October 17, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 
4548 (H. Rept. 106-982, Part 1).
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4548 in the 106th 
Congress.

           Legislation Passed by the Ways and Means Committee


H.R. 984, the Caribbean and Central America Relief and Economic 
        Stabilization Act

    Section 401 of this trade liberalization legislation would 
have authorized $80,000,000 to be used by the INS to support 
increased detention requirements for criminal aliens from 
Central America held in detention and to address an expected 
influx of illegal immigrants from Central America.
    On March 4, 1999, Representative Philip Crane introduced 
H.R. 984.
    On June 10, 1999, the Ways and Means Committee ordered H.R. 
984 reported as amended by voice vote.
    On June 7, 2000, the Judiciary Committee was discharged 
from consideration of H.R. 984.
    No further action on H.R. 984 was taken in the 106th 
Congress.
    Language similar to H.R. 984 was placed in H.R. 434, the 
``African Growth and Opportunity Act'', which the President 
signed into law on May 18, 2000 (Public Law 106-200). The 
language contained in section 401 was not included in H.R. 434.

                 Legislation Passed by the Subcommittee


H.R. 3918, Immigration Reorganization and Improvement Act of 1999

    H.R. 3918 would have replaced the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) with two separate bureaus--the 
Bureau of Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration 
Enforcement. The bill responded to the recommendations made by 
the Commission on Immigration Reform, which stated that 
separating immigration enforcement and service functions would 
lead to more effective enforcement and improved service to the 
public. H.R. 3918 would have eliminated the mission conflict 
and overload of the current INS. The enforcement bureau would 
have been a true law enforcement agency that would remove 
illegal and criminal aliens, not release them back into our 
communities. The service bureau would have processed 
applications quickly and thoroughly.
    In the established Bureau of Immigration Services, H.R. 
3918 would have created the position of Director as the head of 
the Service Bureau. The Director would have reported directly 
to the Attorney General or her delegate. H.R. 3918 would have 
transferred from the Commissioner of the INS to the Director of 
the Bureau of Immigration Services all functions, personnel, 
infrastructure, and funding related to adjudications of 
nonimmigrant and immigrant visa petitions, naturalization 
petitions, asylum and refugee applications, adjudications 
performed at Service centers, and all other adjudications under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act performed by the INS. H.R. 
3918 also would have created the position of Chief Financial 
Officer for the Bureau of Immigration Services within that 
bureau.
    H.R. 3918 would have created the position of Director as 
the head of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. The Director 
would have reported directly to the Attorney General or her 
delegate. H.R. 3918 would have transferred from the 
Commissioner of the INS to the Director of the Bureau of 
Immigration Enforcement all functions, personnel, 
infrastructure, and funding related to the Border Patrol, 
detention and deportation, intelligence, investigations, and 
inspections. A Chief Financial Officer for the Bureau of 
Immigration Enforcement would also have been created.
    H.R. 3918 would have required the Attorney General to 
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate a report on the proposed 
division and transfer of funds between the Bureau of 
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, 
the proposed division of personnel between such bureaus, and a 
plan to carry out this Act.
    H.R. 3918 also would have required the Attorney General to 
submit a plan to transfer the detention operations of the 
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement to the Federal Prison System.
    On July 15, 1999, Representative Harold Rogers introduced 
H.R. 2528.
    On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 2528. Testimony was received from 
Inspector General Michael Bromwich, Department of Justice; 
Richard M. Stana, Associate Director, Administration of Justice 
Issues, General Government Division, General Accounting Office; 
Ernesto Hernandez; Margarita Muzzall; Jean Campbell, District 
Director, Office of U.S. Representative Dick Armey; Elizabeth 
Vuna, Director of Constituent Services, Office of U.S. 
Representative Stephen Horn; Beatriz Mancilla, District 
Representative, Office of U.S. Representative Peter Hoekstra; 
John Wood, Constituent Liaison, Office of U.S. Representative 
Bob Clement; U.S. Representative Harold Rogers; U.S. 
Representative Silvestre Reyes; Doris Meissner, Commissioner, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Susan Martin, Former 
Director, Commission on Immigration Reform; Paul Berg, 
President, United States Border Patrol Chiefs' Association; 
Richard Gallo, President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association; T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol 
Council; Dennis Smith, Executive Vice President, National 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Council, American 
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; Mark Hetfield, 
Director, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
    On November 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 2528 as amended reported to the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote.
    On March 14, 2000, Representative Harold Rogers introduced 
H.R. 3918, a bill identical to the original version of H.R. 
2528.
    On March 22, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 3918 favorably reported to the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote.
    No further action on H.R. 3918 was taken in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 5285, Serious Human Rights Violators Accountability Act of 2000

    H.R. 5285 would have defined ''serious human rights 
violators'' as aliens who were persecutors, violators of 
religious freedom, war criminals, those involved in committing 
genocide, torturers, and those who committed other serious 
crimes for political, religious, or discriminatory purposes.
    H.R. 5285 would have amended the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to make serious human rights violators 
inadmissible and removable and to bar them from receiving 
immigration benefits, including refugee status, asylum, 
cancellation or withholding of removal, adjustment of status, 
and United States citizenship. H.R. 5285 would also have 
provided criminal penalties for serious human rights violators 
who re-entered the United States illegally and for those who 
assisted serious human rights violators to enter the United 
States.
     Under H.R. 5285, when the Justice Department found serious 
human rights violators living in the United States, the INS 
would have had to arrest and detain them and begin removal 
proceedings. United States Attorneys would also have had to 
investigate to determine whether they should be criminally 
prosecuted. To ensure accountability, the Justice Department 
would have had to report to Congress every six months on its 
removal and prosecution efforts.
    H.R. 5285 would also have created a right of action for 
U.S. individuals who identified serious human rights violators 
in the United States. Upon being informed by a U.S. citizen or 
legal permanent resident, by sworn statement under penalty of 
perjury, of an alleged serious human rights violator in the 
United States, the INS would have had to investigate the 
allegation and either remove the alien or issue a written 
determination that the alien was not a serious human rights 
violator. If the INS failed to act, the complainant would have 
been able to bring a civil action in federal court for 
injunctive relief and also receive reimbursement for reasonable 
attorneys fees and costs if successful.
    H.R. 5285 would also have required the Attorney General to 
revise the regulations implementing the Convention Against 
Torture to render ineligible for withholding or deferral of 
removal under the Convention aliens who were ``serious human 
rights violators,'' particularly serious criminals, had 
committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United 
States before arriving in the U.S., or were a danger to the 
security of the U.S.
    On September 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims Chairman Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 5285.
    On September 28, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 5285. Testimony was received from 
U.S. Representative Mark Foley; Mr. Kevin Rooney, Director, 
Executive Office for Immigration Review; Mr. Bo Cooper, General 
Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Ms. Genevieve 
Augustin; Mr. Dan Stein, Executive Director, Federation for 
American Immigration Reform; and Ms. Elisa Massimino, 
Washington Office Director, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
    On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered H.R. 5285 favorably reported to the Judiciary 
Committee, as amended, by voice vote.
    No further action on H.R. 5285 was taken in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 5377, extension of 212(h) waiver limitation

    Currently, a lawful permanent resident who has an 
aggravated felony conviction is barred from applying for a 
waiver of inadmissability granted under section 212(h) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. However, an alien with no 
lawful status and an aggravated felony conviction can apply for 
such a waiver. H.R. 5377 would have extended the limitation on 
waivers under section 212(h) to aliens unlawfully present in 
the United States with aggravated felony convictions.
    On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered an original bill reported to the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote.
    On October 4, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced the text of the bill as H.R. 
5377.
    No further action on H.R. 5377 was taken in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 5378 clarification of continuous physical presence

    H.R. 5378 would have amended the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to clarify the special rule relating to 
continuous residence or physical presence under section 240A(d) 
of the Act, relating to cancellation of removal.
    On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered an original bill reported to the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote.
    On October 4, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced the bill as H.R. 5378.
    No further action on H.R. 5378 was taken in the 106th 
Congress.

H.R. 5379, clarification of mandatory detention provisions

    Currently, section 236(c) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act provides that ``the Attorney General shall take 
into custody and alien who is'' inadmissible or deportable for 
various crimes ``when the alien is released, without regard to 
whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, or 
probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be 
arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense.'' H.R. 5379 
would have clarified that the Attorney General is required to 
detain certain criminal aliens during removal proceedings, 
regardless of whether the INS arrests the alien immediately 
upon release from a criminal sentence.
    On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims ordered an original bill reported to the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote.
    On October 4, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith introduced the bill as H.R. 5379.
    No further action on H.R. 5379 was taken in the 106th 
Congress.

              Hearings on Public Legislation Not Processed


                              immigration

H.R. 1745

    On May 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held a hearing on H.R. 1745, a bill introduced by 
Representative Robert Andrews that would have amended the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the removal of 
aliens who associate with known terrorists. Testimony was 
received from Representative Andrews; Michael J. Wildes; and Bo 
Cooper, Acting General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service.

H.R. 945, to deny to aliens the opportunity to apply for asylum in Guam

    On May 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held a hearing on H.R. 945, a bill introduced by Representative 
Robert Underwood that would have responded to a growing influx 
of illegal aliens into Guam by preventing aliens from applying 
for asylum in Guam. Testimony on H.R. 945 was received from 
Representative Underwood and from Captain Anthony S. Tangeman, 
U.S. Coast Guard.

H.R. 3058, the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act

    On February 17, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held a hearing on H.R. 3058, a bill introduced by 
Representative Mark Foley that would have made aliens who have 
committed acts of torture inadmissible and removable. It would 
also have established the U.S. Justice Department's Office of 
Special Investigations (OSI), which was created in 1979 as a 
temporary agency to track down Nazi war criminals in the U.S., 
as a permanent agency responsible for investigating, removing, 
denaturalizing, or prosecuting aliens guilty of Nazi 
persecutions, genocide, or torture. Testimony was received from 
Representative Foley; Mr. James Costello, Associate Deputy 
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; and Mr. Richard 
Krieger, President, International Educational Missions, Inc.

                                 claims

H.R. 1371 and H.R. 3295

    On June 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held hearings on H.R. 1371, a bill introduced by Representative 
Eleanor Holmes Norton, that would amended the Federal tort 
claims provisions of title 28, United States Code, to repeal 
the exception for claims arising outside the United States, and 
for other purposes, and H.R. 3295, a bill introduced by 
Representative Sam Farr, that would have provided for the 
payment of compensation to the families of the Federal 
employees who were killed in the crash of a United States Air 
Force CT-43A aircraft on April 3, 1996, near Dubrovnik, 
Croatia, carrying Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown and 34 
others. Testimony on H.R. 1371 was received from Representative 
Holmes Norton and Robin E. Jacobsohn, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General, U.S. Department of Justice. Testimony on H.R. 3295 was 
received from Representative Farr, Kenneth and Maureen Dobert, 
Darrell W. Darling, and Nora Poling.

H.R. 675, H.R. 3418, H.R. 3478, H.R. 3495, H.R. 4263, and H.R. 4398

    On September 21, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held hearings on H.R. 675, a bill introduced by 
Representative Paul E. Kanjorski, that would have provided 
jurisdiction and procedures for affording relief for injuries 
arising out of exposure to hazards involved in the mining and 
processing of beryllium, H.R. 3418, a bill introduced by 
Representative Paul Kanjorski, that would have established a 
compensation program for employees of the Department of Energy, 
its contractors, subcontractors, and beryllium vendors, who 
sustained a beryllium-related illness due to the performance of 
their duty, to establish a compensation program for certain 
workers at the Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion plant, to 
establish a pilot program for examining the possible 
relationship between workplace exposure to radiation and 
hazardous materials and illnesses or health conditions, and for 
other purposes, H.R. 3478, a bill introduced by Representative 
Marcy Kaptur, that would have established a compensation 
program for the contractors of the Departments of Energy and 
Defense and beryllium vendors who sustained a beryllium-related 
illness due to the performance of their duty, and for other 
purposes, H.R. 3495, a bill introduced by Representative Ted 
Strickland, that would have established a compensation program 
for Department of Energy employees injured in Federal nuclear 
activities, H.R. 4263, a bill introduced by Representative Tom 
Udall, that would have established a compensation and health 
care program for employees and survivors at the Department of 
Energy facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico who have sustained 
beryllium, radiation-related, asbestos, and hazardous 
substances injury, illness, or death due to the performance of 
their duties, and for other purposes, and H.R. 4398, a bill 
introduced by Representative Ed Whitfield, that would have 
established a compensation and health care program for 
employees of the Department of Energy, its contractors, 
subcontractors, and certain vendors, who have sustained 
beryllium and radiation-related injury, illness, or death due 
to the performance of their duties, and for other purposes. 
Testimony was received from U.S. Senator George Voinovich, 
Representative Kanjorski, Representative Kaptur, Representative 
Strickland, Representative Whitfield, Representative Mark 
Udall, Representative Zach Wamp, Representative Tom Udall, Bill 
Richardson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. David 
Michaels, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environment 
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy; Lisa Ledwidge, 
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research; Steve 
Markowitz, Director, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems; 
Richard D. Miller, Policy Analyst, Paper, Allied-Industrial, 
Chemical and Energy Workers International Union; Ken Rosenman, 
M.D., Michigan State University; Dan Guttman, Esquire, former 
Executive Director, President's Advisory Committee on Human 
Radiation Experiments, Lawrence Repsher, M.D.; Donald Elisburg, 
Esquire, former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment 
Standards; Ann Orick; Sam Ray; Clara Harding; Ray Slaughter; 
and Pete Lopez.

                            Federal Charters


Subcommittee policy on new Federal charters

    On March 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims adopted the following policy concerning the granting of 
new federal charters:

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

    This policy represented a continuation of the 
Subcommittee's informal policy, which was put in place at the 
start of the 101st Congress and continued through the 102nd, 
103rd, 104th, and 105th Congress, against granting new federal 
charters to private, non-profit organizations.
    A federal charter is an Act of Congress passed for private, 
non-profit organizations. The primary reasons that 
organizations seek federal charters are to have the honor of 
federal recognition and to use this status in fundraising. 
These charters grant no new privileges or legal rights to 
organizations. At the conclusion of the 104th Congress, 
approximately 90 private, non-profit organizations had federal 
charters over which the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction. 
About half of these had only a federal charter, and were not 
incorporated in any state and thus not subject to any state 
regulatory requirements.
    Those organizations chartered more recently are required by 
their charters to submit annual audit reports to Congress, 
which the Subcommittee sends to the General Accounting Office 
to determine if the reports comply with the audit requirements 
detailed in the charter. The GAO does not conduct an 
independent or more detailed audit of chartered organizations.

H.R. 604--to amend the Charter of the Amvets Organization

    H.R. 604 would amend the federal charter for the American 
Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam (AMVETS). In 1998, 
at the AMVETS annual convention, the delegates voted for an 
official name change from American Veterans of World War II, 
Korea, and Vietnam to American Veterans to more accurately 
reflect the membership of AMVETS. Additionally, the AMVETS have 
voted to change the structure of their governing body. H.R. 604 
contains language to reflect the structural change. Finally, 
the organization has changed the location of their headquarters 
from the District of Columbia to Lanham, Maryland. Therefore, 
the ``Headquarters and principal place of business'' section of 
their charter needs to be changed to indicate they are now 
located in Maryland. In order for these changes to be 
recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs the AMVETS 
federal charter has to be amended.
    On February 4, 1999, Representative Bob Stump introduced 
H.R. 604.
    On September 20, 2000, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
604 as amended reported to the House by voice vote.
    On September 27, 2000, the Judiciary Committee reported 
H.R. 604 (H. Rept. 106-904).
    On December 15, 2000, the House passed H.R. 604 as amended 
without objection.
    No further action on H.R. 604 was taken in the 106th 
Congress.

           Private Claims and Private Immigration Legislation

    During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims received referral of 34 private claims bills and 93 
private immigration bills. The Subcommittee held no hearings on 
these bills. The Subcommittee recommended 5 private claims 
bills and 19 private immigration bills to the full Committee. 
The Committee ordered 5 private claims bills and 19 private 
immigration bills reported to the House.
    The House passed 5 private claims bills and 18 private 
immigration bills reported by the Committee. Of the 5 private 
claims bill and 18 private immigration bills, 3 private claims 
bill and 18 private immigration bills were passed by the Senate 
and signed into law by the President. Two bills were still 
pending in the Senate at the close of the 106th Congress.
    One private bill ordered reported by the full Committee was 
not approved by the full House prior to the close of the 106th 
Congress.

                          Oversight Activities


                              Immigration

Recent INS Decisions Impacting the Agency's Ability to Control Criminal 
        and Illegal Aliens

    On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Recent INS Decisions 
Impacting the Agency's Ability to Control Criminal and Illegal 
Aliens. Testimony was received from U.S. Representative 
Silvestre Reyes; Doris Meissner, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration 
and Naturalization Service; Dan Stein, Executive Director, 
Federation for American Immigration Reform; Norman Rabkin, 
Director, accompanied by Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director, 
Administration of Justice Issues, General Accounting Office; 
Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, Auxiliary Bishop, Newark, NJ; 
and Professor Frank Bean, Ashbel Smith Professor of Sociology 
and Public Affairs, Population Research Center, University of 
Texas at Austin.

Issues Arising from Past Designations of Temporary Protected Status and 
        Fraud in Prior Amnesty Programs

    On March 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Issues Arising from Past 
Designations of Temporary Protected Status and Fraud in Prior 
Amnesty Programs. Testimony was received from Paul Virtue, 
General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mark 
Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies; 
Daniel Stein, Executive Director, Federation for American 
Immigration Reform; Elisa Massamino, Director, Lawyers 
Committee for Human Rights; Professor Monica Heppel, Mount 
Vernon College and Research Director, Inter-American Institute 
on Migration and Labor; and John F. Shaw, Former Assistant 
Commissioner for Investigations, U.S. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.

The Impact of Immigration on Recent Immigrants and Black and Hispanic 
        Citizens

    On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the Impact of Immigration 
on Recent Immigrants and Black and Hispanic Citizens. Testimony 
was received from Dr. L. Randall Wray, Senior Scholar, The 
Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College; Professor 
George Borjas, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 
University; Dr. Steve Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies; 
Dr. Frank Morris; Dr. William Spriggs, Director of Research and 
Public Policy, National Urban League; Roy Beck; Professor 
Vernon Briggs, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 
Cornell University; Dr. Georges Vernez, Director, Center for 
Research on Immigration Policy, RAND; Stephen Moore, Director, 
Fiscal Policy Studies, CATO Institute; Professor Mark 
Partridge, Department of Economics, St. Cloud (Minnesota) State 
University; and Professor Julian Betts, Department of 
Economics, University of California, San Diego.

Illegal Immigration Issues

    On March 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Illegal Immigration Issues. 
Testimony was received from Margaret Bianculli, Director, 
Sachem Quality of Life Organization; David J. Stoddard; 
Professor Peter Kwong, Director of Asian-American Studies, 
Hunter College; Dan Stein, Executive Director, Federation for 
American Immigration Reform; Elisa Massimino, Director, Lawyers 
Committee for Human Rights; Selena Walsh, Director of Policy 
and Communications, LULAC (League of United Latin American 
Citizens); Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Michael Cronin, Associate Commissioner 
for Programs, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; 
Donna Hamilton, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Louis Nardi, 
Director of Investigations for Field Operations, U.S. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; William R. Brownfield, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International 
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of 
State; and Amy Dale, Administrator of Detention Services, 
Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Benefits to the American Economy of a More Educated Workforce

    On March 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the Benefits to the 
American Economy of a More Educated Workforce. Testimony was 
received from Professor Barry Chiswick, Department of 
Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago; Dr. James R. 
Edwards, Jr.; Richard W. Judy, Director, Center for Workforce 
Development, Hudson Institute; Rebecca Burdette, Quan, Burdette 
and Perez; Randel K. Johnson, Vice President-Labor & Employee 
Benefits, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; William Archey, President 
and CEO, American Electronics Association; Kersi Shroff and 
Stephen Clarke, Senior Legal Specialists, Directorate of Legal 
Research, Western Law Division, Law Library of Congress; and 
Laura Reiff, Baker and McKenzie.

Law Enforcement Problems at the Border Between the United States and 
        Canada, Focusing on the Issues of Drug Smuggling, Illegal 
        Immigration and Terrorism

    On April 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Law Enforcement Problems at 
the Border Between the United States and Canada, Focusing on 
the Issues of Drug Smuggling, Illegal Immigration and 
Terrorism. Testimony was received from Michael Pearson, 
Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations, U.S. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Eugene Davis, Deputy 
Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, Blaine, Washington, U.S. Immigration 
and Naturalization Service; Michael Bromwich, Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of Justice; Robert Trotter, Assistant 
Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service; Dale Brandland, Sheriff, 
Whatcom County, Washington; Mark Hall, President, National 
Border Patrol Council Local 2599, Detroit, Michigan; David 
Harris, President, INSIGNIS Strategic Research; and Demetrios 
G. Papademetriou, Senior Associate, International Migration 
Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Nonimmigrant Visa Fraud

    On May 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held an oversight hearing on Nonimmigrant Visa Fraud. Testimony 
was received from Michael Bromwich, Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of State; William Yates, Director of 
Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization 
Service; Gary Bradford, Assistant Director, Texas Service 
Center, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Nancy 
Sambaiew, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, Bureau 
of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Jill Esposito, 
Post Liaison Division, Visa Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 
U.S. Department of State; John Ratigan, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, 
Wharton & Garrison; Lynn Shotwell, American Council on 
International Personnel; and Mark Mancini, Wasserman, Mancini, 
& Chang.

Illegal Immigration Issues

    On June 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Illegal Immigration Issues. 
Testimony was received from Tobin Armstrong; Larry Vance, 
Chairman, Cochise County Concerned Citizens; Angie Morfin, 
Mothers Taking Action Against Gang Violence; Carol Joyal; Terry 
Anderson; Ezola Foster, Americans for Family Values; Dan 
Morris, Americans for an Immigration Moratorium; and Selena 
Walsh, Director of Policy and Communications, LULAC (League of 
United Latin American Citizens).

Immigration and Naturalization Service's Interior Enforcement Strategy

    On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held an oversight hearing on the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service's Interior Enforcement Strategy. Testimony was received 
from Robert Bach, Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy 
and Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, John 
Fraser, Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. 
Department of Labor; Richard Stana, Associate Director, 
Administration of Justice Issues, General Government Division, 
U.S. General Accounting Office; Robert Hill, Venable, Baetjer, 
Howard & Civiletti; Thomas Hammond; Judith Desantis, First Vice 
President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; Daniel 
Stein, Executive Director, Federation for American Immigration 
Reform; David Amick, Sheriff, WoodburyCounty, Sioux City, Iowa; 
and Muzaffar Chishti, Director, Immigration Project, Union of 
Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE).

Fraudulent Use of Social Security Cards and State and Local Identity 
        Documents for Immigration Purposes

    On July 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Fraudulent Use of Social 
Security Cards and State and Local Identity Documents for 
Immigration Purposes. Testimony was received from Larry 
Stewart, Chief Document Examiner, Forensic Services Division, 
U.S. Secret Service; John Hotchner, Director, Office of 
Passport Policy, Planning and Advisory Services, Bureau of 
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; James Hesse, Chief 
Intelligence Officer, Forensic Document Laboratory, U.S. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Richard Stana, 
Associate Director, Administration of Justice Issues, General 
Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office; Glenna 
Donnelly, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Office of Disability 
and Income, U.S. Social Security Administration; Detective 
Sergeant Robert Derbyshire, Supervisor Economic Crimes, 
Criminal Investigation Division, Baltimore County Policy 
Department; David Simcox, Chairman, Board of Directors Center 
for Immigration Studies; Susan Martin, Director, Institute for 
the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University; 
Michael Anderson, International Chair, Driver Licensing and 
Control, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators; 
and Representative (Conn.) Brain Flaherty, National Conference 
of State Legislatures.

H-1B Temporary Professional Worker Visa Program and Information 
        Technology Workforce Issues

    On August 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on H-1B Temporary Professional 
Worker Visa Program and Information Technology Workforce 
Issues. Testimony was received from Austin Fragomen, Chairman, 
American Council on International Personnel; David Smith, 
Director, Public Policy Department, AFL-CIO; Crystal 
Neiswonger, TRW, on behalf of the National Association of 
Manufacturers; Gene Nelson; John Miano, the Programmers Guild; 
Alison Cleveland, Associate Manager of Labor Policy, U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce; Paul Kostek, President, Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA; and Charles Foster, 
Tindall & Foster.

Terrorist Threats to the United States

    On January 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Terrorist Threats to the 
United States. Testimony was received from Ambassador Martin 
Collacott, Canadian Department of External Affairs (retired); 
Steven Emerson; David Harris, former Chief of Strategic 
Planning, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (retired); 
Christopher Sands, Fellow and Director, Canada Project, Center 
for Strategic and International Studies; Gary Stubblefield, 
President, Global Options LLC; John Thompson, Director, the 
Mackenzie Institute; and Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox, U.S. 
State Department (retired).

Visa Waiver Pilot Program

    On February 10, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on the Visa Waiver Pilot 
Program. Testimony was received from Robert Ashbaugh, Acting 
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice; Ambassador Mary 
A. Ryan, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. 
Department of State; Mike Cronin, Acting Associate 
Commissioner, Office of Programs, U.S. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Elisa Liang, Associate Deputy Attorney 
General, U.S. Department of Justice, accompanied by James 
McAtamney, Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General for National 
Security; Bill Norman, President and CEO, Travel Industry 
Association; E. Wayne Merry, Director, Program on European 
Societies in Transition, The Atlantic Council of the United 
States; and John Ratigan, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & 
Garrison.

The Status of Regulations Implementing the American Competitiveness and 
        Workforce Improvement Act of 1998

    On May 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
held an oversight hearing on the Status of Regulations 
Implementing the American Competitiveness and Workforce 
Improvement Act of 1998''. Testimony was received from John 
Fraser, Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, 
Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; 
John Spotila, Administrator, Office of Information Policy and 
Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; John 
Templeton, Co-Convener, Coalition for Fair Employment in 
Silicon Valley (accompanied by Kevin Hinkston, Co-Convener, 
Coalition for Fair Employment in Silicon Valley); and Frank 
Brehm, the Programmer's Guild.

Evaluating the Religious Worker Visa Programs

    On June 29, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Evaluating the Religious 
Worker Visa Programs. Testimony was received from Mildred 
Patterson, Managing Director, Visa Office, U.S. Department of 
State; John Brennan, Consular Office, U.S. Department of State; 
Jess Ford, Associate Director, International Relations and 
Trade Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; and William A. 
Yates, Director of Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.

Inspector General's Report, ``An Investigation of the Immigration and 
        Naturalization Service's Citizenship USA Initiative''

    On September 7, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on Inspector General's Report, 
``An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service's Citizenship USA Initiative''. Testimony was received 
from Robert L. Ashbaugh, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Justice.

Oversight Regarding Criminal Aliens Released by INS

    In 1999, a number of highly-publicized cases highlighted 
the problem of criminal aliens whom the INS failed to remove 
from the United States or transfer for criminal prosecution. 
Instead, the INS released thousands of criminal aliens who 
subsequently committed additional serious crimes in the United 
States.
    Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims Chairman Lamar Smith 
sent a formal inquiry to Attorney General Janet Reno on July 
14, 1999, requesting detailed information on inadmissible or 
deportable criminal aliens who were released from INS custody 
and then subsequently convicted of additional crimes committed 
in the United States. The letter requested information 
identifying such criminal aliens and describing their history 
of criminal activity. However, the Attorney General failed to 
respond in a timely or responsive manner. In addition, the INS 
had previously failed to provide two statutorily mandated 
reports, due in September 1998 and March 1999, respectively, 
regarding the release from INS detention of criminal aliens.
    On August 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Immigration voted to 
authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain the 
requested and overdue information. The subpoena was approved 
and signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry H. Hyde.
    In response to the subpoena, the INS provided the two 
overdue statutorily mandated reports and attempted to negotiate 
with the Committee the terms of its response to Chairman 
Smith's July 14, 1999 letter. However, the negotiations were 
ultimately inconclusive. By letter dated February 9, 2000, 
Chairman Hyde and Chairman Smith stated that if requested 
information was not provided by February 28, 2000, the 
Committee had every intention of enforcing the subpoena 
according to its original terms.
    In response to the February 9, 2000 letter, the INS 
complied with the subpoena. Information provided by the INS 
regarding 35,318 criminal aliens released by the agency between 
October 1, 1994 and May 31, 1999, indicated that about 37 
percent of them had been convicted of another crime in the 
United States after their release by the INS.

Oversight Regarding Illegal Immigration Statistics

    As of October 2000, the INS had not updated its official 
estimates on illegal immigration since its 1996 statistical 
report. Beginning in 1997, INS officials indicated on a number 
of occasions that new information was available, but none was 
released.
    On June 21, 2000, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
Chairman Lamar Smith formally requested an up-to-date 
statistical report on illegal immigration by July 5, 2000. The 
INS replied that it expected to release revised estimates by 
the end of August 2000. However, no information was provided. 
In September 2000 the INS stated that it would provide a report 
to Congress on September 28, 2000, but then canceled the 
release a few hours before it was to occur.
    On October 4, 2000, the Subcommittee on Immigration voted 
to authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain 
the report prepared but withheld by the INS. The subpoena was 
approved and signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. 
Hyde.
    In response to the subpoena, the INS provided the requested 
report. Data in the report indicated that in the years 
immediately following a major amnesty for illegal aliens 
enacted in 1986, there was a significant upsurge in illegal 
immigration.

Refugee consultations

            I. Fiscal year 1999
    On June 22, 1999, Members of the Judiciary Committee met 
with Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas R. 
Pickering and other Administration officials to discuss the 
Administration's proposal for an additional 20,000 numbers for 
emergency refugee admissions for Kosovar refugees in fiscal 
year 1999.
    By letter dated July 1, 1999, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to add 
3,000 numbers to the East Asia ceiling by transferring 2,000 
numbers from the unallocated reserve and 1,000 numbers from the 
Latin American allocation.
    On August 12, 1999, President Clinton issued Presidential 
Determination No. 99-33, which provided an additional 13,000 
numbers for emergency refugee admissions for Kosovar refugees 
in fiscal year 2000.
    By letter dated September 16, 1999, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to add 
1,000 numbers to the Africa ceiling and balance that increase 
by reducing the East Asia ceiling by 1,000 numbers.
    By letter dated September 27, 1999, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to add 
250 numbers to the Latin America/Caribbean ceiling, add 250 
numbers to the Near East/South Asia ceiling, and balance those 
increases by reducing the East Asia ceiling by 500 numbers.
    By letter dated October 22, 1999, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that fiscal 
year 1999 admissions totaled 85,006.
            II. Fiscal year 2000
    On September 22, 1999, Members of the Judiciary Committee 
met with Deputy Secretary of State Talbott and other 
Administration officials to discuss the Administration's 
proposal for refugee admissions in fiscal year 2000. That 
proposal was as follows:

Areas of Origin:
                                                        Proposed Ceiling
    Africa....................................................    18,000
    East Asia.................................................     8,000
    Europe:
        Former Yugoslavia (including 10,000 for Kosovo).......    27,000
        NIS//Baltics..........................................    20,000
    Latin America/Caribbean...................................     3,000
    Near East/South Asia......................................     8,000
    Unallocated Reserve.......................................     6,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................    90,000

    On September 30, 1999, President Clinton issued 
Presidential Determination No. 99-45, which put into force a 
fiscal year 2000 worldwide refugee ceiling of 90,000. This 
final determination was identical to the Administration's 
original proposal.
    By letter dated July 24, 2000, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of plans to add 
1,500 numbers to the Near East/South Asia ceiling, add 500 
numbers to the Latin America/Caribbean ceiling, and balance 
those increases by reducing the NIS/Baltics ceiling by 2,000 
numbers.
    By letter dated October 16, 2000, the Department of State 
advised the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that fiscal 
year 2000 admissions totaled 72,518.
            III. Fiscal year 2001
    On September 14, 2000, Members of the Judiciary Committee 
met with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and other 
Administration officials to discuss the Administration's 
proposal for refugee admissions in fiscal year 2001. That 
proposal was as follows:

Areas of Origin:
                                                        Proposed Ceiling
    Africa....................................................    20,000
    East Asia.................................................     6,000
    Europe:
        Former Yugoslavia.....................................    20,000
        NIS/Baltics...........................................    17,000
    Latin America/Caribbean...................................     3,000
    Near East/South Asia......................................    10,000
    Unallocated Reserve.......................................     4,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................    80,000

    On September 29, 2000, President Clinton issued 
Presidential Determination No. 2000-32, which put into force a 
fiscal year 2001 worldwide refugee ceiling of 80,000. This 
final determination was identical to the Administration's 
original proposal.
                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

   CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, 
             Chairman

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
MAXINE WATERS, California            ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York             BOB BARR, Georgia
                                     WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to Subcommittee..............................   132
Legislation reported favorably to full Committee..................     7
Legislation referred adversely to full Committee..................     0
Legislation reported without recommendation to full Committee.....     0
Legislation reported as original measure to the full Committee....     0
Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee......................     3
Legislation pending before the full Committee.....................     0
Legislation reported to the House.................................     9
Legislation discharged from the full Committee....................     9
Legislation pending in the House..................................     3
Legislation passed the House......................................    19
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     9
Legislation failed passage by the House...........................     2
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden)..............     0
Legislation enacted into public law...............................     4
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    17
Day of hearings (legislative and oversight).......................    25

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

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

                              legislation

The ADA Notification Act

    A legislative hearing on H.R. 3590, the ``ADA Notification 
Act,'' was held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution on May 
18, 2000. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Congressman 
Mark Foley; Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.; Clint Eastwood; 
Donna M. and David Batelaan, Lakeworth, Florida; Steven 
Rattner, College Park, Maryland; Terri L. Davis, Rancho Santa 
Fe, California; Kyle Glozier, New Freeport, Pennsylvania; 
Christine Griffin, Executive Director, Disability Law Center, 
Inc., Boston Massachusetts; Joe Fields, Jr., Attorney, West 
Palm Beach, Florida; Andy Levy, Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; 
Christopher G. Bell, Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 
Frederick A. Shoz, ADA Consulting Associates, Ft. Lauderdale, 
Florida; and Tammy K. Fields, Assistant County Attorney, Palm 
Beach County, Florida. No further action was taken on the 
measure.
    Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (``ADA'') became 
law a decade ago, it has done much to make public 
accommodations more accessible to everyone. That progress, 
however, is being threatened by a growing number of lawyers who 
are generating huge sums in legal fees for pointing out often 
simple fixes that would bring properties into compliance with 
the ADA's accessibility standards. This variety of litigation 
abuse stems from the lack of any notification provision in the 
ADA. This gap in the law now poses the danger that attorneys 
who continue to exploit it will needlessly foment ill will 
between the disabled community and business owners who would in 
good faith bring properties into compliance with the ADA if 
only they were alerted to the law's requirements.
    H.R. 3590 would amend the ADA by providing that a court 
would not have jurisdiction in a case brought under the ADA 
unless, before filing the complaint, the plaintiff has provided 
to the defendant notice of the alleged violation, by registered 
mail or in person, that identifies the specific facts that 
constitute the alleged violation, and that 90 days have passed 
during which time the defendant has not corrected the alleged 
violation. H.R. 3590 also provided that the court may impose 
and enforce appropriate sanctions upon attorneys failing to 
meet the 90-day notice requirement.

Armed Services Building Used As Polling Places

    On September 21, 2000, H.R. 5174, which would remove the 
uncertainty regarding the authority of the Department of 
Defense to permit buildings located on military installations 
and reserve component facilities to be used as polling places 
in Federal, State, and local elections for public office, was 
referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. On October 
12, 2000, H.R. 5174 was considered by the House under a 
suspension of the rules and agreed to by the yeas and nays, 297 
to 113.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

    On April 13, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Charles T. Canady 
introduced the ``BornAlive Infants Protection Act of 2000'' 
(H.R. 4292), a bill that would firmly establish that, for purposes of 
federal law an infant who is completely expelled or extracted from her 
mother and who is alive is, indeed, a person under the law--regardless 
of whether or not her lung development is believed to be, or is in 
fact, sufficient to permit long-term survival, and regardless of 
whether the baby survived an abortion. The Committee's Subcommittee on 
the Constitution held one day of hearings on H.R. 4292 on July 20, 
2000. Testimony was received from several witnesses: Prof. Hadley 
Arkes, Edward Ney Professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions, 
Amherst College; Allison Baker, Charlottesville, Virginia; Jill L. 
Stanek, Mokena, Illinois; Matthew G. Hile, Ph.D., St. Louis, Missouri; 
Gianna Jessen, Franklin, Tennessee; Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-
OH); Kenneth Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, 
Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; Prof. Gerard 
V. Bradley, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School; Dr. F. Sessions 
Cole, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics and Cell Biology and Physiology, 
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; Dr. 
Watson A. Bowes, Jr., M.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
School of Medicine; and Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of 
Jurisprudence, Department of Politics, Princeton University.
    On July 26, 2000, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4292, without 
amendment, by a recorded vote of 22 to 1. H.R. 4292 passed the 
House on September 26, 2000, by a vote of 380 to 15. Senator 
Rick Santorum introduced an identical bill in the Senate on 
September 27, 2000 (S. 3127), but no further action was taken 
on the measure.

The Bounty Hunter Responsibility Act

    The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2964, 
the ``Bounty Hunter Responsibility Act of 1999'' on March 30, 
2000. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Representative 
Asa Hutchinson; Representative Peter Deutsch; Chinelle Moore, 
Laurel, Maryland; Theresa Babb, Wilmington, North Carolina; 
Pamela Read, Coventry, Rhode Island; Jerry Watson, General 
Counsel, National Association of Bail Insurance Companies; 
Jonathan Drimmer, Chevy Chase, Maryland; Roger Moore, Attorney 
at Law, Roger Moore, P.C.; Sheldon Nahmod, Professor of Law, 
Chicago-Kent Law School; Russell Stanford, Detective, Fraternal 
Order of Police; Milton Hirsch, Attorney at Law; Tom Nickolich, 
AAA Bailbond Company; Armando O. Roche, President, Professional 
Bail Agents of the United States; and John Stein, National 
Organization for Victim Assistance. No further action was taken 
on the measure.
    After an arrest but before trial, most defendants hire bail 
bondsmen to post a bond with the court to secure the 
defendant's release. Bondsmen seeking defendants who either 
have fled or have missed a court date generally employ bounty 
hunters who are vested with the bondsman's powers. These bounty 
hunters are generally considered to have the power to search 
for and arrest a defendant on bond similar to those of a law 
enforcement official pursuing an escaped prisoner. Thus, bounty 
hunters need not obtain, under current law, arrest or search 
warrants and they need not ``knock and announce'' before 
searching.
    H.R. 2964, ``The Bounty Hunter Accountability Act of 
1999,'' would have established an incentives structure that 
would encourage the licensing of bounty hunters and bolster 
their professionalism. The bill is intended to deem bounty 
hunters, any surety on a bail bond, and any agent of such 
surety, ``state actors'' under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 whose powers 
would be consistent with the police powers most analogous to 
theirs, that is, those of a police officer pursuing an escaped 
offender. Under H.R. 2964, a bounty hunter would retain roughly 
the authority that he currently has and would only be liable to 
the extent that he exceeds the authority given him under common 
law interpretations, such as by utilizing excessive force or by 
performing a false arrest. Under the bill, a surety or agent of 
a surety is absolved of responsibility for the conduct of a 
bounty hunter entirely if the surety or agent takes all 
reasonable steps to assure that the bounty hunter is licensed 
in a State that requires licenses, or is licensed as a private 
investigator in a State requiring such licenses.

Celebrating One America

    On June 22, 1999, Representative Rangel introduced 
Celebrating One America, a resolution which expresses the sense 
of Congress that all people in the United States should reach 
out across our differences in ethnicity, race, and religion to 
respect each other and to celebrate, in friendship and unity, 
one America. The resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution on June 28, 1999. On October 13, 1999, the 
Committee on Judiciary discharged H. Con. Res. 141. The House 
passed H. Con. Res. 141 by unanimous consent. The Senate 
received and referred the resolution to the Committee on 
Judiciary on October 14, 1999. H. Con. Res. 141 was ordered to 
be reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without amendment 
on November 4, 1999. The resolution was agreed to in Senate 
without amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent on 
November 19, 1999 and sent to the House on November 22, 1999.

Child Custody Protection Act

    On March 23, 1999, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 
introduced the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' (H.R. 1218), a 
bill that would make it a federal offense to transport a minor 
across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if 
that action circumvents a state law requiring parental 
involvement in a minor's abortion. The Committee's Subcommittee 
on the Constitution held a hearing on H.R. 1218 on May 27, 
1999. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: 
Eileen Roberts, Mothers Against Minors' Abortions, Inc.; Billie 
Lominick of Newbury, South Carolina; Prof. Lino A. Graglia, A. 
Dalton Cross Professor of Law, University of Texas School of 
Law; Dr. Jonathon D. Klein, M.D., American Academy of 
Pediatrics; and Prof. John C. Harrison, Professor of Law, 
University of Virginia School of Law. Additional material was 
submitted by Prof. Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor 
of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; 
National Right to Life Committee, Inc.; Center for Reproductive 
Law and Policy; National Abortion and Reproductive Rights 
League; and the American Civil Liberties Union.
    On June 8, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met 
in open session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 1218, 
without amendment, by voice vote. On June 23, 1999, 
theCommittee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the 
bill, H.R. 1218, without amendment, by a recorded vote of 16 to 13. 
H.R. 1218 passed the House on June 30, 1999, by a vote of 270 to 159. 
Senator Spencer Abraham introduced an identical bill in the Senate (S. 
661) on March 18, 1999. No further action was taken on the measure.

Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act

    On March 2, 1999, Representative John Conyers, Jr. 
introduced H.R. 906, the ``Civic Participation and 
Rehabilitation Act of 1999,'' which was referred to the 
Subcommittee on March 16, 1999. The Civic Participation and 
Rehabilitation Act of 1999 is designed to secure the federal 
voting rights of persons who have been released from 
incarceration. On October 21, 1999, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on the bill. Testimony was received from the following 
witnesses: Representative Danny K. Davis; Marc Mauer, Assistant 
Director, The Sentencing Project; Roger Clegg, Vice President 
and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity; Gillian E. 
Metzger, Staff Attorney, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU 
School of Law; Viet D. Dinh, Associate Professor of Law and 
Deputy Director of Asian Law and Policy Studies Program, 
Georgetown University Law Center; Todd F. Gaziano, Senior 
Fellow in Legal Studies, The Heritage Foundation; and Hilary O. 
Shelton, Director to the Washington Bureau of the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People. No further 
action was taken on the measure.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2000 and the Digital 
        Privacy Act of 2000

    H.R. 5018, the ``Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 
2000,'' was introduced on July 27, 2000, by the Chairman of the 
Constitution Subcommittee, Charles T. Canady. H.R. 4987, the 
``Digital Privacy Act,'' was introduced on July 27, 2000, by 
Representative Bob Barr. A legislative hearing on H.R. 5018 and 
H.R. 4987 was held on September 6, 2000. Witnesses testifying 
at the hearing were Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Associate Attorney 
General, Department of Justice accompanied by David Green, 
Deputy Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section; 
James Dempsey, Senior Staff Counsel, the Center for Democracy 
and Technology; Gregory Nojeim, Legislative Council, the 
American Civil Liberties Union; Robert Corn-Revere, Hogan & 
Hartson; and Marc Rotenberg, Director, Electronic Privacy 
Information Center.
    H.R. 5018 resulted in part from issues raised during an 
oversight hearing on ``Fourth Amendment Issues Raised by the 
FBI's `Carnivore' Program'' and ``The Fourth Amendment and the 
Internet,'' which were held by the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution on April 6, 2000, and July 24, 2000, respectively.
    The development of the Internet as a networked global 
communications medium, the expansion in the range of 
transactions that occur ``on-line,'' and the amount of 
information now stored with third party ``Internet service 
providers'' have produced a qualitative change in the nature of 
communications and, accordingly, in the nature and amount of 
information that may be obtained by the government. In light of 
these recent developments, many have asked whether existing 
statutes protecting citizens from ``unreasonable searches and 
seizures'' under the Fourth Amendment appropriately balance the 
concerns of law enforcement with individuals' concerns that a 
sufficient degree of privacy and the integrity of personal 
information are maintained in an age of modern communications 
and information storage.
    The intent of H.R. 5018 was to balance the need for privacy 
and effective law enforcement in the digital age. H.R. 5018, 
among other things, sought to raise the standard for the 
government's access to the transactional data regarding a 
person's communications obtained with so-called pen register or 
trap and trace devices; to require the federal government to 
report annually on the number of requests it makes to disclose 
the contents of stored electronic communications; and to 
require high-level Department of Justice approval for 
interceptions of electronic communications, as is currently 
required for interceptions of wire and oral communications. 
H.R. 5018 also would have helped law enforcement capture 
criminals in the computer age by allowing electronic 
communications service providers to disclose to law enforcement 
basic customer records, such as name and address, in certain 
emergency situations, allowing law enforcement to use devices 
that track the source and destination of criminal 
communications without a court order for up to 48 hours in 
situations involving national security and ongoing attacks on 
computer networks, and by raising the maximum penalty for the 
most serious computer violations to ten years in prison.
    On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported to the full Committee the bill H.R. 5018 as amended by 
a voice vote. On September 26, 2000, the full Committee order 
favorably reported (H. Rept. 106-932, filed October 4, 2000) 
the bill to the House as amended by a vote of 20 to 1. No 
further action was taken on the measure.

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to reauthorize funding 
        for the Office of Government Ethics

    On September 21, 1999, Representative Joe Scarborough 
introduced legislation ``To amend the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978 to reauthorize funding for the Office of Government 
Ethics'' (H.R. 2904) through fiscal year 2003. H.R. 2904 was 
jointly referred to both the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Government Reform.
    The Committee on the Judiciary discharged H.R. 2904 on 
November 2, 1999. The Committee on Government Reform reported 
the bill on that same date with an amendment to the Federal 
criminal code provisions concerning bribery, graft, and 
conflicts of interest. That amendment would include within the 
definition of ``special Government employee'' a Reserve officer 
or officer in the National Guard who is serving voluntarily for 
not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive 
days. The amendment would also include as an ``officer'' and 
``employee'' the following: (1) an individual retained, 
designated, appointed, or employed in the U.S. Government or in 
the District of Columbia government to perform with or without 
compensation and subject to the supervision of the President, 
Vice President, Member of Congress, Federal judge, or officer 
or employee of the U.S. or District Government a Federal or 
District function (as defined in this Act) under authority of 
law or executive Act; (2) a Reserve officer or officer in the 
National Guard who is serving voluntarily for not to exceed 130 
days during any period of 365 consecutive days; and (3) the 
President, Vice President, Member ofCongress, or Federal judge 
to the extent specified under such provisions. The amendment would 
exclude as an officer or employee or special Government employee: (1) 
enlisted members of the armed forces; and (2) an individual who is 
retained, designated, or appointed without compensation specifically to 
act as a representative of an interest on an advisory committee 
established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act or any 
similarly established committee whose meetings are generally open to 
the public. On a motion to suspend the rules, H.R. 2904 passed the 
House, as amended, on November 8, 1999 by a vote of 386 to 1.
    Senator Fred Thompson introduced similar legislation in the 
Senate on August 15, 1999, reauthorizing the Office of 
Government Ethics through fiscal year 2003. That bill, S. 1503, 
passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1999. 
S. 1503 was sent to the House and referred to both the 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government 
Reform on February 8, 2000. No further action was taken on the 
measure.

Flag Protection Amendment

    On March 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
held a hearing on H.J. Res. 33, a joint resolution proposing to 
amend the Constitution of the United States to allow Congress 
to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States. The proposed amendment reads simply: ``The Congress 
shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of 
the flag of the United States.'' The amendment itself does not 
prohibit flag desecration. It merely empowers Congress to enact 
legislation to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
and establishes boundaries within which it may legislate.
    At the March 23, 1999 hearing, the Subcommittee received 
testimony from 13 witnesses: Representative Randy ``Duke'' 
Cunningham; Representative Steve Buyer; Representative John 
Lewis; Representative John Sweeney; Representative Wayne 
Gilchrest; Mr. Stephan Ross, concentration camp survivor and 
senior staff psychologist for the City of Boston Community 
Schools and Centers; Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger, Professor 
of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; Major 
General Patrick Brady (USA-Ret), Chairman of the Citizen Flag 
Alliance's Board of Directors; Bishop Carlton Pearson, 
presiding Bishop over the Azusa Interdenominational Fellowship, 
Shawntel Smith, former Miss America from Oklahoma; Captain 
Joseph F. Rogers, (U.S.N.R.-Ret.), corporate counsel, Alcatel 
USA; David Skaggs, former United States Representative and 
current Executive Director of the Democracy and Citizenship 
Program at the Aspen Institute; and Douglas C. Clifton, 
executive editor of the Miami Herald.
    On April 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
held a markup of H.J. Res. 33 and ordered it favorably reported 
to the full Committee, without amendment, by a vote of 7 to 4. 
On May 26, 1999, the full Committee met in open session and 
ordered H.J. Res. 33 favorably reported to the House, without 
amendment, by voice vote. (H. Rept. 106-191).
    The House passed H.J. Res. 33 on June 24, 1999 by a vote of 
305-124. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported an identical 
joint resolution, S.J. Res. 14, on April 29, 1999 (S. Rept. 
106-246). The Senate voted on S.J. Res. 14 on March 29, 2000, 
and it failed to attain the necessary two-thirds majority, 63-
37.

Adding the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday to the Flag Code

    On May 19, 1999, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably, without amendment and by voice 
vote, H.R. 576 (H. Rept. 106-176). No hearing was held on H.R. 
576 prior to the May 9, 1999 Judiciary Committee markup 
session. The legislation passed the House by voice vote on 
October 12, 1999. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed an 
identical version of H.R. 576, S. 322 (no report was filed), on 
April 12, 1999. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent 
on June 14, 1999. S. 322 was considered under unanimous consent 
by the House on October 12, 1999 and it passed without 
objection. S. 322 was signed by the President and became Public 
Law 106-80 on October 12, 1999.
    H.R. 576 amends 4 U.S.C. Sec. 6(d) to add the Martin Luther 
King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the flag should 
be especially displayed. Currently, all nine other permanent 
Federal holidays are listed in the Flag Code to remind 
Americans to show respect for the people and events that have 
shaped our nation. However, when Congress passed the 
legislation creating the King holiday in 1983, it failed to 
include additional language to the bill that would have amended 
the Flag Code to include this new holiday on the list of days 
on which the flag should be especially displayed. H.R. 576 is 
simple, straightforward legislation that aims to correct the 
oversight that left the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday 
off the U.S. Flag Code's list of days on which Americans are 
encouraged to display the American flag.

Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000

    On July 19, 2000, Representative Ros-Lehtinen introduced 
H.R. 4888. The bill was held at the full Committee. The 
legislative history of H.R. 4888 is detailed in the full 
Committee section in this report.

The Justice in Fair Housing Act

    The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2437, 
the ``Justice in Fair Housing Enforcement Act of 1999'' on 
October 28, 1999. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Len 
Tozer, Tozer Builders, Inc., Winterville, North Carolina, 
William J. Malleris, President, Maple Court Development, Inc., 
Naperville, Illinois, Mark Ellis Tipton, Chief Executive 
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, SMART HOUSE, 
Inc. and past President of the National Association of Home 
Builders, Brian D. Black, Director of Building Codes and 
Standards, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, Buffalo, New 
York, Paul E. Myers, Assistant Director of the City of 
Cincinnati's Department of Buildings and Inspections, 
Cincinnati, Ohio and President of the Building Officials and 
Code Administrators International Inc., City of St. Bernard and 
the Village of Evendale, Ohio, Kelly J. Buckland, Executive 
Director, Idaho State Independent Living Council, Boise, Idaho, 
and Theresa L. Kitay, partner, Coughlin & Kitay, P. Co. 
Norcross, Georgia. No further action was taken on the measure.
    H.R. 2437 would have provided relief from prosecution to 
those in the buildingcommunity who may have committed building 
design violations under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 at a 
time when HUD failed to ensure that novel federal building code 
requirements were reflected in local building codes on which builders 
have traditionally relied and when HUD's interpretations of those legal 
requirements were particularly unclear. H.R. 2437 would exempt from 
prosecution under the Act only buildings that were designed for first 
occupancy during the period beginning March 13, 1991--the date on which 
the Act became effective--and ending on the date of H.R. 2437's 
enactment; and that received a building permit or other similar 
approval from the relevant State or local building authorities as 
meeting the requirements of the applicable building code.
    Traditionally, it has been the industry practice for 
architects and builders to rely on local building code 
authorities for assurances of legal compliance. Many local 
jurisdictions had some housing accessibility requirements prior 
to 1988, so many builders thought that if they received a local 
building permit, the building was in compliance with 
accessibility requirements. However, since the federal 
accessibility requirements generally go beyond local 
accessibility codes, buildings that meet local requirements do 
not necessarily meet federal requirements. Currently, however, 
architects and builders cannot rely on local building code 
agencies to inform them of what accessibility designs are 
required under federal law and there is no place for builders, 
architects or others to go to get building plans approved for 
compliance with these federal accessibility requirements. This 
situation has created confusion and the involvement of many 
architects, builders, developers, and rental housing owners in 
costly prosecutions for fair housing accessibility violations.

The Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act

    A legislative hearing on H.R. 4908, the ``Notice of 
Electronic Monitoring Act,'' was held by the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution on September 6, 2000. Witnesses testifying at 
the hearing were Senator Charles Schumer; James Dempsey, Senior 
Staff Counsel, The Center for Democracy and Technology; Gregory 
Nojeim, Legislative Counsel, the American Civil Liberties 
Union; Marc Rotenberg, Director, Electronic Privacy Information 
Center; Lewis Maltby, President, National Workrights Institute; 
Kenneth Segarnick, Assistant General Counsel, United Messaging; 
and Michael Overly, Foley & Lardner. No further action was 
taken on the measure.
    Individuals and businesses are increasingly using computers 
in various capacities to maximize productivity in the 
workplace. Specifically, a majority of companies have 
implemented electronic mail, or ``e-mail,'' systems to receive 
and disseminate information throughout the company. Employer 
monitoring of employee e-mail has raised concerns about privacy 
in the workplace. An employer should have the right to conduct 
business in a self-determined manner. Employees, on the other 
hand, have an interest in some degree of privacy. H.R. 4908 
provided that an employer who intentionally, by any electronic 
means, reads, listens to, or otherwise monitors any wire, oral, 
or electronic communication of an employee of the employer, or 
otherwise monitors the computer usage of an employee of the 
employer, without first having provided the employee notice 
meeting certain requirements shall be liable to the employee 
for relief. H.R. 4908 also provided that employers shall 
provide annual notice to employees regarding its practices 
regarding the monitoring of employee electronic communications, 
and notice each time such monitoring practices are changed. 
Such notice shall include notice of the form of communication 
or computer usage that will be monitored; the means by which 
such monitoring will be accomplished and the kinds of 
information that will be obtained through such monitoring, 
including whether communications or computer usage not related 
to the employer's business are likely to be monitored; the 
frequency of such monitoring; and how information obtained by 
such monitoring will be stored, used, or disclosed. H.R. 4908 
further provides that an employer may conduct electronic 
monitoring without the notice if the employer has reasonable 
grounds to believe that a particular employee of the employer 
is engaged in conduct that violates the legal rights of the 
employer or another person that involves significant harm to 
the employer or such other person, and that the electronic 
monitoring will produce evidence of such conduct. H.R. 4908 
also provided that an employee subject to monitoring without 
required notice may seek relief from a federal court, including 
actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the 
amount of $5,000; punitive damages; reasonable attorneys' fees 
and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and such other 
preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be 
appropriate. The amount of monetary damages awarded an employee 
may not exceed 20,000, and the aggregate amount of monetary 
damages awarded against an employer for a given violation may 
not exceed $500,000.

National Birmingham Pledge Week Resolution

    On June 14, 2000, Representative Bachus submitted H.J. Res. 
102, a resolution which recognizes that the Birmingham Pledge 
is a significant contribution to fostering racial harmony; 
commends those involved with the creation of the Pledge, 
including Jim Rotch, who authored the Pledge, and those who 
have signed it. It expresses the sense of the Congress that a 
National Birmingham Pledge Week should be established. The 
House passed the resolution on September 12, 2000 and the 
Senate passed an amended version of H.J. Res. 102 on October 
26, 2000. The House then passed H.J. Res. 102, as amended by 
the Senate on October 30, 2000 and the resolution was signed 
into law, Public Law 106-483, by the President on November 11, 
2000.

National Motto for Religious People

    On July 18, 2000, H. Res. 548, expressing the sense of 
Congress regarding the national motto for the government of a 
religious people, was referred to the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. On July 24, 2000, H. Res. 548 was considered by 
the House under a suspension of the rules and agreed to by 
voice vote.

Ohio State Motto

    On May 9, 2000, H. Res. 494, expressing the sense of the 
House of Representatives that the Ohio State motto is 
constitutional and urging the courts to uphold its 
constitutionality, was referred to the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. On June 27, 2000, H. Res. 494 was considered by 
the House under a suspension of the rules and agreed to by the 
yeas and nays 333 to 27.

Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999

    On June 17, 1999, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Henry J. Hyde, introduced the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act of 
2000'' (H.R. 2260), a bill to amend the Controlled Substances 
Act to promote pain management and palliative care without 
permitting assisted suicide. The Subcommittee held a hearing on 
June 24, 1999. The following witnesses testified: Samira 
Beckwith, President and CEO, Hope Hospice; Ann Jackson, 
Executive Director and CEO, Oregon Hospice Association; N. 
Gregory Hamilton, M.D., Physicians for Compassionate Care; 
David E. Joranson, M.S.S.W., Senior Scientist and Director of 
The Pain and Policy Studies Group; Comprehensive Cancer Center, 
The University of Wisconsin Medical Group; Richard Doerflinger, 
Associate Director for Policy Development, Secretariat for Pro-
Life Activities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops; 
Walter R. Hunter, M.D., Associate National Medical Director, 
VistaCare Hospice; David Orentlicher, M.D.; J.D., Professor, 
Indiana University School of Law--Indianapolis Center for Law 
and Health; Thomas Marzen, General Counsel, The National Legal 
Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc.
    On July 7, 1999, H.R. 2260 was referred to the Commerce 
Committee. On October 13, 1999, the Commerce Full Committee 
favorably reported the bill, as amended by voice vote. (H. 
Rept. 106-378, Part II).
    On July 7, 1999, H.R. 2260 was also referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. On July 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution ordered favorably reported to the full Committee 
the bill H.R. 2260 by voice vote. On September 14, 1999, the 
full Committee ordered favorably reported the bill as amended 
to the House by a vote of 16-8. (H. Rept. 106-378, Part I). On 
October 21, 1999, the Committee on Rules granted a modified 
open rule (H. Res. 339) providing for the consideration of H.R. 
2260. On October 27, 1999, Rule H. Res. 339 passed the House 
and H.R. 2260 was considered under the provisions of Rule H. 
Res. 339.
    H.R. 2260 passed the House on October 27, 1999, by a vote 
of 271-156. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably 
H.R. 2260 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. On 
October 25, 2000, Chairman Hyde introduced H.R. 5544, the Pain 
Relief Promotion Act of 2000, which was the text of the Senate 
amended version of H.R. 2260. H.R. 5544 was included as one of 
the provisions of H.R. 2614, the ``Certified Development 
Company Program Improvements Act of 2000''. The House passed 
H.R. 2614 on October 26, 2000. On October 26, 2000 the Senate 
passed a motion to proceed to consider the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2614 by a vote of 55-40. No further action was 
taken on the measure.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act

    On February 15, 1999, Representative Canady introduced H.R. 
3660. The bill was held at full Committee. The legislative 
history of H.R. 3660 and S. 1692 are detailed in the full 
Committee section in this report.

The Property Rights Implementation Act

    On June 29, 1999, the Chairman of the Constitution 
Subcommittee, Charles T. Canady, introduced H.R. 2372, the 
``Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999.'' H.R. 
2372 would clarify and simplify the procedures by which 
property owners may vindicate their Fifth Amendment 
constitutional rights in federal court.
    The ``Takings Clause'' protects private property owners 
from the devaluation of their property caused by excessive 
regulation, makes government run more efficiently by requiring 
it to internalize the costs of its more burdensome regulations, 
and spreads the costs of regulation fairly over its taxpaying 
citizenry. In recent years, the manner in which federal courts 
have developed the rules by which they decide whether a case is 
properly ``teed up'' for a hearing on the merits--the so called 
``ripeness doctrine''--has led to the erection of cost 
prohibitive and excessively time consuming procedural hurdles 
for takings plaintiffs seeking to bring claims to enforce their 
federal Fifth Amendment rights against local governments. These 
``prudential'' procedural rules, formulated ad hoc and 
independent of any grounding in the text of the Constitution, 
have failed to clarify when a local government has reached 
``final decision'' on the use of private property. Local 
governments have taken advantage of this ambiguity by denying 
takings plaintiffs a definitive answer, a ``final decision,'' 
as to precisely how they can use their property if their 
initial application for property use is denied. Takings 
plaintiffs are then left in a perpetual holding pattern in 
which they cannot land in federal court.
    H.R. 2372 was designed to address this systematic 
suppression of individuals' defenses to property rights 
violations by clarifying and simplifying the procedures 
governing federal property rights claims in federal court. In 
particular, H.R. 2372 clarifies when a ``final decision'' has 
been made by a local government regarding the permissible use 
of private property. H.R. 2372 also removes the requirement 
that property owners litigate the federal takings claims in 
state court first and prevents federal judges from abstaining 
in cases that involve only federal takings claims, over which 
they have always been the ultimate arbiters.
    The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on the bill on 
September 15, 1999. Witnesses testifying were Richard Reahard, 
Bonita Springs, Florida, Dick Goodwin, Goodwin Enterprises, 
Joseph Barbieri, Deputy Attorney General of California, Diane 
S. Shea, Associate Legislative Director, National Association 
of Counties and National League of Cities, and Daniel R. 
Mandelker, Howard A. Stamper Professor of Law, Washington 
University.
    On February 2, 2000, the Subcommittee ordered favorably 
reported to the full Committee the bill H.R. 2372 as amended by 
a voice vote. On March 9, 2000, the full Committee ordered 
favorably reported (H. Rept. 106-518, filed March 13, 2000) the 
bill as amended to the full House by the yeas and nays 14 to 7. 
On March 15, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary filed a 
report, House Report 106-518. On March 15, 2000, the Committee 
on Rules granted a modified closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2372. H.R. 2372 passed the House by a 
vote of 226 yeas and 182 nays on March 16, 2000.

Religious Liberty Protection Act

    On May 5, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Charles T. Canady 
introduced the ``Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999'' 
(H.R. 1691), a bill that would protect religious activities and 
practices from being substantially burdened by government 
action. H.R. 1691 was introduced, inpart, in response to the 
Supreme Court's partial invalidation of the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act (RFRA), which itself was enacted in 1993 in response to 
an earlier Court decision.
    RFRA was a response to the Supreme Court's decision in 
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), holding that 
the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of 
religion did not extend to religious exercise that is burdened 
by a neutral law of general applicability. RFRA restored legal 
protection for religious exercise in such situations by 
requiring religious freedom claims to be analyzed under the 
strict scrutiny standard, evaluating whether the offending law 
is the ``least restrictive'' means of furthering a 
``compelling'' governmental interest. In 1997, the Supreme 
Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), 
invalidated RFRA as applied to infringement of religious 
freedom by state and local governments.
    The Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998, H.R. 1691's 
predecessor, was introduced in the 105th Congress in response 
to the Boerne decision. The Subcommittee on the Constitution 
held five hearings in the 105th Congress on the need for 
federal protection of religious freedom after the Boerne 
decision and on the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998. 
The hearings examined specific cases of generally applicable 
laws and government actions that substantially burden the free 
exercise of religion, patterns of religious discrimination by 
less-than-generally-applicable laws in the area of land use and 
zoning, and the constitutionality and effect of the Religious 
Liberty Protection Act of 1998. The Subcommittee reported the 
bill favorably with certain amendments and no further action 
was taken on the bill.
    In the 106th Congress the Committee's Subcommittee on the 
Constitution held one day of hearings on H.R. 1691 on May 12, 
1999. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: Dr. 
Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty 
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Prof. Lawrence 
G. Sager, Robert B. McKay Professor of Law, New York University 
School of Law; Von Keetch, Counsel, The Church of Jesus Christ 
of Latter-Day Saints; J. Brent Walker, General Counsel, Baptist 
Joint Committee on Public Affairs; Dr. Clarence E. Hodges, Vice 
President, Seventh-day Adventist Church of North America; 
Christopher E. Anders, Legislative Counsel, American Civil 
Liberties Union; Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel, 
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Prof. Chai Feldblum, 
Professor of Law and Director, Federal Legislation Clinic, 
Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Douglas Laycock, 
Associate Dean of Research, University of Texas Law School; 
Oliver S. Thomas, Special Counsel for Religious and Civil 
Liberties, National Council of Churches; Reverend C. J. Malloy, 
Jr., First Baptist Church of Georgetown; Bradley Jacobs for 
Michael P. Farris, President, Home School Legal Defense 
Association; Prof. Marci A. Hamilton, Professor of Law, 
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Steven T. McFarland, 
Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal 
Society.
    On May, 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill, H.R. 
1691, as amended, by a voice vote. On June 15 and 23, 1999, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill, H.R. 1691, with an amendment, by voice vote. On July 
15, 1999, H.R. 1691 passed the House by a vote of 306 to 118. A 
similar bill was introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch in the 
Senate on February 23, 2000 (S. 2081), but no further action 
was taken on the measure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See ``Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 
2000'' (H.R. 4862/S. 2869) for further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

    On July 13, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Charles T. Canady 
introduced the ``Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 
Persons Act of 2000'' (H.R. 4862), a bill that would provide 
needed protection for religious liberty in two critical areas. 
First, H.R. 4862 would protect houses of worship and other 
religious assemblies and institutions from improper 
interference by land use authorities. In the recent past, 
zoning authorities have used their power to restrict churches' 
times of operation and the number of persons who may attend 
worship services, and zoning policies have effectively excluded 
minority faiths from certain jurisdictions and shut down the 
community ministries of houses of worship. H.R. 4862 would 
afford houses of worship the level of protection they ought to 
receive in a society that values religious liberty. It would 
require that in order for any land use regulation to 
substantially burden religious exercise, the locality must show 
that the regulation serves a compelling state interest by the 
least restrictive means. It would also prohibit various forms 
of religious discrimination and exclusion in land use matters. 
The second area addressed by H.R. 4862 is the religious liberty 
afforded to institutionalized persons, such as those confined 
in homes for the disabled and chronically ill as well as those 
confined in correctional facilities. H.R. 4862 provides that 
the government may not impose a substantial burden on the 
religious exercise of an institutionalized person unless that 
burden is justified by a compelling interest that is furthered 
by the least restrictive means.
    An identical bill was introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch in 
the Senate on July 13, 2000 (S. 2869), and that legislation 
passed without amendment in the Senate by unanimous consent on 
July 27, 2000. S. 2869 also passed in the House by unanimous 
consent on July 27, 2000, and was signed into law as Public Law 
106-274 by the President on September 22, 2000.

Settlement of Discrimination Claims Against Department of Agriculture

    On March 30, 2000, Representative Jay Dickey introduced H. 
Con. Res. 296, expressing the sense of the Congress regarding 
the necessity to expedite the settlement process for 
discrimination claims against the Department of Agriculture 
brought by African-American farmers. H. Con. Res. 296 was 
referred to the Subcommittee on April 7, 2000 and was 
discharged by the Subcommittee on May 8, 2000. The resolution 
was taken up by the House under suspension of the rules on May 
8, 2000. On motion to suspend the rules and to agree to the 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 296 failed to pass by a vote of 216-
180 (two-thirds vote required).

Tax Limitation Amendments

    On March 11, 1999, Representative Joe Barton introduced 
H.J. Res. 37, ``Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States with respect to tax limitations,'' which was 
referred to the Subcommittee on March 29, 1999. On April 15, 
1999, H.J. Res. 37 was considered by the House but failed 
passage by a vote of 229-199 (two-thirds vote required).
    On April 6, 1999, Representative Pete Sessions introduced a 
related joint resolution, H.J. Res. 94, ``Proposing an 
amendment to the Constitutioin of the United States with 
respect to tax limitation,'' which was referred to the 
Subcommittee on April 7, 1999. On April 12, 1999, H.J. Res. 94 
was considered by the House but failed passage by a vote of 
234-192 (two-thirds vote required).

Unborn Victims of Violence

    On July 1, 1999, Representative Lindsey O. Graham 
introduced the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999'' (H.R. 
2436), a bill that would hold violent criminals liable for the 
harm inflicted upon unborn children during the commission of 
certain already defined Federal crimes committed against the 
unborn child's mother. The bill would make it a separate 
offense to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission 
of one of the predicate Federal crimes. The Committee's 
Subcommittee on the Constitution held one day of hearings on 
H.R. 2436 on July 21, 1999. Testimony was received from the 
following witnesses: Michael Lenz, Choctaw, Oklahoma; Lt. 
Colonel Keith Roberts, Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, 
Air Force Legal Services Agency, Bolling Air Force Base, 
Washington, D.C.; Pamela B. Stuart, Attorney; Ronald H. Weich, 
Attorney, Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor & Kolker; Terry 
M. Dempsey, Judge, District Court, 5th Judicial District, St. 
James, Minnesota; Prof. Hadley Arkes, Edward Ney Professor of 
Jurisprudence and American Institutions, Amherst College; Juley 
Anna Fulcher, Public Policy Director, National Coalition 
Against Domestic Violence; Prof. Peter N. Rubin, Visiting 
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. 
Gerard V. Bradley, Professor, Notre Dame Law School.
    On August 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 
2436, with an amendment, by a vote of 5 to 2. On September 14, 
1999, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 2436, with an amendment, by a recorded 
vote of 14 to 11. H.R. 2436 passed the House on September 30, 
1999, with an amendment, by a vote of 254 to 172. On February 
23, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on an 
identical bill (S . 1673, introduced by Senator Michael DeWine 
on September 30, 1999), but no further action was taken on the 
measure.

Victims' Rights Amendment

    On August 4, 1999, Representative Steve Chabot introduced 
H.J. Res. 64, ``Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States to protect the rights of crime victims.'' 
H.J. Res. 64, which seeks to bestow certain rights on ``[e]ach 
individual who is a victim of a crime for which the defendant 
can be imprisoned for a period longer than one year or any 
other crime that involves violence,'' was referred to the 
Subcommittee on September 24, 1999.
    On February 10, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
H.J. Res. 64. Testimony wasreceived from the following 
witnesses: Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Dianne Feinstein; Representative 
Steve Chabot; Representative James A. Barcia, Representative Robert C. 
Scott; Andrea Rehkamp, Executive Director and Co-founder, Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving, Southwestern Ohio Chapter; Christine Long, 
Member of the Board of Directors and Chairperson of Victims' Rights 
Committee, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc., Emmett E. (Bud) 
Welch, Member, Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, Marlene A. 
Young, Executive Director, National Organization for Victim Assistance; 
The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia, Member of the Committee on Criminal Law and 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislation, Judicial Conference of the 
United States; Steven J. Twist, Member of the Steering Committee, 
National Victims' Constitutional Amendment Network, and former Chief 
Assistant Attorney General, State of Arizona; Bruce Fein, Former 
Associate Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; 
Robert P. Mosteller, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law, 
Doug Beloof, Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & 
Clark College. No further action was taken on the measure.

Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act

    On July 1, 1999, Representative Rick Lazio introduced H.R. 
2442, the ``Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil 
Liberties Act,'' which was referred to the Subcommittee on 
September 24, 1999. The Wartime Violation of Italian American 
Civil Liberties Act is designed to provide for the preparation 
of a government report detailing injustices suffered by Italian 
Americans during World War II. On October 26, 1999, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2442. Testimony was 
received from the following witnesses: Representative Rick 
Lazio; Representative Eliot Engel; Rose Viscuso Scudero; Doris 
L. Pinza; Colonel Angelo de Guttadauro (Ret.); Dominic 
DiMaggio; Lawrence Di Stasi, President, American Italian 
Historical Association, Western Regional Chapter, and Project 
Director, ``Una Storia Segreta: When Italian Americans Were 
`Enemy Aliens' ''; Anthony E. La Pianta, National Italian 
American Council; Matthew Di Domenico, Sr., Executive Vice 
President, National Italian American Foundation; and Dr. Philip 
Piccigallo, National Executive Director, Order Sons of Italy in 
America.
    H.R. 2442 was taken up by the House under suspension of the 
rules on November 10, 1999. The House agreed to the measure 
under a suspension of the rules by voice vote.
    On September 28, 2000, the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary ordered H.R. 2442 to be reported with amendments 
favorably. H.R. 2442 passed the Senate with amendments by 
unanimous consent on October 19, 2000.
    On October 24, 2000, the House suspended the rules and 
passed H.R. 2442 with the Senate amendments by voice vote. H.R. 
2442 was signed into law as Public Law 106-451 by the President 
on November 7, 2000.

                          oversight activities

The Application of the ADA to Internet Sites

    The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on ``The 
Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Private 
Internet Sites'' on February 9, 2000. Witnesses testifying at 
the hearing were Dennis Hayes, Chairman, U.S. Internet Industry 
Association, Gary Wunder, Programer Analyst-Expert, ITS--Hosp 
Business Apps, The University of Missouri, Dr. Steven Lucas, 
CIO and Sr. Vice President, Privaseek, Inc., Judy Brewer, 
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International 
Program Office, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Susyn Conway, 
Reston, Virginia, Elizabeth K. Dorminey, Wimberly, Lawson, 
Steckel, Nelson & Schneider, P.C., Peter D. Blanck, Professor 
of Law, The University of Iowa College of Law, Walter Olsen, 
Wilton, Connecticut, and Charles J. Cooper, Cooper, Carvin & 
Rosenthal.
    The Federal government is scheduled to promulgate 
handicapped accessibility requirements that will apply to 
Federal department and agency Internet sites. These Federal 
Standards will likely be used as a model for Internet 
accessibility requirements by litigants suing private providers 
of Internet web sites and services under the Americans With 
Disabilities Act (``ADA''). It is the opinion of the Department 
of Justice that the ADA's accessibility requirements do apply 
to private Internet web sites and services, and, on November 2, 
1999, the National Federation for the Blind filed a class 
action lawsuit against America Online--which currently serves 
approximately 20 million member customers--claiming the ADA's 
accessibility requirements apply to AOL's Internet services and 
that the manner in which such services are currently provided 
violates the ADA.
    These developments raise issues related to the new 
significance of the Internet economy to recent economic growth, 
the costs that application of the ADA would impose on that 
rapidly expanding segment of the economy, and the substantial 
First Amendment implications of applying the ADA to private 
Internet web sites and services.

Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice

    On October 14, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing of the Civil Rights Division of the United States 
Department of Justice regarding charter schools. Testimony was 
received from the following witnesses: Andy Kopplin, Special 
Assistant and Director of Policy, Office of the Governor of 
Louisiana; Larry D. Galloway, Parent and Community Activist; 
Victor C. Kirk, President, Victor C. Kirk, Inc.; Clint Bolick, 
Vice President and Director of Litigation, Institute for 
Justice; Dr. Donna Elam, Associate Director; Southeastern 
Equity Center; Rolfe McCollister, Jr., Board of Directors, 
Children's Charter School; Anita Hodgkiss, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice.
    On July 12, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing of the Civil Rights Division regarding a range of 
issues, including (1) recent developments in the United States 
v. City of Torrance, California and United States v. City of 
Garland, Texas employment discrimination cases, (2) the 
Division's handling of charter schools, (3) the status of the 
Division's school desegregation cases, (4) the Division's 
handling of its lawsuit against the Adam's Mark hotel chain, 
and (5) reports on the Division recently issued by the 
GeneralAccounting Office. Testimony was received from Acting Assistant 
Attorney General Bill Lann Lee.

Constitutional Rights and the Grand Jury

    On July 27, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on constitutional rights and the grand jury. Testimony 
was received from the following witnesses: James K. Robinson, 
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department 
of Justice; Loretta Lynch, United States Attorney for the 
Eastern District of New York, U.S. Department of Justice; Sara 
Sun Beale, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law; 
Peter J. Henning, Associate Professor of Law and Director of 
Graduate Studies, Wayne State University Law School; Andrew D. 
Leipold, Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of 
Law.

The First Amendment and Restrictions on Political Speech

    On May 5, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on ``The First Amendment and Restrictions on Political 
Speech.'' This hearing focused on the apparent conflict between 
various recent ``campaign finance reform'' proposals and the 
freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. Witnesses 
testifying were: David M. Mason, Commissioner, Federal Election 
Commission; Laura W. Murphy, Director, American Civil Liberties 
Union, Washington D.C.; Prof. Richard Briffault, Vice Dean and 
Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law 
School; Roger Pilon, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional 
Studies, Cato Institute; Glenn J. Moramarco, Senior Attorney, 
Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law; 
Joseph Remcho, Attorney, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell; John C. 
Bonifaz, Executive Director, National Voting Rights Institute; 
James Bopp, Jr., Attorney, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom.

The Internet and the Fourth Amendment and the FBI's ``Carnivore'' 
        Program

    The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on ``Fourth 
Amendment Issues Raised by the FBI's `Carnivore' Program'' on 
July 24, 2000. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Dr. 
Donald M. Kerr, Director, Lab Division, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation; Larry R. Parkinson, General Counsel, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation; Kevin V. Di Gregory, Deputy Associate 
Attorney General, Department of Justice; David Green, Deputy 
Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, 
Department of Justice; Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director, 
American Civil Liberties Union; Alan Davidson, Staff Counsel, 
The Center for Democracy and Technology; Robert Corn-Revere, 
Attorney, Hogan & Hartson; Matt Blaze, Research Scientist, AT&T 
Labs; Stewart Baker, Attorney, Steptoe & Johnson; Peter William 
Sachs, ICONN, L.L.C.; Tom Perrine, Principal Investigator, 
Pacific Institute for Computer Security.
    The Federal Bureau of Investigation's program, named 
``Carnivore,'' is an electronic surveillance tool used to 
extract data, subject to a court order, from packet-switched 
networks. Such data may include transactional information, e-
mail messages, and other information traveling over the 
Internet.
    The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on ``The Fourth 
Amendment and the Internet'' on April 6, 2000. Witnesses 
testifying at the hearing were James X. Dempsey, Senior Staff 
Counsel, The Center for Democracy and Technology; Gregory 
Nojeim, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union, 
Washington National Office; Kevin V. Di Gregory, Deputy 
Associate Attorney General, Department of Justice; David Green, 
Deputy Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, 
Department of Justice; Stewart Baker, Steptoe & Johnson; 
Frederick Juergens Baker, Chair, Internet Engineering Task 
Force; Clifford S. Fishman, Professor of Law, Columbus School 
of Law, The Catholic University of America; Robert Corn-Revere, 
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.; Jeff B. Richards, Executive Director, 
Internet Alliance; Nicole Wong, Perkins Coie, San Francisco; 
and Jeffrey Rosen, Associate Professor of Law, The George 
Washington University Law School.
    The development of the Internet as a networked global 
communications medium, the expansion in the range of 
transactions that occur ``on-line,'' and the amount of 
information now stored with third party ``Internet service 
providers'' have produced a qualitative change in the nature of 
communications and, accordingly, in the nature and amount of 
information that may be obtained by the government. In light of 
these recent developments, many have asked whether existing 
statutes protecting citizens from ``unreasonable searches and 
seizures'' under the Fourth Amendment appropriately balance the 
concerns of law enforcement with individuals' concerns that a 
sufficient degree of privacy and the integrity of personal 
information are maintained in an age of modern communications 
and information storage.

Telecommunications Policy and Property Rights

    The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on ``Private 
Property Rights and Telecommunications Policy'' on March 21, 
2000. Witnesses testifying at the hearing were Steven R. 
Rosenthal, Partner, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, Viet D. Dinh, 
Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown Law Center, Steven J. 
Eagle, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law, 
Brent W. Bitz, Executive Vice President of Management Services, 
Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty, Timothy R. Graham, 
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Winstar 
Communications, Inc., John Haring, Principal, Strategic Policy 
Research, Inc., and John B. Hayes, Principal, Charles River 
Associates, Inc.
    In order to make telecommunications services, such as 
wireless communications services, more widely available, the 
Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') has considered 
issuing a rule that would require building owners to provide 
access to their properties to telecommunications service 
providers under rates, terms, and conditions ``comparable'' to 
those they have provided in the past to other 
telecommunications providers, such as phone and cable 
companies.
    The proposals contained in the FCC's Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking dated July 7, 1999, would have required real 
property owners to acquiesce to the physical presence of 
uninvited telecommunications service providers on their private 
property in furthering of a public policy promoting the 
availability of telecommunications services, the proposals, if 
adopted in a final rule, would implicate the Fifth Amendment of 
the United States Constitution, which requires the government 
to pay ``just compensation'' to property owners when it has 
``taken'' their property by committing it to a public use. On 
October 12, the FCC issued a ruling that did not impose 
requirements on property owners, but it left open the 
possibility that it may do so in the future.

