[House Report 110-941]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                 Union Calendar No. 614

110th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 110-941


                        REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                 of the

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               during the

                       ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                              pursuant to

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

                        House of Representatives




January 3, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed







                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                   Washington, DC, January 3, 2009.
Hon. Lorraine Miller,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Miller: 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 in the 110th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       John Conyers, Jr., Chairman.




                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary...................     1
Tabulation of Legislation and Activity...........................     3
Printed Hearings.................................................     5
Committee Prints.................................................    13
House Documents..................................................    13
Public Laws......................................................    13
Conference Appointments..........................................    19
Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary..........    21
    Antitrust Legislative Activities.............................    21
    Antitrust Oversight Activities...............................    23
    Committee Legislative Activities.............................    28
    Committee Oversight..........................................    31
        Investigation into U.S. Attorney Removals and the 
          Politicization of the Department of Justice............    31
            Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys and other 
              Department Personnel...............................    31
            Allegations of Selective Prosecution.................    35
            Committee Hearings and Meetings on U.S. Attorney 
              Removals and Politicization of the Department of 
              Justice............................................    38
        Oversight Hearings of Executive Branch Agencies..........    42
        Other Committee Oversight Hearings.......................    44
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW................    49
    Legislative Activities.......................................    49
        Administrative Law.......................................    49
        Bankruptcy...............................................    51
        U.S. Attorneys Investigation.............................    54
        State Taxation Affecting Interstate Commerce.............    55
        Federal Arbitration Act..................................    58
        Tort Reform Issues.......................................    60
        Claims Issues............................................    62
    Oversight Activities.........................................    62
        Administrative Law, Process, and Procedure...............    62
        Bankruptcy...............................................    66
        Privacy..................................................    76
        Arbitration..............................................    79
        State Taxation Affecting Interstate Commerce.............    81
        Product Liability........................................    82
        Department of Justice Matters............................    83
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, and CIVIL 
  LIBERTIES......................................................    91
    Legislative Activities.......................................    91
    Oversight Activities.........................................   114
        Health Consequences of the Attacks of September 11, 2001.   123
        Law Enforcement Practices and Accountability.............   124
        Civil Rights Enforcement.................................   126
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY..   133
    Legislative Activities.......................................   134
        Courts...................................................   134
        Copyright................................................   139
        Patents and Trademarks...................................   145
    Oversight Activities.........................................   147
        The Federal Judicial System..............................   147
        The U.S. Copyright System................................   147
        The U.S. Patent and Trademark Systems....................   148
        List of oversight hearings...............................   149
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY..........   157
    Legislative Activities.......................................   157
    Oversight Activities.........................................   188
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER 
  SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW................................   201
    Legislative Activities.......................................   202
    Oversight Activities.........................................   204
        Letters..................................................   234
        GAO Requests.............................................   239



                                                 Union Calendar No. 614
110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-941

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



 
       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                _______
                                

January 3, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

             Jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary is set 
forth in Rule X, 1.(k) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives for the 110th Congress:

                   RULE X--ORGANIZATION OF COMMITTEES


             COMMITTEES AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTIONS

    1. There shall be in the House the following standing 
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and 
related functions assigned 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) Criminal law enforcement.
          (8) Federal courts and judges, and local courts in 
        the Territories and possessions.
          (9) Immigration policy and nonborder enforcement.
          (10) Interstate compacts generally.
          (11) Claims against the United States.
          (12) Meetings of Congress; attendance of Members, 
        Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner; and their 
        acceptance of incompatible offices.
          (13) National penitentiaries.
          (14) Patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, 
        copyrights, and trademarks.
          (15) Presidential succession.
          (16) Protection of trade and commerce against 
        unlawful restraints and monopolies.
          (17) Revision and codification of the Statutes of the 
        United States.
          (18) State and territorial boundary lines.
          (19) Subversive activities affecting the internal 
        security of the United States.
                 Tabulation of Legislation and Activity

                              ----------                              


                    LEGISLATION REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

Public Legislation:
    House bills...............................................       885
    House joint resolutions...................................        59
    House concurrent resolutions..............................        32
    House resolutions.........................................        86
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                    1062
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

    Senate bills..............................................        35
    Senate joint resolutions..................................         2
    Senate concurrent resolutions.............................         1
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                      38
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Subtotal................................................      1100
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Private Legislation:
    House bills (claims)......................................         1
    House bills (copyrights)..................................         0
    House bills (immigration).................................        73
    House resolutions (claims)................................         3
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                      77
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

    Senate bills (claims).....................................         0
    Senate bills (immigration)................................         0
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Subtotal................................................        77
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

        Total.................................................      1177
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________

             ACTION ON LEGISLATION NOT REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

Held at desk for House action:
    Senate bills..............................................        19
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                      19
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Conference appointments:
    House bills...............................................         2
    Senate bills..............................................         0
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

        Total.................................................         2
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________

                              FINAL ACTION

House concurrent resolutions approved (public)................        11
House resolutions approved (public)...........................        30
Public legislation vetoed by the President....................         0
Public Laws...................................................        69
Private Laws..................................................         0
                            Printed Hearings

                          Serial No. and Title

                              ----------                              

    1. Proposed Immigration Fee Increase. Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. February 
14, 2007.
    2. Amending Executive Order 12866: Good Governance or Regulatory 
Usurpation? Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. February 
13, 2007.
    3. Competition and Future of Digital Music. Antitrust Task Force. 
February 28, 2007.
    4. Senate Approach to Lobbying Reform. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. March 1, 2007. (S. 1).
    5. Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 
2007, Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007, and 
Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act 
of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
February 6, 2007. (H.R. 545, H.R. 137, H.R. 740).
    6. Presidential Signing Statements Under the Bush Administration: A 
Threat to Checks and Balances and the Rule of Law? Committee on the 
Judiciary. January 31, 2007.
    7. District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. Committee 
on the Judiciary. March 14, 2007. (H.R. 1433).
    8. American Innovation at Risk: The Case for Patent Reform. 
Subcommittee on Courts, The Internet, and Intellectual Property. 
February 15, 2007.
    9. Protecting the Right to Vote: Election Deception and 
Irregularities in Recent Federal Elections. Committee on the Judiciary. 
March 7, 2007.
    10. Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 3, 2007.
    11. Executive Compensation in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases: How Much 
is Too Much? Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. April 
17, 2007.
    12. Ensuring Executive Branch Accountability. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. March 29, 2007.
    13. Second Anniversary of the Enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse 
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005: Are Consumers Really 
Being Protected Under the Act? Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 3, 2007.
    14. Making Communities Safer: Youth Violence and Gang Interventions 
that Work. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
February 15, 2007.
    15. Past, Present, and Future: A Historic and Personal Reflection 
on American Immigration. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. March 30, 2007.
    16. Shortfalls of the 1986 Immigration Reform Legislation. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. April 19, 2007.
    17. Problems in the Current Employment Verification and Worksite 
Enforcement System. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, 
Border Security, and International Law. April 24, 2007.
    18. Proposals for Improving the Electronic Employment Verification 
and Worksite Enforcement System. Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. April 
26, 2007.
    19. Tulsa Greenwood Race Riot Accountability Act of 2007. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. April 24, 2007. (H.R. 1995).
    20. An Examination of Point Systems as a Method for Selecting 
Immigrants. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 
Security, and International Law. May 1, 2007.
    21. The Inspector General's Independent Report on the F.B.I.'s Use 
of National Security Letters. Committee on the Judiciary. March 20, 
2007.
    22. Restoring Checks and Balances in the Confirmation process of 
U.S. Attorneys. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. 
March 6, 2007. (H.R. 580).
    23. Findings and Recommendations of the Antitrust Modernization 
Commission. Antitrust Task Force. May 8, 2007.
    24. The McNulty Memorandums Effect on the Right to Counsel in 
Corporate Investigations. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. March 8, 2007.
    25. Shortfalls of the 1996 Immigration Reform Legislation. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. April 20, 2007.
    26. Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration 
System. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 
Security, and International Law. May 8, 2007.
    27. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans--U.S. 
Immigrant Integration. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. May 16, 2007.
    28. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Impact of Immigration on 
States and Localities. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. May 17, 2007.
    29. An Update--Piracy on University Networks. Subcommittee on 
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. March 8, 2007.
    30. Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. Committee on the 
Judiciary. June 14, 2007. (H.R. 2102).
    31. Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution jointly with the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. June 12, 2007. (H.R. 923).
    32. Criminal Justice Responses to Offenders with Mental Illness. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. March 27, 
2007.
    33. Reforming Section 115 of the Copyright Act for the Digital Age. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. March 
22, 2007.
    34. U.S. Economy, U.S. Workers and Immigration Reform. Subcommittee 
on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 
International Law. May 3, 2007.
    35. U.S. Economy, U.S. Workers and Immigration Reform. Subcommittee 
on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 
International Law. May 9, 2007.
    36. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The Future of Undocumented 
Immigrant Students. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, 
Border Security, and International Law. May 18, 2007.
    37. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Perspectives from Faith-Based 
and Immigrant Communities. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. May 22, 2007.
    38. Impact of Ledbetter v. Goodyear on the Effective Enforcement of 
Civil Rights Laws. Subcommittee on the Constitution. June 28, 2007.
    39. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans--U.S. 
Immigrant Integration. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. May 23, 2007.
    40. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Labor Movement Perspectives. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. May 24, 2007.
    41. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Business Community 
Perspectives. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, 
Border Security, and International Law. June 6, 2007.
    42. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives on 
Immigration Statistics. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. June 6, 2007.
    43. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives on 
Immigration Statistics. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. June 19, 2007.
    44. Changing Tides: Exploring the Current State of Civil Rights 
Enforcement Within the Department of Justice. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. March 22, 2007.
    45. Constitutional Limitations on Domestic Surveillance. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. June 7, 2007.
    46. African-American Farmers Benefit Relief Act of 2007 and Pigford 
Claims Remedy Act of 2007. Subcommittee on the Constitution. June 21, 
2007. (H.R. 558, H.R. 899).
    47. Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy 
(STRIVE) Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. September 6, 2007. 
(H.R. 1645).
    48. Federal Judicial Compensation. Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property. April 19, 2007.
    49. Ensuring Artists Fair Compensation: Updating the Performance 
Right and Platform Parity for the 21st Century. Subcommittee on Courts, 
the Internet, and Intellectual Rights. July 31, 2007.
    50. USCIS Fee Increase Rule. Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. 
September 20, 2007.
    51. Second Chance Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security. March 20, 2007. (H.R. 1593).
    52. Rendition to Torture: The Case of Maher Arar. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution jointly with the Committee on Foreign Affairs. October 
18, 2007.
    53. Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee Medical Care. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. October 4, 2007.
    54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Response to Air Quality 
Issues Arising from the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001: Were 
there Substantive Due Process Violations? Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. June 25, 2007.
    55. The Katrina Impact on Crime and the Criminal Justice System in 
New Orleans. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
April 10, 2007.
    56. Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy 
and Related Matters (Part I). Committee on the Judiciary. May 23, 2007.
    57. Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive 
Branch Officials. Committee on the Judiciary. July 11, 2007.
    58. United States Department of Justice. Committee on the 
Judiciary. May 10, 2007.
    59. ADA Restoration Act of 2007. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
October 4, 2007. (H.R. 3195).
    60. Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. November 8, 2007. (H.R. 750).
    61. Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public 
Confidence in Our Federal Justice System. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security jointly with the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. October 23, 2007.
    62. Private Prison Information Act and Review of the Prison 
Litigation Reform Act: A Decade of Reform or an Increase in Prison and 
Abuses? Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
November 8, 2007. (H.R. 1889).
    63. Legacy of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. December 18, 2007.
    64. Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. January 17, 2008.
    65. Patent Reform Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property. April 26, 2007. (H.R. 1908).
    66. Stifling or Stimulating--The Role of Gene Patents in Research 
and Genetic Testing. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and 
Intellectual Property. October 30, 2007.
    67. International Piracy: The Challenges of Protecting Intellectual 
Property in the 21st Century. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and 
Intellectual Property. October 18, 2007.
    68. Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1974. Printed as Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act: Overview and Perspectives. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security jointly with the Committee on 
Education and Labor. July 12, 2007.
    69. Mandatory Binding Arbitration Agreements: Are They Fair for 
Consumers? Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 12, 
2007.
    70. Internet Tax Freedom Act: Internet Tax Moratorium. Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 22, 2007.
    71. Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. April 17, 
2007. (H.R. 1592).
    72. COPS Improvements Act of 2007, the John R. Justice Prosecutors 
and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, and the Witness Security and 
Protection Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. April 24, 2007. (H.R. 1700, H.R. 916, H.R. 933).
    73. Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy 
and Related Matters (Part II). Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. June 21, 2007.
    74. Reform of the State Secrets Privilege. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. January 29, 2008.
    75. Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy 
and Related Matters (Part III). Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 12, 2007.
    76. Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual 
Property Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and 
Intellectual Property. December 13, 2007. (H.R. 4279)
    77. Credit Card Interchange Fees. Antitrust Task Force. July 19, 
2007.
    78. Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act: The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting 
Americans' Privacy Rights (Part I). Committee on the Judiciary. 
September 5, 2007.
    79. Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act: The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting 
Americans' Privacy Rights (Part II). Committee on the Judiciary. 
September 18, 2007.
    80. Problems with ICE Interrogation, Detention, and Removal 
Procedures. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 
Security, and International Law. February 13, 2008.
    81. H-2B Program. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. April 16, 2008.
    82. Paying With Their Lives: The Status of Compensation for 9/11 
Health Effects. Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, 
Border Security, and International Law jointly with the Subcommittee on 
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. April, 1, 2008.
    83. Combating Modern Slavery: Reauthorization of Anti-Trafficking 
Programs. Committee on the Judiciary. October 31, 2007.
    84. Prices at the Pump: Market Failure and the Oil Industry. 
Antitrust Task Force. May 16, 2007.
    85. Impact of Our Antitrust Laws on Community Pharmacies and Their 
Patients. Antitrust Task Force. October 18, 2007.
    86. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Committee on the Judiciary. 
July 26, 2007.
    87. Sex Crimes and the Internet. Committee on the Judiciary. 
October 17, 2007.
    88. National Football League's System for Compensating Retired 
Players: An Uneven Playing Field? Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. June 26, 2007.
    89. Need for Green Cards for Highly Skilled Workers. Subcommittee 
on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 
International Law. June 12, 2008.
    90. Working Families in Financial Crisis: Medical Debt and 
Bankruptcy. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 17, 
2007.
    91. Employment Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 
Department of Justice. Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 25, 
2007.
    92. Immigration Needs of America's Fighting Men and Women. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. May 20, 2008.
    93. Employer Access to Criminal Background Checks: The Need for 
Efficiency and Accuracy. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. April 26, 2007.
    94. Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of 
Detainees: The Effectiveness and Consequences of ``Enhanced'' 
Interrogation. Subcommittee on the Constitution. November 8, 2007.
    95. Net Neutrality and Free Speech on the Internet. Antitrust Task 
Force. March 11, 2008.
    96. National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution. April 15, 2008. (H.R. 3189).
    97. From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: 
Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules (Part I). 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 6, 2008.
    98. To provide for and approve the settlement of certain land 
claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and to provide for and 
approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Sault Ste. Marie 
Tribe of Chippewa Indians''. Committee on the Judiciary. March 14, 
2008. (H.R. 2176, H.R. 4115).
    99. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Part II). Committee on the 
Judiciary. April 23, 2008.
    100. Voter Suppression. Subcommittee on the Constitution.
    101. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Report 
OIG-08-18, ``The Removal of a Canadian Citizen to Syria''. Subcommittee 
on the Constitution jointly with the Committee on Foreign Affairs. June 
5, 2008.
    102. Retail Gas Prices (Part I): Consumer Effects. Antitrust Task 
Force. May 7, 2008.
    103. War Profiteering and Other Contractor Crimes Committed 
Overseas. The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, and the 
Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting Act of 2007. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 19, 2007. 
(H.R. 400, H.R. 369).
    104. Wasted Visas, Growing Backlogs. Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. April 
30, 2008.
    105. Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 7, 2007. (H.R. 2286).
    106. Competition in the Airline Industry. Antitrust Task Force. 
April 24, 2007.
    107. Design Law--Are Special Provisions Needed to Protect Unique 
Industries? Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property. February 14, 2008.
    108. Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 3, 2007. (H.R. 660).
    109. Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007, and Securing 
Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 1, 2007. (H.R. 1525, H.R. 1615).
    110. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws--the Issues. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 26, 2007.
    111. Drug Enforcement Administration's Regulation of Medicine. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 12, 2007.
    112. Law Enforcement Confidential Informant Practices. Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security jointly with the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 19, 2007.
    113. Death in Custody Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 24, 2007. (H.R. 2908).
    114. Department of Homeland Security. Committee on the Judiciary. 
March 5, 2008.
    115. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property. February 27, 2008.
    116. Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of 
Online Wagers. Committee on the Judiciary. November 14, 2007.
    117. Problems with Immigration Detainee Medical Care. Subcommittee 
on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 
International Law. June 4, 2008.
    118. Stop AIDS in Prison Act of 2007, and Drug Endangered Children 
Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
May 22, 2007. (H.R. 1943, H.R. 1199).
    119. Department of Justice. Committee on the Judiciary. February 7, 
2008.
    120. Implementation of the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 
2004'' (Pub. L. No. 108-277) and Additional Legislative Efforts Aimed 
at Expanding the Authority to Carry Concealed Firearms. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 6, 2007.
    121. Gang Crime Prevention and the Need to Foster Innovative 
Solutions at the Federal Level. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. October 7, 2007.
    122. Organized Retail Theft Prevention: Fostering a Comprehensive 
Public-Private Response. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. October 25, 2007.
    123. Genocide and the Rule of Law. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. October 23, 2007.
    124. Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment 
Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
November 1, 2007. (H.R. 2878).
    125. Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH) Act of 2007. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. November 6, 
2007. (H.R. 1759).
    126. Promoting Inmate Rehabilitation and Successful Release 
Planning. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
December 6, 2007.
    127. Oversight of State-Run Juvenile Correctional Facilities Known 
as ``Boot Camps''. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. December 13, 2007.
    128. Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act of 2007. Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. December 18, 2007. (H.R. 
4175).
    129. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution. February 14, 2008.
    130. Enforcement of Federal Criminal Law to Protect Americans 
Working for U.S. Contractors in Iraq. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security. December 19, 2007.
    131. Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests of 
Copyright Owners and Users. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and 
Intellectual Property. March 13, 2008.
    132. Electronic Employment Verification Systems: Needed Safeguards 
to Protect Privacy and Prevent Misuse. Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. June 10, 
2008.
    133. Enforcement of Federal Espionage Laws. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. January 29, 2008.
    134. Cracked Justice--Addressing the Unfairness in Cocaine 
Sentencing. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
February 6, 2008.
    135. Department of Homeland Security Law Enforcement Operations. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. March 11, 
2008.
    136. Internet Tax Freedom Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 26, 2007.
    137. False Claims Act Correction Act. Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property jointly with the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution. June 19, 2008. (H.R. 4854).
    138. Legislative Proposals Before the 110th Congress to Amend 
Federal Restitution Laws. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. April 3, 2008.
    139. American Workers in Crisis: Does the Chapter 11 Business 
Bankruptcy Law Treat Employees and Retirees Fairly? Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. September 6, 2007.
    140. Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. April 8, 2008. (S. 2135).
    141. Performance Rights Act. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, 
and Intellectual Property. June 11, 2008. (H.R. 4789).
    142. Privacy in the Hands of the Government: The Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board and the Privacy Officer for the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 24, 2007.
    143. Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Fairness and Simplification 
Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. 
November 1, 2007. (H.R. 3359).
    144. Ensuring Legal Redress for American Victims of State-Sponsored 
Terrorism. Committee on the Judiciary. June 17, 2008.
    145. Reauthorization and Improvement of DNA Initiatives of the 
Justice For All Act of 2004. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. April 10, 2008.
    146. Elder Justice Act, the Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008, the 
School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007, and A Child Is Missing Alert 
and Recovery Center Act. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. April 17, 2008. (H.R. 1783, H.R. 5352, H.R. 2352, H.R. 5464).
    147. Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2007 and the Smuggled 
Tobacco Prevention Act of 2008. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. May 1, 2008. (H.R. 4081, H.R. 5689).
    148. Federal State and Local Efforts to Prepare for the 2008 
Election. Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 24, 2008.
    149. Prison Abuse Remedies Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. April 22, 2008. (H.R. 4109)
    150. Federal Prison Industries--Examining the Effects of Section 
827 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 6, 2008.
    151. Addressing Gangs: What's Effective? What's Not? Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 10, 2008.
    152. Habeas Corpus and Detentions at Guantanamo Bay. Subcommittee 
on the Constitution. June 26, 2007.
    153. To authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 
Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 20, 2008. (H.R. 3546).
    154. FBI Whistleblowers. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. May 21, 2008.
    155. State Secrets Protection Act of 2008. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 31, 2008. (H.R. 5607).
    156. Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 
Department of Justice. Subcommittee on the Constitution. October 30, 
2007.
    157. Regulatory Improvement Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. September 19, 2007. (H.R. 3564).
    158. Antitrust Agencies: Department of Justice Antitrust Division 
and Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition. Antitrust Task 
Force. September 25, 2007.
    159. Straightening Out the Mortgage Mess: How Can We Protect Home 
Ownership and Provide Relief to Consumers in Financial Distress? (Part 
I). Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. September 25, 
2007.
    160. Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007. Committee on the 
Judiciary. September 27, 2007. (H.R. 2128).
    161. United States Trustee Program: Watchdog or Attack Dog? 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. October 2, 2007.
    162. Jena 6 and the Role of Federal Intervention in Hate Crimes and 
Race-Related Violence in Public Schools. Committee on the Judiciary. 
October 16, 2007.
    163. Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. October 25, 2007. (H.R. 3010).
    164. Straightening Out the Mortgage Mess: How Can We Protect Home 
Ownership and Provide Relief to Consumers in Financial Distress? (Part 
II). Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. October 30, 
2007.
    165. Congressional Review Act. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. November 6, 2007.
    166. Protecting the Playroom: Holding Foreign Manufacturers 
Accountable for Defective Products. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. November 11, 2007.
    167. Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. December 6, 2007. (H. R. 3396).
    168. Applicability of Federal Criminal Laws to the Interrogation of 
Detainees. Committee on the Judiciary. December 20, 2007.
    169. The Growing Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis: Identifying Solutions 
and Dispelling Myths. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. January 29, 2008.
    170. State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. February 14, 2008. (H.R. 3679).
    171. Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. Antitrust Task 
Force. February 25, 2008. (H.R. 1650).
    172. Implementation of the U.S. Department of Justice's Special 
Counsel Regulations. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. 
February 26, 2007.
    173. Automobile Arbitration Fairness Act of 2008. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. March 6, 2007. (H.R. 5312).
    174. Deferred Prosecution: Should Corporate Settlement Agreements 
Be Without Guidelines? Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. March 11, 2008.
    175. To amend the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2005 to exempt from the means test in bankruptcy 
cases, for a limited period, qualifying reserve-component members who, 
after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a 
homeland defense activity for not less than 60 days. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. April 1, 2008. (H.R. 4044).
    176. Protecting Americans from Unsafe Foreign Products Act. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 1, 2008. (H.R. 
5913).
    177. Rulemaking Process and the Unitary Executive Theory. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 6, 2008.
    178. Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public 
Confidence in Our Federal Justice System (Part II). Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law jointly with the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 14, 2008.
    179. Credit Card Fair Free Act of 2008. Antitrust Task Force. May 
15, 2008. (H.R. 5546).
    180. Retail Gas Prices (Part II): Competition in the Oil Industry. 
Antitrust Task Force. May 22, 2008.
    181. Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act 
of 2007. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 5, 
2008. (H.R. 3652).
    182. Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2008. Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 10, 2008. (H.R. 6126).
    183. Enforcement of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution. June 12, 2008.
    184. From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: 
Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules (Part 
II). Subcommittee on the Constitution. June 18, 2008.
    185. Revelations by Former White House Press Secretary Scott 
McClellan. Committee on the Judiciary. June 20, 2008.
    186. Online Pharmacies and the Problem of Internet Drug Abuse. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 24, 2008.
    187. Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2008. Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 24, 2008. (H.R. 5267).
    188. Executive Office for United States Attorneys. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. June 25, 2008.
    189. From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: 
Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules (Part 
III). Subcommittee on the Constitution. June 26, 2008.
    190. Private Prison Information Act of 2007. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 26, 2008. (H.R. 1889).
    191. Politicization of the Justice Department and Allegations of 
Selective Prosecution. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. July 10, 2008.
    192. From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: 
Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules (Part 
IV). Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 15, 2008.
    193. Competition on the Internet. Antitrust Task Force. July 15, 
2008.
    194. National Silver Alert Act, the Silver Alert Grant Program Act 
of 2008, and the Kristen's Act Reauthorization of 2007. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 15, 2008. (H.R. 6064, 
H.R. 5898, H.R. 423).
    195. Reauthorization of the U.S. Parole Commission. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 16, 2008.
    196. From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: 
Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules (Part V). 
Committee on the Judiciary. July 17, 2008.
    197. U.S. Department of Justice. Committee on the Judiciary. July 
23, 2008.
    198. Immigration Raids: Postville and Beyond. Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 
Law. July 24, 2008.
    199. Lessons Learned from the 2005 Presidential Election. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. July 24, 2008.
    200. Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations. Committee 
on the Judiciary. July 25, 2008.
    201. Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008 and the Animal 
Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. July 31, 2008. (H.R. 6598, H.R. 6597).
    202. Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2008. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. July 31, 2008. (H.R. 5884).
    203. Competition in the Package Delivery Industry. Committee on the 
Judiciary. September 9, 2008.
    204. Fair Copyright in Research Works Act. Subcommittee on Courts, 
the Internet, and Intellectual Property. September 11, 2008. (H.R. 
6845).
    205. Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2007. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 11, 
2008. (H.R. 4300).
    206. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Part III). Committee on the 
Judiciary. September 16, 2008.
    207. Bankruptcy Trustee Compensation. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. September 16, 2008.
    208. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Oversight. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 18, 
2008.
    209. Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2008. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. September 18, 2008. (H.R. 5793).
    210. E-fencing Enforcement Act of 2008, the Organized Retail Crime 
Act of 2008, and the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008. 
Subcommittee Crime, and Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 22, 
2008. (H.R. 6713, H.R. 6491, S. 3434).
    211. Executive Office for Immigration Review. Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 
Law. September 23, 2008.
    212. Lehman Brothers, Sharper Image, Bennigan's, and Beyond: Is 
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Working? Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. September 26, 2008.
    213. Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy 
and Related Matters (Part IV). Committee on the Judiciary. October 3, 
2008.

                            Committee Prints

                          Serial No. and Title

                              ----------                              

    1. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 2007.
    2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 2007.
    3. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 2007.
    4. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 2007.

                            House Documents

                         H. Doc. No. and Title

                              ----------                              

    110-24. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
United States, transmitting amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate 
Procedure that has been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2074. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. April 30, 
2007. (Executive Communication 1374).
    110-25. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
United States, transmitting amendment to the Federal Rules of 
Bankruptcy Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2075. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
April 30, 2007. (Executive Communication 1375).
    110-26. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
United States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2074. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. April 30, 
2007. (Executive Communication 1376).
    110-27. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
United States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2072. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. April 30, 
2007. (Executive Communication 1377).
    110-96. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human 
Services, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled the 
``Medicare Funding Warning Response Act of 2008''. Referred jointly to 
the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the 
Judiciary. February 21, 2008. (Executive Communication 5439).
    110-117. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
United States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2072. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. June 3, 2008. 
(Executive Communication 6881).
    110-118. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
United States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2074. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. June 3, 2008. 
(Executive Communication 6879).
    110-119. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
United States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of 
Bankruptcy Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2075. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
June 3, 2008. (Executive Communication 6880).

                              Public Laws

    A variety of legislation within the Committee's jurisdiction was 
enacted into law during the 110th Congress. The public and private 
laws, along with approved resolutions, are listed below and are more 
fully detailed in the subsequent sections of this report recounting the 
activities of the Committee and its individual subcommittees.
    Public Law 110-6--To amend the Antitrust Modernization Commission 
Act of 2002, to extend the term of the Antitrust Modernization 
Commission and to make a technical correction. (H.R. 742--Approved 
February 26, 2007).
    Public Law 110-22--To amend title 18, United States Code, to 
strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other 
purposes. ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.'' 
(H.R. 137--Approved May 3, 2007).
    Public Law 110-24--To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to 
extend the authority to withhold from public availability a financial 
disclosure report filed by an individual who is a judicial officer or 
judicial employee, to the extent necessary to protect the safety of 
that individual or a family member of that individual, and for other 
purposes. ``Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act.'' (H.R. 1130--
Approved May 3, 2007).
    Public Law 110-34--To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States 
Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys. 
``Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007.'' (S. 
214--Approved June 14, 2007).
    Public Law 110-36--To increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani 
translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States 
as special immigrants, and for other purposes. (S. 1104--Approved April 
12, 2007).
    Public Law 110-41--To amend title 4, United States Code, to 
authorize the Governor of a State, territory, or possession of the 
United States to order that the National flag be flown at half-staff in 
that State, territory, or possession in the event of the death of a 
member of the Armed Forces from that State, territory, or possession 
who dies while serving on active duty. ``Army Specialist Joseph P. 
Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 692--Approved 
June 29, 2007).
    Public Law 110-53--To provide for the implementation of the 
recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon 
the United States. ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 1--Approved August 3, 2007).
    Public Law 110-55--To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain 
acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other 
purposes. ``Protect America Act of 2007.'' (S. 1927--Approved August 5, 
2007).
    Public Law 110-79--Granting the consent and approval of Congress to 
an interstate forest fire protection compact. (S. 975--Approved August 
13, 2007).
    Public Law 110-81--To provide greater transparency in the 
legislative process. ``Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 
2007.'' (S. 1--Approved September 14, 2007).
    Public Law 110-108--To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to extend 
the moratorium on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to 
electronic commerce. ``Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 
2007.'' (H.R. 3678--Approved October 31, 2007).
    Public Law 110-113--To provide nationwide subpoena authority for 
actions brought under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 
2001. ``Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act of 2007.'' (S. 
2106--Approved November 8, 2007).
    Public Law 110-151--To amend section 1091 of title 18, United 
States Code, to allow the prosecution of genocide in appropriate 
circumstances. ``Genocide Accountability Act of 2007.'' (S. 888--
Approved December 21, 2007).
    Public Law 110-177--To amend title 18, United States Code, to 
protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family 
members, and for other purposes. ``Court Security Improvement Act of 
2007.'' (H.R. 660--Approved January 7, 2008).
    Public Law 110-179--To amend title 18, United States Code, with 
respect to fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency funds. 
``Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 
2007.'' (S. 863--Approved January 7, 2008).
    Public Law 110-180--To improve the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System, and for other purposes. ``NICS Improvement 
Amendments Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 2640--Approved January 8, 2008).
    Public Law 110-182--To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 
15 days. (H.R. 5104--Approved January 31, 2008).
    Public Law 110-199--To reauthorize the grant program for reentry of 
offenders into the community in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968, to improve reentry planning and implementation, 
and for other purposes. ``Second Chance Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 1593--
Approved April 9, 2008).
    Public Law 110-207--To amend title 36, United States Code, to 
revise the congressional charter of the Military Order of the Purple 
Heart of the United States of America, Incorporated, to authorize 
associate membership in the corporation for the spouse and siblings of 
a recipient of the Purple Heart medal. ``Purple Heart Family Equity Act 
of 2007.'' (H.R. 1119--Approved April 30, 2008).
    Public Law 110-229--To authorize certain programs and activities in 
the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department 
of Energy, to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to 
Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political 
Union with the United States of America, to amend the Compact of Free 
Association Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes. 
``Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008.'' (S. 2739--Approved May 
8, 2008).
    Public Law 110-239--To amend title 4, United States Code, to 
encourage the display of the flag of the United States on Father's Day. 
(H.R. 2356--Approved June 3, 2008).
    Public Law 110-241--To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to make 
technical corrections to the definition of willful noncompliance with 
respect to violations involving the printing of an expiration date on 
certain credit and debit card receipts before the date of the enactment 
of this Act. ``Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 
2007.'' (H.R. 4008--Approved June 3, 2008).
    Public Law 110-242--A bill to make technical corrections to section 
1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 
which provides special immigrant status for certain Iraqis, and for 
other purposes. (S. 2829--Approved June 3, 2008).
    Public Law 110-251--To assist members of the Armed Forces in 
obtaining United States citizenship, and for other purposes. ``Kendell 
Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act.'' (S. 2516--Approved June 26, 
2008).
    Public Law 110-254--A bill to grant a Federal charter to Korean War 
Veterans Association, Incorporated. (S. 1692--Approved June 30, 2007).
    Public Law 110-257--To remove the African National Congress from 
treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts or events, 
provide relief for certain members of the African National Congress 
regarding admissibility, and for other purposes. (H.R. 5690--Approved 
July 1, 2008).
    Public Law 110-258--A bill to revise the short title of the Fannie 
Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act 
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. (S. 188--Approved July 1, 
2008).
    Public Law 110-261--To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain 
acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. ``FISA 
Amendments Act of 2008.'' (H.R. 6304--Approved July 10, 2008).
    Public Law 110-286--To impose import sanctions on Burmese 
gemstones, expand the number of individuals against whom the visa ban 
is applicable, expand the blocking of assets and other prohibited 
activities, and for other purposes. ``Burma Democracy Promotion Act of 
2007.'' (H.R. 3890--Approved July 29, 2008).
    Public Law 110-290--To amend title 5, United States Code, to 
authorize appropriations for the Administrative Conference of the 
United States through fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. 
``Regulatory Improvement Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 3564--Approved July 30, 
2008).
    Public Law 110-294--A bill to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial 
Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 
2012. (S. 231--Approved July 20, 2008).
    Public Law 110-296--To extend the pilot program for volunteer 
groups to obtain criminal history background checks. ``Criminal History 
Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2008.'' (S. 3218--Approved 
July 30, 2008).
    Public Law 110-298--To establish an awards mechanism to honor 
exceptional acts of bravery in the line of duty by Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement officers. ``Law Enforcement Congressional Badge 
of Bravery Act of 2008.'' (S. 2565--Approved July 31, 2008).
    Public Law 110-301--To resolve pending claims against Libya by 
United States nationals, and for other purposes. ``Libyan Claims 
Resolution Act.'' (S. 3370--Approved August 4, 2008).
    Public Law 110-312--To provide for the continued performance of the 
functions of the United States Parole Commission. ``United States 
Parole Commission Extension Act of 2008.'' (S. 3294--Approved August 
12, 2008).
    Public Law 110-313--A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, 
and the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide that the Secretary of 
Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the United States Patent 
and Trademark Office, shall appoint administrative patent judges and 
administrative trademark judges, and for other purposes. (S. 3295--
Approved August 12, 2008).
    Public Law 110-315--To amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 
1965, and for other purposes. ``College Opportunity and Affordability 
Act of 2008.'' (H.R. 4137--Approved August 14, 2008).
    Public Law 110-322--To amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to 
address the waiver of attorney-client privilege and the work product 
doctrine. (S. 2450--Approved September 19, 2008).
    Public Law 110-325--ADA Amendments Act of 2008.'' (S. 3406--
Approved September 25, 2008).
    Public Law 110-326--To amend title 18, United States Code, to 
provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents, and for 
other purposes. ``Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008.'' (H.R. 
5938--Approved September 26, 2008).
    Public Law 110-327--To amend the Improving America's Schools Act of 
1994 to make permanent the favorable treatment of need-based 
educational aid under the antitrust laws. ``Need-Based Educational Aid 
Act of 2008.'' (H.R. 1777--Approved September 30, 2008).
    Public Law 110-336--Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film 
Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2008. (H.R. 5893--Approved 
October 2, 2008).
    Public Law 110-340--To prohibit the recruitment or use of child 
soldiers, to designate persons who recruit or use child soldiers as 
inadmissible aliens, to allow the deportation of persons who recruit or 
use child soldiers, and for other purposes. ``Child Soldiers 
Accountability Act.'' (S. 2135--Approved October 3, 2008).
    Public Law 110-342--Expressing the consent and approval of Congress 
to an interstate compact regarding water resources in the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence River Basin. ``Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water 
Resources Compact.'' (S.J. Res. 45--Approved October 3, 2008).
    Public Law 110-344--To provide for the investigation of certain 
unsolved civil rights crimes, and for other purposes. ``Emmett Till 
Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 923--Approved October 
7, 2008).
    Public Law 110-345--To extend the grant program for drug-endangered 
children. ``Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 1199--
Approved October 7, 2008).
    Public Law 110-358--To amend title 18, United States Code, to 
provide for more effective prosecution of cases involving child 
pornography, and for other purposes. ``Effective Child Pornography 
Prosecution Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 4120--Approved October 8, 2008).
    Public Law 110-360--To reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog 
Grant Program, and for other purposes. ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization 
Act of 2007.'' (H.R. 5057--Approved October 8, 2008).
    Public Law 110-362--Extending for 5 years the program relating to 
waiver of the foreign country residence requirement with respect to 
international medical graduates. (H.R. 5571--Approved October 8, 2008).
    Public Law 110-382--To establish a liaison with the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation in United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
to expedite naturalization applications filed by members of the Armed 
Forces and to establish a deadline for processing such applications. 
``Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act.'' (S. 2840--Approved 
October 9, 2008).
    Public Law 110-384--To direct the United States Sentencing 
Commission to assure appropriate punishment enhancements for those 
involved in receiving stolen property where that property consists of 
grave markers of veterans, and for other purposes. ``Let Our Veterans 
Rest in Peace Act of 2008.'' (H.R. 3480--Approved October 10, 2008).
    Public Law 110-391--To extend the special immigrant nonminister 
religious worker program and for other purposes. ``Special Immigrant 
Nonminister Religious Worker Program Act.'' (S. 3606--Approved October 
10, 2008).
    Public Law 110-400--To require convicted sex offenders to register 
online identifiers, and for other purposes. ``Keeping the Internet 
Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008.'' (S. 431--Approved October 13, 
2008).
    Public Law 110-401--To require the Department of Justice to develop 
and implement a National Strategy Child Exploitation Prevention and 
Interdiction, to improve the Internet Crimes Against Children Task 
Force, to increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, and 
to make other improvements to increase the ability of law enforcement 
agencies to investigate and prosecute child predators. ``Combating 
Child Exploitation Act of 2008.'' (S. 1738--Approved October 13, 2008).
    Public Law 110-402--A bill to extend the authority of the United 
States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme 
Court Grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to 
the Chief Justice. (S. 3296--Approved October 13, 2008).
    Public Law 110-403--To enhance remedies for violations of 
intellectual property laws, and for other purposes. ``Prioritizing 
Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008.'' (S. 
3325--Approved October 13, 2008).
    Public Law 110-406--To make improvements in the operation and 
administration of the Federal courts, and for other purposes. 
``Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008.'' (S. 
3569--Approved October 13, 2008).
    Public Law 110-407--To amend titles 46 and 18, United States Code, 
with respect to the operation of submersible vessels and semi-
submersible vessels without nationality. ``Drug Trafficking Vessel 
Interdiction Act of 2008.'' (S. 3598--Approved October 13, 2008).
    Public Law 110-415--To facilitate the creation of methamphetamine 
precursor electronic logbook systems, and for other purposes. 
``Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2008.'' (S. 1276--
Approved October 14, 2008).
    Public Law 110-416--To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide grants for the improved mental 
health treatment and services provided to offenders with mental 
illnesses, and for other purposes. ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment 
and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008.'' (S. 
2304--Approved October 14, 2008).
    Public Law 110-421--To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the authorization of the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program through fiscal year 2012. 
``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008.'' (H.R. 6045--
Approved October 15, 2008).
    Public Law 110-424--To authorize funding to conduct a national 
training program for State and local prosecutors. (H.R. 6083--October 
15, 2008).
    Public Law 110-425--To amend the Controlled Substances Act to 
address online pharmacies. ``Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer 
Protection Act of 2008.'' (H.R. 6353--Approved October 15, 2008).
    Public Law 110-431--A bill to authorize funding for the National 
Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime 
under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims 
of Crime Act of 1984. (S. 3641--Approved October 15, 2008).
    Public Law 110-434--To amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States 
Code (relating to the vessel hull design protection), to clarify the 
definitions of a hull and a deck. ``Vessel Hull Design Protection 
Amendments of 2008.'' (H.R. 6531--Approved October 16, 2008 ).
    Public Law 110-435--To amend section 114 of title 17, United States 
Code, to provide for agreements for the reproduction and performance of 
sound recordings by webcasters. ``Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008.'' 
(H.R. 7084--Approved October 16, 2008).
    Public Law 110-438--A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, 
to exempt for a limited period, from the application of the means-test 
presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve 
components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, 
after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a 
homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days. ``National Guard 
and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008.'' (S. 3197--Approved October 
20, 2008).
    Public Law 110-457--To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 
2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 
to enhance measures to combat trafficking in persons, and for other 
purposes. ``William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2008.'' (H.R. 7311--Approved 12/23/08).
                        Conference Appointments

    Members of the Committee were named by the Speaker as 
conferees on the bills (H.R. 1 and H.R. 4137) which contained 
legislative language within the Committee's Rule X 
jurisdiction. Also, Members of the Committee were named by the 
Speaker as conferees on the bills (H.R. 1585 and H.R. 2419) 
which were not referred to the Committee but which contained 
legislative language within the Committee's Rule X 
jurisdiction.
H.R. 1, the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
        of 2007''
    Summary.--Provide for the implementation of the 
recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks 
Upon the United States. This legislation is detailed further by 
the Subcommittee on Immigration in its section of the report.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1, the ``Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,'' was 
introduced by Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS) on January 
5, 2007. The legislation had 205 cosponsors and was jointly 
referred to the House Committees on Homeland Security; Energy 
and Commerce; Judiciary; Intelligence (Permanent Select); 
Foreign Affairs; Transportation and Infrastructure; Oversight 
and Government Reform; Ways and Means; and Senate Committees on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The legislation was 
considered pursuant to H. Res. 6 and passed the House on 
January 9, 2007 by a roll call vote of 299-128 (Roll No. 15).
    On July 9, 2007, the Senate Committees were discharged and 
the Senate insisting upon its amendment, requested a conference 
and appointed conferees. On July 17, 2007, the House disagreed 
with the Senate amendment and agreed to a conference. The 
Speaker appointed the following Committee Members as conferees 
from the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration of secs. 
406, 501, 601, 702, and Title VIII of the House bill, and secs. 
123, 501-503, 601-603, 1002, and 1432 of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference: Representatives John 
Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and F. James 
Sensenbrenner (R-WI). The conference Report to accompany H.R. 1 
was reported to the House on July 25, 2007 as H. Rept. 110-259. 
The Senate agreed to the conference report on July 26, 2007 and 
the House considered the report pursuant to H. Res. 567 the 
following day, July 27, 2007. The measure passed the House on 
July 27, 2007 by a roll call vote of 371-40 (Roll no. 757). 
H.R. 1 was signed into law as Public Law No. 110-53 by the 
President on August 3, 2007.
    On February 28, 2008, the Committee held a hearing on the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This hearing was 
classified, and no further information is publicly available.
H.R. 1585, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        2008''
    Summary.--H.R. 1585 authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, 
and for other purposes. Passed the House May 17, 2007 (397 
yeas; 27 nays). Passed the Senate, amended, October 1, 2007 (92 
yeas; 3 nays). The Senate requested a conference and appointed 
conferees October 1, 2007. The House agreed to a conference and 
appointed conferees December 5, 2007 (including from the 
Committee on the Judiciary). Conference report filed in the 
House December 6, 2007 (H. Rept. 110-477). The House agreed to 
the conference report December 12, 2007 (370 yeas; 49 nays). 
The Senate agreed to the conference report December 14, 2007 
(90 yeas; 3 nays). Vetoed by the President December 28, 2007.
H.R. 2419 the ``Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007''
    Summary.--H.R. 2419 provides for the continuation of 
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other 
purposes. Passed the House July 27, 2007 (231 yeas; 191 nays). 
Passed the Senate, amended, December 14, 2007 (79 yeas; 14 
nays). The Senate requested a conference December 14, 2007. The 
Senate appointed conferees February 4, 2008. The House agreed 
to the conference and appointed conferees April 4, 2008 
(including from the Committee on the Judiciary). Conference 
report filed in the House May 13, 2008 (H. Rept. 110-627). The 
House agreed to the conference report May 14, 2008 (318 yeas; 
106 nays). The Senate agreed to the conference report May 15, 
2008 (81 yeas; 15 nays). Vetoed by the President May 21, 2008. 
Veto overridden in the House May 21, 2008 (316 yeas; 108 nays). 
Veto overridden in the Senate May 22, 2008 (82 yeas; 13 nays). 
Became Public Law 110-234 May 22, 2008.
H.R. 4137, the ``Higher Education Opportunity Act''
    Summary.--Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise 
and reauthorize HEA programs.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4137 was introduced by 
Representatives George Miller (D-CA) on November 9, 2007. The 
bill was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and 
in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Science and 
Technology, and Financial Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. The Committee on 
Education and Labor reported the bill to the House on December 
19, 2007 as H. Rept. 110-500, Part I. On December 19, 2007, the 
Committee was discharged from the bill. The measure was 
considered by the House on February 7, 2008 pursuant to H. Res. 
956 and adopted the measure as amended in the nature of a 
substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union. The legislation passed by a roll call 
vote of 354-58 (Roll No. 40).
    On July 29, 2008, the Senate insisted on its amendment and 
asked for a conference. Senate conferees were appointed. On the 
same day, the House disagreed to the Senate amendment and 
agreed to a conference. The Speaker appointed the following 
conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration 
of secs. 951 and 952 of the House bill, and secs. 951 and 952 
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference, Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI); Maxine 
Waters (D-CA), and Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The conference Report 
to accompany H.R. 4137 was reported to the House on July 30, 
2007 as H. Rept. 110-803. On July 31, 2008, both the House by a 
roll call vote of 380-49 (Roll No. 544) and the Senate by a 
roll call vote of 83-8 (Roll No. 194) agreed to the conference 
report. The measure was signed into law as Public Law No. 110-
315 by the President on August 14, 2008.

        Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary

    During the 110th 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 agency oversight hearings and legislative 
issues were handled by the Committee and it's Subcommittees.

                    Antitrust Legislative Activities

    During the 110th Congress, the full Judiciary Committee 
retained original jurisdiction over antitrust legislation and 
oversight matters. Antitrust enforcement serves as a bulwark in 
the free market to prevent market power from collecting in the 
hands of a few to the detriment of the consumer. U.S. antitrust 
laws exist to preserve competition (not individual competitors) 
in the marketplace, with the ultimate goal of reducing prices 
and increasing choices for consumers. The Federal antitrust 
laws (primarily the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act, and 
the Federal Trade Commission Act) are enforced jointly by the 
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice (DOJ). Other federal agencies have 
authority to examine competitive aspects of market transactions 
within their jurisdiction.
H.R. 971, the ``Community Pharmacy Fairness Act of 2007''
    Summary.--On October 18, 2007 the Task Force convened a 
hearing on the ``Impact of our Antitrust Laws on Community 
Pharmacies and their Patients.'' Testimony was heard from Mike 
James, Vice President, Government Relations, Association of 
Community Pharmacists Congressional Network; Peter Rankin, 
Senior Associate, Charles River Associates; David Wales, Deputy 
Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission; 
David Balto, on behalf of the National Association of Community 
Pharmacists; and Robert Dozier, Executive Director, Mississippi 
Independent Pharmacists Association.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 971 was introduced on February 
8, 2007 by Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and was 
cosponsored by 192 Members. H.R. 971 would allow independent 
pharmacies to collectively bargain so that they can negotiate 
with the insurance companies on the reimbursement rates and 
terms. H.R. 971 allows pharmacies negotiating contracts with 
health insurers to receive the same treatment under the 
antitrust laws as bargaining units recognized under the 
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This would permit 
pharmacies to be considered employees under the NLRA for 
purposes of the Act and not subject to treble damages under the 
antitrust laws. The Act defines independent pharmacies as those 
that are neither owned nor operated by a publically traded 
company. Under the reported version of the bill, an independent 
pharmacy is defined as a pharmacy having less than 10% market 
share in a PDP or 1% nationally. The Full Committee met on 
November 7, 2007 in open session and reported the legislation, 
as amended, favorably to the House. On September 28, 2008 the 
legislation was report to the House as H. Rept. 110-898. No 
further action was taken on the measure during the 110th 
Congress.
H.R. 1650, the ``Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007''
    Summary.--The ``Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 
2007'' would eliminate certain carveouts from the Federal 
antitrust laws enjoyed by railroad common carriers, thereby 
subjecting railroad industry practices to the pro-competitive 
influence of the antitrust laws. The bill will extend to the 
railroad industry remedies and enforcement mechanisms generally 
applicable to other industries under the Federal antitrust 
laws. Those harmed by antitrust violations perpetrated by a 
rail carrier would not have the full range of remedies 
available under the Federal antitrust laws. The bill is 
prospective in effect. There is an additional 180-day grace 
period for conduct that began pursuant to immunity under the 
previous law and that is continuing at the date of enactment. 
Except with respect to conferring antitrust immunity, the bill 
would fully preserve the Surface Transportation Board (STB), 
regulatory authority. With respect to reviewing railroad 
mergers and acquisitions, the STB would retain its public 
interest authority alongside the Agencies' antitrust authority.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1650 was introduced by Rep. 
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) on March 22, 2007. Identical legislation 
was introduced in the Senate, S. 772 on March 6, 2007 by 
Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI). H.R. 1650 was co-sponsored by 27 
members. On February 25, 2008, the Task Force convened a 
hearing with the following witnesses: Rep. Tammy Baldwin; Ms. 
Susan M. Diehl, Senior Vice President of Logistics and Supply 
Chain Management for Holcim (USA) Inc.; Mr. Terry Huval, 
Director of Utilities for the Lafayette Utilities System; Mr. 
G. Paul Moates, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of 
Sidley Austin LLP, on behalf of the Association of American 
Railroads; and Dr. Darren Bush, Associate Professor of Law at 
the University of Houston Law Center.
    On April 30, 2008, the Committee ordered the bill favorably 
reported as amended by voice vote. On September 18, 2008, the 
Committee reported the bill to the House as H. Rept. No. 110-
860, part 1. No further action was taken on the measure during 
the 110th Congress.
H.R. 5546, the ``Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2008''
    Summary.--On July 19, 2007, the Task Force held an 
oversight hearing to examine the impact of credit card 
interchange fees, fees charged when a consumer uses any payment 
card at a retailer. Testimony was heard from: Steve Smith, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of K-VA-T Food Stores, 
Inc.; John Buhrmaster, President of First National Bank of 
Scotia, New York; Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director of 
U.S. PIRG; Tim Muris, O'Melveny & Meyers; and Mallory Duncan, 
Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the National 
Retail Federation.
    During this hearing, panelists expressed their concerns 
that the large credit card companies could charge excessive 
interchange fees because of market power; that retailers have 
little ability to negotiate the fees; and that there is a lack 
of transparency with regard to how the credit card companies 
calculate their fees. After the hearing, Chairman John Conyers, 
Jr. (D-MI) and Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT) introduced 
H.R. 5546, the ``Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2008'' on March 6, 
2008.
    H.R. 5546, the ``Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2008'' creates 
a limited antitrust immunity for providers of a single covered 
electronic payment system (e.g., credit cards) and merchants to 
negotiate voluntary agreements and, if necessary, participate 
in market-based proceedings before a panel of experts to 
determine the appropriate interchange fee. The bill as reported 
stripped the three expert panel provisions from the underlying 
legislation.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5546 was introduced by Chairman 
John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) on March 
6, 2008. Additional original co-sponsors were Reps. John 
Boozman (R-AZ), Chris Carney (D-PA), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), 
Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Ralph Hall (D-TX), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), 
John Peterson (R-PA), Todd Platts (R-PA), Bill Shuster (R-PA), 
John Sullivan (R-OK), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Peter Welch (D-
VT), and Joe Wilson (R-SC). There were 45 cosponsors of the 
legislation.
    On May 15, 2008, the Task Force convened a hearing on H.R. 
5546. The witnesses were: Joshua R. Floum, Executive Vice 
President, General Counsel and Secretary, Visa, U.S.A.; Joshua 
L. Peirez, Group Executive, Global Public Policy and Associate 
General Counsel, MasterCard Worldwide; Steve Cannon, Chairman, 
Constantine Cannon, LLP; Tom Robinson, CEO, Rotten Robbie and 
Vice Chairman, Government Relations, National Association of 
Convenience Stores; Ed Mierzwinski, U.S. PIRG; and John Blum, 
Vice President of Operations, Chartway Federal Credit Union.
    On July 16, 2008, the Committee ordered the bill favorably 
reported as amended by a roll call vote of 19 to 16. On October 
3, 2008, the Committee reported the bill to the House as H. 
Rept. No. 110-913. No further action was taken on the measure 
during the 110th Congress.

                     Antitrust Oversight Activities

    During the 110th Congress, the Antitrust Task Force held a 
number of hearings on consumer issues such as retail gasoline 
prices, the impact of credit card exchange fees, community 
pharmacies, and net neutrality. Additionally, the Antitrust 
Task Force examined the impact of proposed mergers in the 
airline industry and the package delivery services. The Task 
Force began its work with oversight hearings on the findings 
and recommendations of both the Antitrust Modernization 
Commission and the Federal antitrust enforcement agencies.
Hearing on ``The Findings and Recommendations of the Antitrust 
        Modernization Commission''
    Summary.--On May 8, 2007, the Task Force met to examine the 
findings and recommendations of the Antitrust Modernization 
Commission. Deborah Garza, Chair of the Commission, and Jon 
Yarowsky, Vice-Chair, testified.
    The Antitrust Modernization Commission undertook a 
comprehensive, three-year review of the U.S. antitrust laws, as 
well as the policies and practices of the Department of 
Justice's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission 
in implementing those laws. The Commission reached three 
primary conclusions. First, free-market competition should 
remain the touchstone of the United States' economic policy. 
The Commission's conclusion in this regard is that robust 
competition among businesses leads to better quality products 
and services, lower prices, and higher levels of innovation. 
Second, the core antitrust laws--Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 
and the Clayton Act Section 7--and their application by the 
courts and federal enforcement agencies, are sound and help to 
safeguard competition in today's economy. Third, new or 
different rules are not needed for industries in which 
innovation, intellectual property, and technological innovation 
are central features. The Commission found that unlike some 
other areas of the law, the core antitrust laws are general in 
nature and have been applied to many different industries to 
protect free-market competition successfully over a long period 
of time despite changes in the economy and the increasing pace 
of technological advancement.

Hearing on the ``Antitrust Agencies: Department of Justice Antitrust 
        Division and Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition''

    Summary.--On September 25, 2007, the Judiciary Committee's 
Task Force on Antitrust and Competition Policy held an 
oversight hearing to focus on the management and priorities of 
each agency, to provide Members of the Task Force an 
opportunity to examine antitrust issues of topical interest, 
and to assess ways in which the Committee can provide both 
agencies with sufficient resources to ensure the efficient and 
effective application of the antitrust laws to promote 
competition in America's free market economy. The Honorable 
Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General, Department of 
Justice Antitrust Division; and The Honorable Deborah Platt 
Majoras, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, testified at this 
hearing.

Hearings on Retail Gas Prices

    Summary.--On May 16, 2007, the Task Force convened the 
first in a series of three hearings on retail gasoline prices. 
A number of factors affect the price of retail gas, including 
the price of crude oil, refinery capacity and output, 
environmental factors, market trading, and others. The May 16, 
2007 hearing, ``Prices at the Pump: Market Failure and the Oil 
Industry,'' focused on competition in the crude oil market and 
the refinery industry. Testimony was heard from Representative 
Bart Stupak (D-MI); Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM); the 
Honorable Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut State Attorney 
General; Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation 
of America; and Dr. John Felmy, Chief Economist, American 
Petroleum Institute.
    In May 2008, the Task Force held a two-part hearing to 
examine the impact and causes of record retail gas prices. On 
May 7, 2008, the Task Force convened a hearing, ``Retail Gas 
Prices, Part 1: Consumer Effects,'' examining the effects of 
the rising price of retail gasoline on consumers. Witnesses at 
the hearing included Bill Douglass, C.E.O. of Douglass 
Distributing Company; David Owen, President, National 
Association of Small Trucking Companies; Dr. Mark Cooper, 
Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America; and Lou 
Pugliaresi, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc. 
During this hearing, witnesses discussed the direct economic 
impact of the rising price of gas, including its effect on 
consumers' financial stability and discretionary spending. The 
panel also examine the broader economic effects of high gas 
prices, from the impact on heavily fuel-dependent industries to 
trickle-down effects throughout other sectors of the economy.
    On May 22, 2008, the Task Force continued its review of 
retail gas prices with the hearing ``Retail Gas Prices, Part 2: 
Competition in the Oil Industry.'' Testimony was heard from 
Steve Simon, Senior Vice President of ExxonMobil Corporation; 
Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board of Chevron 
Corporation; John Hofmeister, U.S. President of Shell Oil 
Company; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Exploration and 
Production for ConocoPhillips; and Robert Malone, Chairman and 
President of BP America. This hearing examined the reasons 
underlying the rising price of retail gasoline and the level of 
competition in the oil industry overall, both on the 
``upstream,'' or exploration and production side, as well as 
the ``downstream,'' or refining and distribution side. The Task 
Force examined whether any of the major integrated oil 
companies had engaged in anticompetitive behavior or possibly 
violated federal antitrust laws during the 2008 summer run-up 
in retail gasoline prices. The Task Force also consider the 
role of various competitive factors in the increase in retail 
gasoline prices, including increased domestic demand for oil, 
increased worldwide demand for oil, the role of speculators in 
the rising price of crude oil, and domestic refinery capacity 
constraints, among others.

Hearing on ``Competition and the Future of Digital Music''

    Summary.--Technological developments are dramatically 
changing the ways in which consumers can obtain music. In 
addition to the traditional offerings of broadcast radio and 
record stores, consumers can choose from digital music 
delivered via the Internet or satellite, as well as by 
broadcast or compact disc and other ``hard copy'' formats. 
Questions as to the potential implications of these 
developments for competition in the digital music marketplace 
were brought into sharp relief by the announcement that XM 
Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio planned to merge. On 
February 28, 2007, the Task Force met to examine these issues 
against the backdrop of the proposed XM-Sirius merger. The 
witnesses at the hearing included: Mel Karmazin, CEO, Sirius 
Satellite Radio; David Rehr, President, NAB; Gigi Sohn, Public 
Knowledge; Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation; and Charles 
Biggio, Wilson Sonsini.

Hearing on ``Competition on the Internet''

    Summary.--On July 15, 2008, the full Committee convened 
this hearing focusing on competition on the Internet, examining 
competition in online advertising, online search, and privacy, 
among other issues. Testimony was heard from Michael J. 
Callahan, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and 
Secretary of Yahoo, Inc.; Brad Smith, Senior Vice President, 
General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary, Microsoft Corp.; 
David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development 
and Chief Legal Officer of Google, Inc.; Professor Frank 
Pasquale, Associate Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School; 
Tim Carter, President & CEO, AsktheBuilder.com; and David 
Sable, Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, Wunderman. 
Recent transactions and near-transactions among Google, Inc., 
Yahoo, Inc., and Microsoft Corp. had raised a number of 
concerns regarding their possible anticompetitive effects in 
such areas as online advertising, online search, and web 
platform interoperability. The hearing examined the state of 
competition with respect to competition in these various online 
markets.

Hearing on ``Net Neutrality and Free Speech on the Internet''

    Summary.--The Task Force convened this hearing on March 11, 
2008 to explore how network neutrality principles, government 
enforcement policies, and private business practices currently 
protect and inhibit the freedom of speech. Witnesses at this 
hearing were Damian Kulash, lead singer of the band OK Go; 
Susan Crawford, Yale University Law School; Michele Combs, 
Christian Coalition of America; Caroline Fredrickson, American 
Civil Liberties Union; Christopher Yoo, University of 
Pennsylvania Law School; and Rick Carnes, Songwriters Guild of 
America.
    Over the past few years, the Internet has become a dominant 
venue for the expression of ideas and public discourse. From 
social networking to get-out-the-vote drives, the Internet has 
become a leading tool for speech and action. Web sites like 
Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Monster have changed the way 
people of all ages connect socially and professionally, and 
political candidates raise more money online with each election 
cycle. Newspaper web sites and independent blogs have 
revolutionized the ways in which news and media are 
disseminated and consumed, and the Internet has opened up new 
performance venues to emerging artists and entertainers. 
Technological innovation on the Internet has made it among the 
most powerful outlets for creativity and free speech.
    Because of the Internet's importance in promoting and 
facilitating speech, proponents of net neutrality have raised 
concerns that a lack of competition among broadband access 
providers allows providers to stifle and censor speech. The 
nexus between competition, net neutrality, and free speech have 
surfaced as an issue for the Congress to consider.

Hearing on ``Competition in the Airline Industry''

    Summary.--On April 24, 2008, the Task Force convened a 
hearing to examine the impact of the proposed merger between 
Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines and the state of 
competition in the airline industry. Delta and Northwest 
announced their plans to merge on April 14, 2008, a $3.6 
billion merger agreement that would create the largest airline 
in the United States. Industry experts speculated that the 
merger could trigger a round of further consolidation within 
the industry, possibly involving United, Continental Airlines, 
US Airways, and American Airlines. Mergers among these large 
national carriers could enhance consumer welfare by creating 
financially stable companies offering passengers more flights 
and destinations within a single, integrated network. At the 
same time, consolidation in the industry raises anticompetitive 
concerns, including possible reduction in seat capacity and 
increases in ticket fares.
    Witnesses at the hearing included Richard Anderson, CEO, 
Delta Air Lines; Douglas Steenland, CEO, Northwest Airlines; R. 
Thomas Buffenbarger, International President, International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Douglas 
Moormann, Vice President, Economic Development for the 
Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber; Clifford Winston, Senior 
Fellow, Economic Studies Program, Brookings Institute; and Veda 
Shook, International Vice President, Association of Flight 
Attendants--CWA.

Hearing on ``Competition in the Package Delivery Industry''

    Summary.--On September 9, 2008, the full Committee convened 
this hearing to examine the state of competition in the 
domestic package delivery industry. The prior month, DHL had 
announced plans to outsource all of its ``lift'' (airport to 
airport air transportation) to UPS. This would have resulted in 
a critical component of DHL's most lucrative business segment 
being controlled by one of its competitors. The package 
delivery industry (the domestic market for the transportation 
and delivery of packages, parcels, and certain types of mail) 
has both an air and ground transportation component. Virtually 
all air transportation falls within the segment of the industry 
known as ``express delivery,'' in which 1- or 2-day package 
delivery is guaranteed. Since 2000, the package delivery market 
has become increasingly concentrated. As a result of the 
acquisition of Emery Worldwide by UPS and Airborne Express by 
DHL, the number of market participants has dwindled from 6 to 
4: FedEx, UPS, U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and DHL. Currently, 
USPS outsources lift for its express delivery service to FedEx, 
UPS, and ABX. As a result, an additional consequence of the 
proposed agreement would be to concentrate lift for the express 
delivery segment of the package delivery industry into the 
hands of two companies: FedEx and UPS.
    Testimony was received from two panels of witnesses. The 
first panel was Representatives Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Betty 
Sutton (D-OH), Mike Turner (R-OH), and Senators Sherrod Brown 
(D-OH) and George Voinovich (R-OH). Witnesses on the second 
panel were John Mullen, CEO of DHL Worldwide; Burt Wallace, 
Senior Vice President, Transportation for UPS; Lieutenant 
Governor Lee Fisher of Ohio; Captain Dave Ross, President of 
Teamsters Local 1224; Mayor David Raizk of Wilmington, Ohio; 
Captain John Prater, International President of the Air Line 
Pilots Association (ALPA); and antitrust expert David Balto.

                    Committee Legislative Activities


H.R. 1433, the ``District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1433 would provide the District of Columbia 
with full representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. 
The bill permanently expands the U.S. House of Representatives 
from 435 to 437 seats. The two-seat increase will provide a 
vote to the District of Columbia and a new, at-large seat 
through the One Hundred Twelfth Congress to the State next 
entitled to increase its congressional representation. Based on 
the 2000 Census, Utah is the State next entitled to increase 
its congressional representation.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1433 was introduced on March 9, 
2007, by Delegate Norton and Representative Davis and referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform. On March 14, 2007, the 
Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on H.R. 1433. The 
hearing witnesses were Viet D. Dinh, former U.S. Assistant 
Attorney General for Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of 
Justice; Bruce Spiva, founding partner of Spiva & Hartnett and 
Chair of the Board of DC Vote; Rick Bress, partner in the 
Washington, DC, office of Latham & Watkins; and Jonathan 
Turley, professor of law at George Washington University. On 
March 15, 2007, the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 
1433 favorably by a roll call vote of 21 to 13. On March 22, 
2007, the U.S. House of Representatives proceeded with general 
debate and debate on a motion to commit, with further 
proceedings on the motion postponed. There was no further House 
action on H.R. 1433.

H.R. 2102, the ``Free Flow of Information Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 2102 ensures that members of the press may 
utilize confidential sources without causing harm to themselves 
or their sources. It does this by providing a qualified 
privilege that prevents a reporter's source material from being 
revealed except under certain narrow circumstances, such as 
where it is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or other 
significant and specified harm to national security or imminent 
death or significant bodily harm. The bill thus strikes a 
balance with respect to promoting the free dissemination of 
information and ensuring effective law enforcement and the fair 
administration of justice.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2102, the ``Free Flow of 
Information Act of 2007'' was introduced by Rep. Rich Boucher 
(D-VA) on May 2, 2007. On June 14, 2007, the Committee met in 
open session to receive testimony from: Jim Taricani, 
investigative journalist; William Safire, New York Times 
columnist; Rachel Brand, Assistant Attorney General for Legal 
Policy, U.S. Department of Justice; Lee Levine, partner with 
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, L.L.P.; and Professor Randall 
Eliason, G.W.U. Law School. The bill was markup by the 
Committee on August 1, 2007 as amended by a voice vote. On 
October 10, 2007 the legislation was reported to the House as 
H. Rept. 110-370. Pursuant to H. Res. 742, the measure was 
considered by the House on October 16, 2007 and passed the 
House by a roll call vote of 398-21 (Roll No. 973). H.R. 2102 
was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on October 18, 
2007. No further action was taken on the legislation during the 
110th Congress.

H.R. 2128, the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007''

    Summary.--This legislation would allow the ``photographing, 
electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising'' of federal 
court proceedings.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2128, the ``Sunshine in the 
Courtroom Act of 2007,'' was introduced on May 3, 2007 and was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was 
referred to the Subcommittee on June 4, 2007. The bill was 
discharged from the Subcommittee on September 20, 2007. The 
Committee met in open session on September 27, 2007 to hear 
testimony from: Representative Ted Poe (R-TX); the Honorable 
Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts; 
Susan Swain, President and Co-Chief Operating Office, CSPAN; 
Barbara Cochran, Radio-Television News Directors Association; 
Fred Graham, Anchor, Court TV; the Honorable John Tunheim, 
Chair, Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration 
and Case Management; District Judge, U.S. District Court, 
Minnesota (on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United 
States); and John Richter, U.S. Attorney, Western District of 
Oklahoma (on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice). October 
24, 2007 the Committee on the Judiciary met in open session 
mark-up and ordered favorably reported H.R. 2128, as amended, 
by a roll call of 17-11. There was no further action on H.R. 
2128.

H.R. 2176, to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land 
        claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community and H.R. 4115, to 
        provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims 
        of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians

    Summary.--H.R. 2176 would provide for and approve the 
settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian 
Community (``Bay Mills Tribe''), and H.R. 4115, would provide 
for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the 
Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Sault Ste. Marie 
Tribe).
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2176 was introduced by 
Representative Bart Stupak on May 3, 2007. H.R. 4115 was 
introduced by Representative John Dingell (D-MI) on November 8, 
2007. On March 6, 2008, the Committee received a sequential 
referral of both bills.
    On March 14, 2008, the Committee convened a hearing on H.R. 
2176 and H.R. 4115. The witnesses at this hearing were 
Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI); Representative 
Shelley Berkley (D-MI); Carl Artman, Assistant Interior 
Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior; Chief 
Fred Cantu, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan; Alicia Walker, 
Chairman, Sault St. Marie Chippewa Tribe; Kathryn Tierney, 
Tribal Attorney, Bay Mills Indian Community; and Cynthia 
Abrams, Board Member, National Coalition Against Legalized 
Gambling, who submitted a statement for the record.
    On April 2, 2008, the Committee met and ordered reported 
H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 unfavorably without amendment by a roll 
call vote of 29-0. On April 4, 2008, both bills were reported 
to the House as H. Rept. 110-541, Part 2 (H.R. 2176) and H. 
Rept. 110-542, Part 2 (H.R. 4115). There was no further action 
on H.R. 4115 during the remaining 110th Congress.
    The House considered H.R. 2176 on June 25, 2008 pursuant to 
H. Res. 1298 and the measure failed passage by a roll call vote 
of 121-298 (Roll No. 458). There was no further action on H.R. 
2176 during the 110th Congress.

H.R. 3678, the ``Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 3678, the ``Internet Tax Freedom Act 
Amendments Act of 2007,'' would amend the Internet Tax Freedom 
Act to extend the moratorium on certain taxes relating to the 
Internet and to electronic commerce from November 1, 2007, 
until November 1, 2011, and make other clarifications to the 
law. An oversight hearing on this issue was held by the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and is 
discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
    Legislative History.--On September 27, 2007, Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H.R. 3678. The Committee met in 
open session to consider the legislation and ordered the bill 
reported favorably, as amended by a roll call vote of 38-0. The 
report was filed in the House on October 12, 2007 as H. Rept. 
110-372. The legislation was considered under suspension of the 
rules on October 16, 2007 and passed, as amended, by a recorded 
vote of 405-2 (Roll No. 968).
    On October 25, 2007, the bill passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent. The House suspended the rules 
and agreed to the Senate amendment on October 30, 2007 by a 
recorded vote of 402-0 (Roll No. 1014). The legislation was 
signed into law by the President on October 30, 2007 as Public 
Law 110-108.

H. Res. 1448, that the Committee on the Judiciary shall inquire whether 
        the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the 
        United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
        Louisiana

    Summary.--H. Res. 1448 authorized and directed the 
Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should 
impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
    Legislative History.--H. Res. 1448 was introduced on 
September 17, 2008 by Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and 
Ranking Member Lamar Smith (D-TX). Also, on the same day, the 
House agreed to the resolution without objection and the 
Committee established a task force to conduct an inquiry of the 
matter. The following day, September 18, 2008, the Committee 
appointed members to the task force.

                          Committee Oversight


INVESTIGATION INTO U.S. ATTORNEY REMOVALS AND THE POLITICIZATION OF THE 
                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    As the 110th Congress convened, reports surfaced indicating 
that a large group of United States Attorneys had been asked to 
resign their positions under troubling circumstances. The 
resulting Committee inquiry--led in large part by the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law--eventually 
grew to address broader questions about the extent to which 
core functions of the Department of Justice such as criminal 
prosecution decisions and hiring of career personnel had been 
improperly politicized.

Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys and other Department Personnel

    The controversy began when reports surfaced of United 
States Attorneys around the country being forced from office 
under suspicious circumstances.\1\ Several Members of Congress 
expressed concern about these firings, and on January 17, 2007, 
Chairman Conyers and Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property Subcommittee Chairman Howard Berman wrote to Attorney 
General Alberto Gonzales requesting information about the 
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., Thornton and Soto, Lam Asked to Step Down, San Diego 
Union Tribune, January 12, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In February and March 2007, both the House and Senate 
Judiciary Committees held hearings to explore the reasons for 
the firings and to address concerns that political 
considerations may have influenced the Administration's 
decisions. At a March 6, 2007, hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law, Principal Associate Deputy 
Attorney General Will Moschella testified before the Commercial 
and Administrative Law Subcommittee on this subject, providing 
both a private briefing and public testimony regarding the 
reasons for the forced resignations. He claimed that, with one 
exception, the U.S. Attorneys had been fired because of their 
poor performance. Under questioning by Chairman Conyers, Mr. 
Moschella stated that the White House had played only a very 
modest role in the matter, stating that ``because these are 
political appointees,'' it would be ``unremarkable'' to send 
the list to the White House and ``let them know [o]ur proposal 
and whether they agreed with it.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``H.R. 580, Restoring Checks and Balances in the Confirmation 
Process of U.S. Attorneys,'' 110th Cong., pg. 24 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That same day, the Subcommittee also heard from six of the 
removed U.S. Attorneys, who appeared under subpoena. These 
prosecutors described the circumstances of their removal, 
explaining that they had been given virtually no explanation of 
why they were being asked to resign, and rejecting the charges 
of poor performance that the Administration had subsequently 
leveled against them.\3\ Concern about the firings was further 
heightened when two of the U.S. Attorneys testified that they 
had received what they felt were inappropriate communications 
from Members of Congress or their staff about pending 
prosecution matters. United States Attorney David Iglesias 
described such calls from Senator Pete Domenici and 
Representative Heather Wilson. United States Attorney John 
McKay also described receiving a ``disconcerting'' call 
regarding his handling of election cases from the chief of 
staff to United States Representative Doc Hastings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ March 6, 2007, Testimony of former United States Attorneys 
Carol Lam, David Iglesias, Daniel Bogden, Bud Cummins, and John McKay 
Before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law at passim.
    \4\ March 6, 2007, Testimony of former United States Attorney John 
McKay Before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To address these questions, Chairman Conyers and Commercial 
and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez sought 
access to documents and interviews with White House and 
Department of Justice personnel at the center of the 
firings.\5\ That request was followed by a Subcommittee vote 
authorizing the Chairman to issue subpoenas to compel 
production of documents and to obtain testimony from witnesses 
such as Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Monica Goodling, and others 
who appeared to have played significant roles in the matter.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ March 8, 2007, Letter from Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and 
Subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; 
March 9, 2007, Letter from Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and Subcommittee 
Chair Linda Sanchez to White House Counsel Fred Fielding.
    \6\ March 21, 2007, Subcommittee Meeting to Consider Subpoena 
Authorization Concerning the Recent Termination of United States 
Attorneys and Related Subjects, 110th Cong. (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the investigation progressed, it became clear that the 
Department of Justice would not provide full information about 
the matter on a voluntary basis. Accordingly, on April 10, 
2007, Chairman Conyers issued a document subpoena to Attorney 
General Gonzales.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ April 10, 2007, Subpoena Issued by Chairman John Conyers, Jr. 
to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Documents obtained from the Department of Justice only 
raised more questions about the firings. There were multiple 
drafts of lists of U.S. Attorneys to be fired that had passed 
between the White House and the Department.\8\ None of the 
documents produced, however, explained exactly how or by whom 
the removed U.S. Attorneys were placed on the list. Committee 
staff (working jointly with Senate Judiciary Committee staff) 
also conducted a series of 11 on-the-record interviews of 
Department of Justice personnel, but the more the Committee 
learned, the more questions it raised regarding the true 
reasons for these removals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ OAG 20-21, OAG 34-25, DAG 14-17, OAG 45-48. Documents provided 
by the Department of Justice in response to the Committee's request 
were marked with Bates numbers that indicated the office from which the 
document came, as well as a page number assigned to it. For example, 
``OAG 20'' was page 20 of the documents produced by the Office of the 
Attorney General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's investigation established that the 
``performance-based'' reasons offered by the Administration to 
justify these firings were not true; \9\ as respected former 
Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified on May 3, 2007, 
the removed U.S. Attorneys were in almost all cases top 
performers.\10\ This only further raised suspicion about the 
real reasons for the firings. Indeed, based on the Department 
documents and interviews obtained by the Committee, it became 
increasingly apparent that at least some of the U.S. Attorneys 
were removed for various political motives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Additional Views of Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chair 
Sanchez Submitted in Support of Contempt Resolution for Harriet Miers 
and Josh Bolten at 43-51.
    \10\ Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy, 
110th Cong., (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bud Cummins, for example, was apparently removed at least 
in part simply to make way for Karl Rove's aide Tim Griffin to 
obtain U.S. Attorney experience to enhance his future 
employment and political prospects.\11\ Of far greater concern, 
United States Attorney David Iglesias appears to have been 
removed because New Mexico Republicans had complained about his 
refusal to bring particular vote fraud prosecutions where he 
did not think there was an appropriate basis to prosecute, and 
also because he angered New Mexico Members of Congress who had 
hoped he would bring other prosecutions ahead of the 2006 
elections.\12\ In a number of other cases, serious concerns 
about the role of politics in the firings still remain.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Additional Views of Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chair 
Sanchez Submitted in Support of Contempt Resolution for Harriet Miers 
and Josh Bolten at 36-37.
    \12\ Id. at 24-28.
    \13\ Id. at 29-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department's Liaison to the White House, Monica 
Goodling, testified before the full Committee on May 23, 2007, 
under subpoena and limited use immunity granted after she had 
invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self-
incrimination.\14\ At this hearing, Ms. Goodling acknowledged 
that she had ``crossed the line'' \15\ and considered political 
factors in hiring career prosecutors and immigration judges and 
in approving Department personnel for important details to 
Department leadership offices. This testimony led to 
investigations by the Department's Office of the Inspector 
General and Office of Professional Responsibility, and reports 
finding widespread use of improper political considerations--
and in some cases unlawful use--in Department hiring for a 
diverse array of positions including honors program entry-level 
positions, career Assistant United States Attorney jobs, summer 
internships, details to top Department offices, and immigration 
judgeships.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy 
and Related Matters: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 
110th Cong. (2007)
    \15\ The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys 
Controversy and Related Matters, 110th Cong. pg 34, (2007).
    \16\ Joint Report by the Offices of the Inspector General and 
Professional Responsibility, An Investigation of Allegations of 
Politicized Hiring in the Department of Justice Honors Program and the 
Summer Law Intern Program, June 2008; Joint Report by the Offices of 
the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility, An Investigation 
of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff 
in the Office of the Attorney General, July 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Goodling's testimony also confirmed Committee concerns 
that the Administration had deliberately obscured the role of 
the White House in this matter, telling Members that Deputy 
Attorney General McNulty had warned her away from a Senate 
briefing on the issue because, if she were present, Senators 
might be encouraged to ask questions about the actions of the 
White House.\17\ Ms. Goodling's testimony provided important 
information for the Committee's investigation; however, it 
still did not explain who had identified these U.S. Attorneys 
for firing or why, as she denied having much information on 
that subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ May 23, 2007 Prepared Statement of Monica Goodling at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eventually, the Committee exhausted all sources of 
information from within the Department of Justice without being 
able to answer key mysteries about the firings. As Mr. Conyers 
put it in questioning the Attorney General, there was one 
obvious place to look for answers: ``The breadcrumbs in this 
investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.'' 
Accordingly, on June 13, 2007, the Chairman issued subpoenas 
for White House documents and for the appearance of Harriet 
Miers regarding these matters.\18\ That same day, Senate 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy issued an identical document 
subpoena to the White House, as well as a subpoena for the 
testimony of Karl Rove aide Sara Taylor. Chairman Conyers also 
subpoenaed White House documents known to be contained on the 
computer servers of the Republican National Committee, which 
had been used by White House personnel, apparently to avoid 
federal recordkeeping requirements.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ June 13, 2007, Subpoenas issued by Chairman John Conyers, Jr. 
to Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten.
    \19\ July 13, 2008, Subpoena issued by Chairman John Conyers, Jr. 
to Republican National Committee Chair Mike Duncan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 12, 2007, the Commercial and Administrative Law 
Subcommittee convened to hear the testimony of Harriet Miers. 
Ms. Miers refused to appear for the hearing, however, making 
the unprecedented claim that, as a former aide to President 
Bush, she was immune from Congressional subpoena.\20\ The 
Administration similarly refused to produce any subpoenaed 
documents, claiming that all White House records related to the 
U.S. Attorney removals were covered by executive privilege. The 
Administration also declined to provide a ``privilege log'' 
describing the documents that were being withheld.\21\ The RNC 
also refused to provide most of the subpoenaed documents or a 
privilege log, claiming that White House orders prevented it 
from doing so.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ July 10, 2007, Letter From George T. Manning to Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr.
    \21\ June 28, 2007, Letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding 
to Chairmen John Conyers, Jr. and Patrick J. Leahy.
    \22\ July 31, 2007, Letter from Robert Kelner to Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 25, 2007, after numerous efforts to negotiate a 
resolution to this matter, the full Judiciary Committee voted 
22-17 to recommend that the House of Representatives find 
Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, as 
custodian of White House documents, in contempt of 
Congress.\23\ On February 14, 2008, the full House cited Ms. 
Miers and Bolten for contempt, and referred them to the U.S. 
Attorney for the District of Columbia for criminal prosecution, 
by a roll call vote of 223-32.\24\ This was the first vote to 
cite a person for contempt of Congress in over 25 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Meeting to Consider: a Resolution and Report Recommending to 
the House of Representatives that Former White House Counsel Harriet 
Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten be Cited for 
Contempt of Congress, 110th Cong. (2007).
    \24\ Roll Call Vote No. 60, H. Res. 982, U.S. House of 
Representatives, February 14, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. Attorney refused to act on the contempt referral, 
however, at the direction of Michael Mukasey, who had replaced 
Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.\25\ In response, Chairman 
Conyers used the authority granted to him to take the matter to 
court on behalf of the Committee. On March 10, 2008, the 
Committee filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court 
seeking a legal ruling that the Administration's theories of 
immunity from subpoena and executive privilege are legally 
unsound.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ February 29, 2008, Letter from Attorney General Michael 
Mukasey to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
    \26\ Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, Civil Action No. 08-0409 
(JDB) (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, July 
31, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 31, 2008, Judge Bates granted the Committee's 
motion for partial summary judgment and ruled that, as the 
Committee had asserted, Harriet Miers was not immune from 
Congressional subpoena and that she was required to appear and 
testify before the Committee.\27\ Judge Bates also ruled that 
the Administration had no valid excuse for refusing to produce 
non-privileged documents, and that the Administration was 
obligated to provide a more detailed listing and description of 
any documents withheld from the Committee's subpoena on 
executive privilege grounds than it previously had done.\28\ 
The matter is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia, and the Judge's order has been 
stayed during the appeal.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Memorandum Opinion and Order, Committee on the Judiciary v. 
Miers, Civil Action No. 08-0409 (JDB) (United States District Court for 
the District of Columbia, July 31, 2008).
    \28\ Memorandum Opinion and Order, Committee on the Judiciary v. 
Miers, Civil Action No. 08-0409 (JDB) (United States District Court for 
the District of Columbia, July 31, 2008).
    \29\ October 6, 2008, Opinion and Order Granting Motion for Stay 
Pending Appeal, Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, Appeal No. 08-
5357, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 29, 2008, the Department's Office of the 
Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility 
released their own detailed report on the forced resignation of 
these U.S. Attorneys.\30\ The report confirmed the Committee's 
initial conclusions that the so-called performance-based 
reasons offered by the Administration to justify these firings 
were in large part untrue, and that a number of the firings 
were politically motivated, concluding that ``political 
partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal 
of several of the U.S. Attorneys.'' \31\ The report further 
concluded that inaccurate and misleading statements were made 
to the Congress and the public on this matter, and that a 
number of laws may have been violated by both the firings and 
the statements.\32\ Finally, the report describes a widespread 
refusal by White House witnesses to cooperate with the 
Department's investigation and the refusal of the White House 
to make key documents available, and concludes that because of 
this obstruction, Department investigators ``were unable to 
determine the role the White House played in these removals.'' 
\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Joint Report of the Department's Offices of the Inspector 
General and Professional Responsibility, An Investigation Into the 
Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys, September 2008.
    \31\ Joint Report of the Department's Offices of the Inspector 
General and Professional Responsibility, An Investigation Into the 
Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys, September 2008, at 325-26.
    \32\ Id. at 357-58.
    \33\ Id. at 338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of the seriousness of their findings and the limits 
on their authority to compel White House cooperation, the 
Department watchdogs called in this report for the appointment 
of a federal prosecutor to continue the investigation and 
evaluate whether criminal charges should be brought.\34\ 
Accepting this recommendation, Attorney General Mukasey 
appointed Norah M. Dannehy, the Acting United States Attorney 
for the District of Connecticut, to continue the 
investigation.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Id. at 358.
    \35\ Statement by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on the Report 
of an Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006, 
Sept. 29, 2008, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/
September/08-opa-859.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Selective Prosecution

    The Committee also investigated concerns that some U.S. 
Attorneys who were not removed from their jobs--including those 
described by Kyle Sampson as ``loyal Bushies'' \36\--improperly 
considered partisan political factors in carrying out their 
prosecution duties. These concerns were reinforced and 
heightened by an academic study published by Professors Donald 
Shields and John Cragan in February 2007 and updated for 
presentation at an October 23, 2007, joint hearing of the 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee and the 
Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee that found 
federal prosecutors during the Bush Administration have 
investigated Democratic officeholders far more frequently than 
Republican officeholders, and that there was ``less than one 
chance in 10,000'' that the over-representation of Democrats 
was by chance, concluding that selective prosecution of 
Democrats must have occurred.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ E-mail from Kyle Sampson to Deputy White House Counsel David 
Leitch, responding to a ``Question from Karl Rove,'' Jan. 9, 2005; see 
also Krugman, Department of Injustice, New York Times, March 7, 2007 
(``The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors 
still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn't go 
along with the Bush administration's politicization of justice. But 
statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to 
protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the 
administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a 
blind eye to Republican malfeasance.'').
    \37\ Shields & Cragan, The Political Profiling of Elected 
Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok 
(2007), available at http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/
20070212_political_profiling.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's investigation has generated bipartisan 
concern about the subject. In summer 2007, the Committee 
received a bipartisan petition signed by 44 former State 
attorneys general calling for action.\38\ And at the 
Subcommittees' joint hearing, former Reagan and George H. W. 
Bush Attorney General Richard Thornburgh stated his concern 
about ``apparent political prosecution'' and warned that 
citizens ``may no longer'' have ``confidence that the 
Department of Justice is conducting itself in a fair and 
impartial manner without actual political influence or the 
appearance of political influence.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ See Editorial, Time to Vote Contempt, New York Times, Feb. 14, 
2008, (``There are people in jail today, including a former governor of 
Alabama, who have raised credible charges that they were put there for 
political reasons.''); Horton, A Primer In Political Prosecution, Oct. 
24, 2007; Kalson, The Wecht Indictment, July 22, 2007; Cohen, The 
United States Attorneys Scandal Comes to Mississippi, Oct. 11, 2007; 
Letter from 44 former State attorneys general to Chairman John Conyers, 
Jr., H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Chairman Patrick Leahy, S. Comm. on 
the Judiciary, July 13, 2007. That attorneys general letter 
specifically addressed the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don 
Siegelman, described below.
    \39\ Thornburgh, Oct. 23, 2007, Subcomms. on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security and on Commercial and Admin. Law, Hearing at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Against this background, Committee Majority staff have 
investigated numerous allegations of selective prosecution that 
have surfaced around the country. In the early stages of its 
work, the Committee focused particularly on three cases where 
concerns about politically-motivated prosecutions have been 
especially intense: the Georgia Thompson case in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin, the prosecution of the Democratic former Governor of 
Alabama Don Siegelman, and the criminal prosecution of 
Allegheny County coroner Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania. Staff has also examined several cases brought 
against a group of judges and a practicing attorney in Jackson, 
Mississippi, including Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver 
Diaz and trial attorney Paul Minor. The facts and circumstances 
of these and other prosecutions, as revealed by a detailed 
staff investigation, are summarized in a report prepared for 
Chairman Conyers by Committee Majority staff and released on 
April 17, 2008.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Staff Report on Allegations of Selective Prosecution in Our 
Federal Criminal Justice System, April 17, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As part of this investigation concerning selective 
prosecution and the U.S. Attorney removals, the Committee has 
pursued testimony from former White House Deputy Chief of Staff 
Karl Rove, issuing a subpoena for his testimony on May 22, 
2008. When Mr. Rove refused to appear in response to subpoena, 
the Committee voted to recommend that the full House of 
Representatives find him in contempt of Congress.
    The Committee has also pursued access to documents needed 
to appropriately complete this investigation. Despite efforts 
to obtain relevant materials on a voluntary basis,\41\ however, 
and a subpoena issued on June 27, 2008, the Department of 
Justice has refused to provide any non-public information or 
documents regarding the Siegelman and Wecht cases, as well as 
other documents called for by the subpoena.\42\ On December 10, 
2008, Chairman Conyers sent a letter to the Attorney General to 
remind him that the Committee was still seeking these materials 
and to ensure that they be preserved as required by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Letters from Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and other members of 
the H. Comm. on the Judiciary to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 
July 17, 2007, and Sept. 10, 2007.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recent developments have only heightened concern about 
cases investigated by the Committee. For example, on March 27, 
2008, the federal appeals court in Atlanta, Georgia ruled that 
Don Siegelman should be released from prison pending his 
appeal, having concluded that ``Siegelman has satisfied the 
criteria set out in the statute, and has specifically met his 
burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions 
of law or fact'' regarding the viability of his conviction.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Order filed March 27, 2008, in United States v. Siegelman, et 
al, Appeal No. 07-13163-B, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And more recently, new information has surfaced describing 
additional acts of apparent misconduct by the Siegelman 
prosecution team. On November 7, 2008, Chairman Conyers wrote 
the Attorney General transmitting troubling documents provided 
by a Department whistleblower; these documents suggested that 
the Siegelman jury had improperly communicated with the 
prosecution during trial, contacts that were never disclosed to 
the defense or the judge.\44\ Chairman Conyers also transmitted 
documents suggesting that the Republican-connected U.S. 
Attorney, who had agreed to recuse herself from the case at the 
insistence of the defense, had nevertheless communicated 
information and a litigation strategy recommendation to the 
active members of the prosecution team. Commentators have 
expressed extensive concern about this new information, among 
them law professor Carl Tobias, who said the e-mails raise 
``legitimate questions'' about the prosecution's conduct.\45\ 
According to a November 26, 2008, filing by the Department in 
the Siegelman appeal, in response to Mr. Conyers' letter it has 
reopened its internal investigation of the issue of improper 
contacts between the prosecution team and members of the 
jury.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ November 7, 2008, Letter from Chairman John Conyers, Jr. to 
Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
    \45\ Chander, ``House Judiciary Chairman Conyers says Siegelman 
Case E-mails Raise Questions,'' Birmingham News, November 14, 2008.
    \46\ Response to Defendant-Appellant Siegelman's Notice of 
Supplemental Information Relevant to Issues on Appeal, filed November 
26, 2008, in United States v. Siegelman, et al, Appeal No. 07-13163-B, 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 17, 2008, along with the release of the Committee 
Majority staff's report on this subject, Chairman Conyers, 
Chair Sanchez, and Representatives Davis and Baldwin requested 
a full investigation of the Siegelman, Wecht, and other cases 
by the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of 
the Inspector General; the Office of Professional 
Responsibility has launched such an investigation.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ May 5, 2008, Letter from H. Marshall Jarrett to Hon. John 
Conyers Jr. stating that the Office of Professional Responsibility is 
investigating ``allegations of selective prosecution relating to the 
prosecutions of Don Siegelman, Georgia Thompson, and Oliver Diaz and 
Paul Minor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Hearings and Meetings on U.S. Attorney Removals and 
        Politicization of the Department of Justice

            Hearing on H.R. 580, Restoring Check and Balances in the 
                    Confirmation of U.S. Attorneys
    On March 6, 2007, six of the terminated U.S. Attorneys--Ms. 
Lam, Mr. Iglesias, Mr. Cummins, Mr. McKay, Mr. Bogden, and Mr. 
Charlton--and William E. Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy 
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, testified before 
the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee. Mr. 
Moschella also provided private briefings on February 28 and 
March 5 to Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee 
Members and staff. Other witnesses at the hearing included: 
Judiciary Committee member Rep. Darrell Issa; Asa Hutchinson, a 
former Member of the House of Representatives and former U.S. 
Attorney; John A. Smietanka, former U.S. Attorney; Atlee 
Wampler, III, President of the National Association of Former 
United States Attorneys; George J. Terwilliger, III, Former 
Deputy Attorney General; and T.J. Halstead, Legislative 
Attorney, Congressional Research Service American Law Division.
            Oversight Hearing on Ensuring Executive Branch 
                    Accountability
    On March 29, 2007, the Commercial and Administrative Law 
Subcommittee heard testimony assessing the validity of White 
House assertions concerning executive privilege in the U.S. 
Attorney controversy. The witnesses included John Podesta, 
former White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton; 
Beth Nolan, former White House Counsel to President Bill 
Clinton; Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan 
Center for Justice; and Noel J. Francisco, former Associate 
Counsel to President George W. Bush. Ms. Nolan indicated that 
she had testified four times before congressional committees on 
matters directly related to her White House duties, including 
three times while she was still serving in that position.
            Oversight Hearing on the Continuing Investigation into the 
                    U.S. Attorneys Controversy
    On May 3, 2007, former Deputy Attorney General James B. 
Comey testified before the Commercial and Administrative Law 
Subcommittee.
            Oversight Hearing on the United States Department of 
                    Justice
    On May 10, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales appeared before 
the full Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing that 
focused on the U.S. Attorneys controversy.
            Oversight Hearing on the Continuing Investigation into the 
                    U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters
    After a grant of limited use immunity, Monica Goodling, 
former Senior Counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and 
the Department's White House Liaison, appeared before the full 
Committee on May 23, 2007.
            Oversight Hearing on the Continuing Investigation into the 
                    U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters
    On June 21, 2007, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty 
testified before the Commercial and Administrative Law 
Subcommittee.
            Hearing on the Continuing Investigation into the U.S. 
                    Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters
    Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers refused to comply 
with a subpoena requiring her appearance before the Commercial 
and Administrative Law Subcommittee on July 12, 2007. Ms. Miers 
not only failed to provide testimony or documents; she failed 
even to appear for the hearing. Subcommittee Chair Linda 
Sanchez proceeded to overrule the White House's claims of 
immunity and privilege with respect to Ms. Miers, and the 
ruling was sustained by Subcommittee Members in a roll call 
vote of 7-5.
            Meeting to consider the executive privilege claims asserted 
                    by White House Counsel in response to the subpoena 
                    for the production of documents issued to Joshua 
                    Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, or appropriate 
                    custodian of records
    On July 17, 2007, Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chair 
Sanchez wrote to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, notifying 
him that the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee 
would formally consider the White House's privilege claims with 
regard to subpoenaed White House documents at a July 19, 2007, 
meeting, and again urged compliance with the June 13 
subpoena.\48\ Notwithstanding that letter, Mr. Bolten still did 
not comply with his subpoena. The Commercial and Administrative 
Law Subcommittee then met on July 19, Subcommittee Chair 
Sanchez ruled against the privilege claims with respect to Mr. 
Bolten's refusal to produce any documents pursuant to the 
subpoena issued to him, and that ruling was upheld by a 7-3 
vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ July 17, 2007, Letter from Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and 
Subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez to White House Counsel Fred Fielding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Meeting to consider a resolution and report recommending to 
                    the House of Representatives that former White 
                    House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief 
                    of Staff Joshua Bolten be found in contempt of 
                    Congress
    On July 25, 2007, the full Committee, by a roll call vote 
of 22-17, recommended that the House find Harriet Miers and 
Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress.
            Oversight Hearing on Allegations of Selective Prosecution: 
                    The Erosion of Public Confidence in our Federal 
                    Justice System, Parts I and II
    On October 23, 2007, the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security Subcommittee and the Commercial and Administrative Law 
Subcommittee held a joint hearing exploring several cases of 
alleged selective prosecution, including the prosecutions of 
former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Wisconsin 
state government employee Georgia Thompson, and prominent 
Pittsburgh Democrat Cyril Wecht. Testimony was received from 
former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, Professor Donald C. 
Shields, and former Alabama U.S. Attorney Doug Jones. Part II 
of the hearing was held on May 14, 2008, at which testimony was 
received from Representative Paul W. Hodes (D-NH), consultant 
Allen Raymond, attorney Paul Twomey, and Professor Mark C. 
Miller.
            Oversight Hearing on the Politicization of the Justice 
                    Department and Allegations of Selective Prosecution
    Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove refused 
to comply with a subpoena requiring his appearance before the 
Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on July 10, 
2008, failing to appear for the hearing to answer questions. 
Subcommittee Chair Sanchez proceeded to overrule the claims of 
immunity and privilege with respect to Mr. Rove, and the ruling 
was sustained by Subcommittee Members in a roll call vote of 7-
1.
            Oversight Hearing on the Continuing Investigation into the 
                    U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters
    Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine 
testified before the Committee on October 3, 2008, regarding 
the joint investigation by his office and the Department's 
Office of Professional Responsibility into the U.S. Attorney 
removals and related matters.

  ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT CONCERNING USE AND ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

    In addition to its work on the U.S. Attorney firings and 
improper politicization in the Justice Department, the 
Committee focused significant attention on other oversight 
activities concerning use and abuse of Executive authority in 
the Bush Administration--including signing statements, clemency 
power, and warrantless surveillance. On signing statements, the 
Committee helped commission two GAO studies that have provided 
the first actual documentation of failure of the Executive 
Branch to execute statutory provisions to which the President 
objected in signing statements.\49\ On warrantless 
surveillance, after a series of hearings and review of 
classified and unclassified documents, 23 Committee members 
issued a comprehensive statement concerning the legality of the 
Administration's program and the issue of retroactive immunity 
for telecommunications carriers.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ See GAO Informal Opinion B-308603 (June 18, 2007); GAO 
Informal Opinion B-309928 (December 20, 2007).
    \50\ See ``Statement of Undersigned Members of House Judiciary 
Committee Concerning the Administration's Terrorist Surveillance 
Program and the Issue of Retroactive Immunity (March 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee hearings in this area included the following:

Oversight Hearing on Presidential Signing Statements under the Bush 
        Administration

    On January 31, 2007, the Committee held its first hearing 
in the 110th Congress. The hearing focused on presidential 
signing statements and their use during the Bush 
Administration. Witnesses included former Representative Mickey 
Edwards; John Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the 
Office of Legal Counsel; American Bar Association President 
Karen Mathis; Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree; and 
Georgetown University law professor Nicholas Rosenkranz.

Oversight Hearing on the Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power 
        for Executive Branch Officials

    On July 11, 2007, the Committee held an oversight hearing 
focusing on the presidential clemency power. Witnesses included 
former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV; Roger Adams from the 
Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney; attorney 
David Rivkin, Jr.; Ohio State University law professor Douglas 
Berman; and Tom Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender for 
the Middle District of North Carolina.

Oversight Hearing on Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign 
        Intelligence Surveillance Act: The Role of Checks and Balances 
        in Protection of Americans' Privacy Rights

    On September 5, 2007, the Committee heard testimony 
regarding warrantless surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act from witnesses including: former 
Representative Bob Barr; former CIA Assistant General Counsel 
Suzanne Spaulding; University of Virginia law professor Robert 
Turner; and Morton Halperin, Director of U.S. Advocacy at the 
Open Society Institute.

Oversight Hearing on Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign 
        Intelligence Surveillance Act: The Role of Checks and Balances 
        in Protection of Americans' Privacy Rights, Part II

    On September 18, 2007, the Committee continued its 
September 5, 2007, consideration of testimony on warrantless 
surveillance and FISA. Witnesses included Director of National 
Intelligence Mike McConnell and Assistant Attorney General for 
National Security Kenneth Wainstein.

Classified Oversight Hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
        Act

    On February 28, 2008, and March 5, 2008, the Committee held 
hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These 
hearings were classified, and no further information is 
publicly available.

Oversight Hearing on Revelations by Former White House Press Secretary 
        Scott McClellan

    On June 20, 2008, the Committee heard testimony from Scott 
McClellan, former White House Press Secretary under President 
George W. Bush.

Oversight Hearing on Executive Power and its Constitutional Limitations

    On July 25, 2008, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing 
focusing on the power of the Executive Branch. The first panel 
of witnesses included Representatives Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), 
Walter Jones (R-NC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Brad Miller 
(D-NC). The second panel included former Representatives 
Elizabeth Holtzman and Bob Barr; former Salt Lake City, Utah 
Mayor Ross C. ``Rocky'' Anderson, founder and president of High 
Roads for Human Rights; Northwestern University law professor 
Stephen Presser; former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce 
Fein; author and former Los Angeles County prosecutor Vincent 
Bugliosi; George Mason University law professor Jeremy Rabkin; 
Elliott Adams, president of the board at Veterans for Peace; 
and Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., senior counsel at the Brennan 
Center for Justice.

            OVERSIGHT HEARINGS OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES

    In addition to the oversight hearings described above, the 
Committee also held a number of oversight hearings on Executive 
Branch agencies, including the Department of Justice, the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland 
Security.
    In addition to the hearing with Attorney General Alberto 
Gonzales described above, which focused largely on the U.S. 
Attorney controversy and related matters, the Committee held 
two other oversight hearings on the Department of Justice. 
During those hearings, the Committee learned from Attorney 
General Michael Mukasey, among other things, that he would not 
authorize a criminal investigation into the CIA's use of 
waterboarding because the CIA had relied on the Department's 
legal advice. Mr. Mukasey also expressed reluctance to provide 
the Committee with all Office of Legal Counsel opinions on 
issues of national security and presidential power, claiming 
that they pertain to the deliberative process of the Executive 
Branch.
    The Committee also held three oversight hearings on the 
FBI, all with FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III. In these 
hearings, the Committee learned more about the incident in 
which then Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey dispatched 
Director Mueller to Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital 
room on March 10, 2004, when White House Counsel Alberto 
Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card attempted 
to get an ill Mr. Ashcroft to sign off on the Administration's 
warrantless surveillance program. The Committee also learned 
that Director Mueller had taken notes of these events, a 
redacted version of which he produced in response to the 
Committee's July 26, 2007 request.
    Additionally, the Committee learned that Director Mueller 
had removed his agents from engaging in CIA enhanced 
interrogation techniques because it was not the FBI's protocol 
to use coercion in its interrogations or questioning. He 
further explained that the FBI contacted the Defense Department 
and the Justice Department regarding CIA interrogation 
techniques the FBI thought might be inappropriate. The 
Committee also learned that the FBI was in discussions with the 
National Academy of Sciences to do an independent review of the 
scientific evidence obtained in the anthrax investigation 
(Amerithrax).
    As part of the Committee's oversight of the FBI, the 
Committee also held a hearing on the Inspector General's March 
2007 Report on the FBI's use of National Security Letters 
(NSLs). From that hearing, and the report itself, the Committee 
learned that the FBI had inaccurately reported to Congress the 
number of NSLs it had issued, and had engaged in illegal uses 
of NSLs, including using so-called ``exigent letters''--
emergency requests for telephone and other data--in non-
emergencies without even a pending investigation, as a means to 
bypass normal NSL procedures. Following the release of the IG 
report, the FBI has reportedly abandoned this improper use of 
exigent letters.

Oversight Hearing on ``The Inspector General's Independent Report on 
        the FBI's Use of National Security Letters''

    On March 20, 2007, the Committee held a hearing regarding a 
March 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Justice 
Department, on the FBI's use of National Security Letters. 
Witnesses included Glenn Fine, Justice Department Inspector 
General, and Valerie Caproni, FBI General Counsel.

Oversight Hearing on the United States Department of Justice

    On May 10, 2007, the Committee held an oversight hearing on 
the Department of Justice. The sole witness was Attorney 
General Alberto Gonzales.

Oversight Hearing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation

    On July 26, 2007, the Committee held an oversight hearing 
on the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The witness was FBI 
Director Robert S. Mueller III.

Oversight Hearing on the Department of Justice

    On February 7, 2008, newly-confirmed Attorney General 
Michael B. Mukasey appeared at an oversight hearing on the 
Department of Justice.

Oversight Hearing on the Department of Homeland Security

    On March 5, 2008, the Committee conducted its first-ever 
full-Committee oversight hearing on the Department of Homeland 
Security since Congress created the agency in 2005. Secretary 
Michael Chertoff testified before the Committee to discuss 
several areas over which the Committee has jurisdiction, 
including immigration, border security, and criminal 
enforcement by DHS.

Oversight Hearing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation

    On April 23, 2008, the Judiciary Committee held an 
oversight hearing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI 
Director Robert S. Mueller III was the sole witness.

Oversight Hearing on the Department of Justice

    Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey testified again before 
the Committee at its July 23, 2008 oversight hearing on the 
Department of Justice.

Oversight Hearing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation

    On September 16, 2008, the Committee heard testimony again 
from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

                   OTHER COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT HEARINGS

Oversight Hearing on Jena 6 and the Role of Federal Intervention in 
        Hate Crimes and Race-Related Violence in Public Schools

    On October 16, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on 
concerns that improper race-related factors had tainted the 
administration of justice following events at a public high 
school in Jena, Louisiana, involving six African American 
students who became known as The Jena 6. The day after African 
American students at the high school had sat together under a 
tree where white students had usually congregated, three nooses 
were found hanging from the tree. Tensions escalated, and a 
fight broke out. No one was seriously injured; one white 
student received medical attention, but was able to participate 
in a school program later that same day. The white students 
received only brief school suspensions; the African American 
students were not only expelled, but were arrested and charged 
as adults with felony offenses, including attempted murder. No 
charges were brought against the white students involved in the 
fight, or against the noose-hangers. These events garnered 
national attention.
    At the hearing, the Committee heard testimony from: Lisa 
Krigsten, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General in the 
Civil Rights Division; Donald Washington, U.S. Attorney for the 
Western District of Louisiana; Richard Cohen, President and 
C.E.O. of the Southern Poverty Law Center; the Reverend Alfred 
C. Sharpton, President, National Action Network; Harvard Law 
Professor Charles Ogletree; and the Reverend Brian Moran, 
Pastor of the Jena Antioch Baptist Church and President of the 
NAACP Jena Chapter. The hearing focused on the events and their 
community impacts, the federal guidelines for prosecuting 
juveniles as adults, and the role of the Department of 
Justice's Community Relations Service.

Oversight Hearing on Sex Crimes and the Internet

    On October 17, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on 
combating the use of the Internet to facilitate the commission 
of sex crimes against children. Witnesses at the hearing 
included: Alicia Kozakiewicz; Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-
N), Nick Lampson (D-TX), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Christopher 
P. Carney (D-PA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and Cathy 
McMorris Rodgers (R-WA); Michael A. Mason, Executive Assistant 
Director of the FBI's Criminal Cyber Response and Services 
Branch; Laurence E. Rothenberg, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General in the Office of Legal Policy; Flint Waters of the 
Wyoming Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force; Michelle 
Collins, Director of the Exploited Child Division at the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Grier Weeks 
of Protect, Inc.; John Ryan, General Counsel of AOL; and 
Elizabeth Banker, Assistant General Counsel of Yahoo! Inc.

Oversight Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in 
        the Context of Online Wagers

    On November 14, 2007, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine the selective nature of the federal government's 
enforcement efforts in the area of online gambling. The hearing 
also considered the Treasury Department's proposed regulations 
implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 
2006, and examined the impact of the federal ban on online 
gambling on the intellectual property industry. Testimony was 
received from Representatives Shelley Berkley (D-NV) and Bob 
Goodlatte (R-VA); Catherine Hanaway, U.S. Attorney for the 
Eastern District of Missouri; Valerie Abend, Assistant 
Secretary at the Department of the Treasury; New York 
University law professor Joseph Weiler, Director of the Jean 
Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law and 
Justice; Annie Duke of the Poker Players Alliance; Thomas 
McClusky, Vice President of Government Affairs at the Family 
Research Council; and Michael Colopy, Vice President for 
Communications at Aristotle Inc.
    The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 
(UIGEA) \51\ augmented the federal gambling laws by requiring 
U.S. payment systems to identify and block unlawful Internet 
gambling transactions. Unlike other gambling laws, it is 
specific to Internet gambling. It contains exemptions for 
certain activities related to fantasy sports, and is silent on 
the legality of various forms of Internet use by the horse 
racing industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ 31 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 5361-5367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a case brought by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda, 
the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the UIGEA 
violated U.S. obligations.\52\ The WTO also held that the U.S. 
was not entitled to assert a ``morals'' defense because it 
maintains a discriminatory policy with respect to Internet 
wagers, declining to prosecute U.S. companies such as off-track 
betting parlors and Internet betting operators for offering 
online gambling services but prosecuting offshore companies for 
doing so. The WTO ruled that Antigua could suspend its 
intellectual property obligations as a retaliatory measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Appellate Body Report, United States--Measures Affecting the 
Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, available at 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2007, the Treasury Department issued proposed 
UIGEA implementing regulations.\53\ Despite calls for 
postponing the new regulations, amid widespread concern that 
the regulations were vague, and costly for financial 
institutions to implement, and that compliance could impair 
efficiency of the nation's payment system and unduly hamper its 
ability to compete with foreign-based enterprises, Treasury 
issued a final rule in November 2008.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ The comment period ended on December 12, 2007, 72 Fed. Reg. 
56680.
    \54\ Agencies Issue Final Rule to Implement Unlawful Internet 
Gambling Enforcement Act, Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 
Nov. 12, 2008, available at http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/
hp1266.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oversight Hearing on Ensuring Legal Redress for American Victims of 
        State-Sponsored Terrorism

    On June 17, 2008, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the nature of the claims by U.S. nationals--U.S. POWs and 
civilians--against the Government of Iraq for harm suffered 
under the government of Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, which 
the Bush Administration has blocked. Testimony was received 
from Representatives Bruce Braley (D-IA) and Joe Sestak (D-PA), 
sponsors of legislation to settle those claims by holding the 
Government of Iraq liable for a portion of damages awarded; 
from former Ambassador John Norton Moore and attorney Dan Wolf, 
counsel for the plaintiffs in two of the cases involved; and 
Capt. Lawrence Randolph Slade and George Charchalis, plaintiffs 
in those two cases.
    Under international law, sovereign nations have generally 
been immune from liability in the courts of other nations. As 
the level of international interactions has increased, various 
exceptions have been recognized; Congress enacted the Foreign 
Sovereign Immunities Act of 1978 (FSIA) in an effort to codify 
these exceptions as they were then recognized, and has amended 
the law since then in an effort to reflect later developments. 
One such exception allows a U.S. national who is a victim of a 
terrorist act such as torture, extrajudicial killing, or 
hostage taking to bring civil suit against a foreign state 
involved in committing or facilitating the terrorist act, if 
the foreign state is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism 
by the State Department at the time the act occurred, or is 
later so designated because of the act.\55\ In such cases, any 
commercial property of the foreign state located in the U.S. 
may be attached in satisfaction of a judgment.\56\ In 1998, in 
response to a contrary court ruling,\57\ Congress enacted 
legislation to clarify its intent to create a private right of 
action.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ P.L. 104-132, Title II, Sec. 221 (April 23, 1996); 110 Stat. 
1241; 28 U.S. C. 1605(a)(7).
    \56\ 28 U.S. C. 1610(b)(2).
    \57\ Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 
1998).
    \58\ P.L. 104-208, Title I, Sec. 101(c) (Sept. 30, 1996), 110 Stat. 
3009-172; codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Executive Branch has resisted, in both the Clinton and 
Bush Administrations, using frozen assets of foreign states to 
satisfy judgments, variously citing treaty obligations to 
protect foreign diplomatic and consular properties, a desire to 
maintain the frozen assets for diplomatic leverage, and the 
fear that allowing the attachment of frozen assets would 
subject U.S. assets in foreign states to similar treatment. In 
conjunction with the 2003 war against Iraq, President Bush took 
a series of actions to place Iraq's U.S. assets out of reach to 
victims of terrorism committed by the Iraqi government during 
the first Gulf War. He placed the assets into a Development 
Fund for Iraq, dedicated for post-war reconstruction;\59\ and 
prohibited attachment of any assets in the Development 
Fund;\60\ and declared, based on general authority Congress had 
recently granted him to exempt Iraq from laws governing 
terrorist-supporting states,\61\ that the terrorism exception 
to FSIA would not apply to Iraq.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ E.O. 13290, 68 Fed. Reg. 14,305-08 (March 24, 2003). Assets 
that had previously been ordered attached in satisfaction of judgments 
against Iraq were excluded from the Executive Order, as was Iraq's 
diplomatic and consular property.
    \60\ E.O. 13303, 68 Fed. Reg. 31, 931 (May 28, 2003).
    \61\ Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2003, 
P.L. 108-11, Sec. 1503 (April 16, 2003).
    \62\ Memorandum for the Secretary of State (Presidential 
Determination No. 2003-23)(May 7, 2003), available at http://
whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-13.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress 
amended FSIA to enable victims whose claims against state 
sponsors of terrorism had been dismissed for lack of a federal 
cause of action to re-file their claims and enforce judgments 
by attaching the defendant state's assets.\63\ President Bush 
vetoed the bill, solely on the basis of this provision, and 
insisted that it be revised to permit him to waive the 
provision as to Iraq. The same day he signed the revised bill 
into law,\64\ he exercised his waiver authority.\65\ The Bush 
Administration has made no apparent efforts to persuade the 
Iraqi government to help the American victims of Iraqi 
terrorism obtain relief, as Congress urged in adding the waiver 
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ P.L. 110-181, Sec. 1083.
    \64\ P.L. 110-181, Sec. 1083(d).
    \65\ White House Memorandum of Justification for Waiver of Section 
1083 of the National Defense Authorization Act (January 28, 2008), 
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-
12.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The legislation sponsored by Representatives Braley and 
Sestak, introduced in response to the veto and waiver, was 
approved by the Committee by voice vote on July 30, 2008, and 
passed the House by voice vote on September 15, 2008. No 
further action occurred before the 110th Congress adjourned.
         SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW \1\

  LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California, 
            Chairwoman

CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
RIC KELLER, Florida                  Georgia
TOM FEENEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
                                     MELVIN WATT, North Carolina
                                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.........................    50
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.............     8
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.....................     0
Legislation pending before the full Committee....................     3
Legislation reported to the House................................     5
Legislation discharged from the Committee........................     0
Legislation pending in the House.................................     1
Legislation passed by the House..................................     5
Legislation pending in the Senate................................     4
Legislation vetoed by the President..............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law..............................     1
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another bill......    --
Legislation on which hearings were held..........................    15
Days of legislative hearings.....................................    15
Days of oversight hearings.......................................    29

                         Legislative Activities


                           ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

H.R. 3564, Regulatory Improvement Act of 2007

    Summary.--The Administrative Conference of the United 
States (ACUS or Conference) was an independent, nonpartisan 
agency devoted to analyzing the administrative law process and 
providing guidance to Congress. Although reauthorized on 
October 30, 2004,\66\ it was not appropriated funds. In light 
of the fact that the Conference's authorization expired on 
September 30, 2007, H.R. 3564, the ``Regulatory Improvement Act 
of 2007,'' was introduced to reauthorize the Conference. As 
enacted, the measure authorizes $3.2 million for each of fiscal 
years 2009 through 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 26, 
2007, and February 28, 2007.
    \66\ Federal Regulatory Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-
401, 118 Stat. 2255 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--On September 18, 2007, Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law Ranking Member Chris B. 
Cannon (R-UT) (for himself and with Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Linda Sanchez (D-CA)) introduced H.R. 3564, the ``Regulatory 
Improvement Act of 2007,'' which authorizes appropriations for 
ACUS for four additional years. On September 19, 2007, the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a 
hearing on H.R. 3564. Witnesses included: Professor Jody 
Freeman, Harvard Law School; Mort Rosenberg, Congressional 
Research Service; Curtis Copeland, Congressional Research 
Service; and Professor Jeffrey S. Lubbers, Washington College 
of Law, American University, with additional material submitted 
by the American Bar Association, and correspondence from 
Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia. On September 19, 
2007, the Subcommittee ordered the bill favorably reported 
without amendment by voice vote. On October 10, 2007, the 
Committee ordered the bill favorably reported without amendment 
by voice vote. On October 18, 2007, the Committee reported H.R. 
3564 as H. Rept. No. 110-390 (2007). On October 22, 2007, the 
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. Thereafter, the Senate, on June 27, 2008, by unanimous 
consent passed the bill with an agreed amendment by Senator 
Coburn to modify the measure's authorization of appropriations. 
On July 14, 2008, the House, under suspension of the rules, 
agreed to the Senate amendment by voice vote. The bill was 
signed into law by the President on July 30, 2008 as Public Law 
No. 110-290.

H.R. 5593, the ``Congressional Review Act Improvement Act''

    Summary.--The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a 
congressional review mechanism of agency rules. The CRA 
requires all agencies promulgating a rule \67\ to submit a 
report to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller 
General at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). This 
report would contain a copy of the rule, a concise general 
statement describing the rule (including whether it is a major 
rule \68\), and the proposed effective date of the rule.\69\ 
H.R. 5593 amends the CRA to reduce administrative burdens and 
duplicative paperwork by repealing the requirement that 
agencies submit copies of final rules and reports thereon to 
both the House and Senate. The bill requires the House and 
Senate to receive a weekly list of all final rules published in 
the Federal Register from the Comptroller General and to have 
such list printed in the Congressional Record with a statement 
of referral for each rule. Agencies would still be required to 
submit copies of final rules and reports thereon to the House 
and Senate that were not printed in the Federal Register. The 
bill does not affect the authority of Congress under the CRA to 
disapprove an agency rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ The term rule ``means the whole or part of an agency statement 
of general . . . applicability and future effect designed to implement, 
interpret, or prescribe law or policy.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(3).
    \68\ A major rule is defined as a rule that will likely have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, increase costs or 
prices for consumers, industries or state and local governments, or 
have significant adverse effects on the econonmy.
    \69\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 801-808. On March 29, 1996, President Bill 
Clinton signed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996, P.L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857-874. Subtitle E of that Act 
established the procedures for congressional review of agency rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--On March 11, 2008, Subcommittee Chair 
Linda Sanchez introduced H.R. 5593, ``Congressional Review Act 
Improvement Act,'' with Chairman John Conyers, Ranking Member 
Lamar Smith, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Chris Cannon as 
original cosponsors. The Subcommittee met in open session on 
April 24, 2008 and ordered H.R. 5593 favorably reported, 
without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present. On 
April 31, 2008, the Committee met in open session and ordered 
the bill H.R. 5593 favorably reported without amendment, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 5593 passed the House 
by voice vote on the suspension calendar on June 9, 2008.

                               BANKRUPTCY

H.R. 3609, the ``Emergency Home Ownership and Mortgage Equity 
        Protection Act of 2007''

    Summary.--During the 110th Congress, the nation's mortgage 
foreclosure crisis approached ``heights not seen since the 
Great Depression.'' \70\ The societal and economic costs of 
home foreclosures devastated American families, their 
neighbors, communities and municipalities across the United 
States. Foreclosures depress home values across entire 
communities. A single foreclosure ``could impose direct costs 
on local government agencies totaling more than $34,000.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Nelson D. Schwartz, Can the Mortgage Crisis Swallow a Town?, 
N.Y. Times, Sept. 4, 2007.
    \71\ William C. Apgar et al., The Municipal Cost of Foreclosures: A 
Chicago Case Study, Homeownership Preservation Foundation Housing 
Finance Policy Research Paper No. 2005-1, at 1 (Feb. 27, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, a loophole in the current bankruptcy law has 
exacerbated the problem by not allowing American families 
facing foreclosure to modify their home mortgages as part of 
their bankruptcy reorganization. Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy (a 
form of bankruptcy relief whereby an individual must repay his 
or her debts out of future earnings), a homeowner cannot 
address the problems that most likely triggered the 
foreclosure, i.e., exploding adjustable rate mortgages, 
prepayment penalties, and hidden fees. Although Chapter 13 
prohibits home mortgages from being modified, virtually every 
other type of debt--secured and unsecured--can be modified, 
including mortgages secured by vacation homes and investment 
properties.
    Legislative History.--On September 25, 2007, the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a 
hearing on ``Straightening Out the Mortgage Mess: How Can We 
Protect Home Ownership and Provide Relief to Consumers in 
Financial Distress?'' Witnesses included: the Honorable Marilyn 
Morgan, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 
District of California; Steve Bartlett, President and CEO, 
Financial Services Roundtable, Washington, D.C.; Eric Stein, 
President, Center for Community Self-Help on behalf of the 
Center for Responsible Lending; and John Rao with the National 
Consumer Law Center, Inc. on behalf of the National Association 
of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
    On September 20, 2007, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) introduced 
H.R. 3609, the ``Emergency Home Ownership and Mortgage Equity 
Protection Act of 2007,'' to address the shortcoming in current 
law by allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of 
certain home mortgages for primary residences, under specified 
circumstances.
    On October 4, 2007, the Subcommittee ordered H.R. 3609 
reported favorably without amendment by a roll call vote of 5 
to 4.
    On October 30, 2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
``Straightening Out the Mortgage Mess: How Can We Protect Home 
Ownership and Provide Relief to Consumers in Financial 
Distress?--Part II.'' Witnesses included: William E. Brewer, 
Jr., Esq. on behalf of the National Association of Consumer 
Bankruptcy Attorneys; David G. Kittle, Chairman-Elect, Mortgage 
Bankers Association; Mark M. Zandi, Ph.D., Chief Economist, 
Moody's Economy.com, Inc.; and Richard Levin on behalf of the 
National Bankruptcy Conference.
    On November 7, 2007 the Committee commenced its markup of 
the measure, which was concluded on December 12, 2007. The bill 
was ordered to be reported favorably, as amended, by a roll 
call vote of 17 to 15. No report was filed.
    On January 29, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
``Growing Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis: Identifying Solutions 
and Dispelling Myths.'' Witnesses included: Former Secretary of 
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp; 
Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference 
on Civil Rights; David G. Kittle, Chairman-Elect, Mortgage 
Bankers Association; Mark M. Zandi, Ph.D., Chief Economist, 
Moody's Economy.com, Inc.; Faith Schwartz, Executive Director, 
HOPE NOW Alliance; John Dodds, Director, Philadelphia 
Unemployment Project; and James H. Carr, Chief Operating 
Officer, National Community Reinvestment Corporation.
    No further action was taken on the measure during the 110th 
Congress.

H.R. 4044, a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
        Protection Act of 2005 to exempt from the means test in 
        bankruptcy cases, for a limited period, qualifying reserve-
        component members who, after September 11, 2001, are called to 
        active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not 
        less than 60 days; S. 3197, the ``National Guard and Reservists 
        Debt Relief Act of 2008''

    Summary.--The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2005 (the 2005 Bankruptcy Act) was signed 
into law by President George W. Bush on April 20, 2005.\72\ The 
2005 Bankruptcy Act effected the most comprehensive overhaul of 
bankruptcy law in more than 25 years, particularly with respect 
to consumer bankruptcy. These consumer bankruptcy amendments 
included, for example, the establishment of a means testing 
mechanism to determine a debtor's ability to repay debts. Under 
this test, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case is presumed to be an 
abuse if it appears that the debtor has income in excess of 
certain thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--On November 1, 2007, Rep. Janice 
Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced H.R. 4044, a bill to amend the 
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 
to exempt from the means test in bankruptcy cases, for a 
limited period, qualifying reserve-component members who, after 
September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a 
homeland defense activity for not less than 60 days. The bill 
would have exempted certain qualifying National Guard members 
and reserve component members of the Armed Services from the 
means test's presumption of abuse. This bipartisan legislation 
was intended to respond to the fact that some who serve in the 
National Guard and the Reserves encounter financial 
difficulties during or in the wake of their service and that 
they merit relief from the additional proof requirements of the 
means test.
    On April 1, 2008, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on H.R. 4044. Witnesses 
included: Representatives Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) and Dana 
Rohrabacher (R-CA); Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative 
Director of AMVETS; Professor Jack Williams on behalf of the 
American Bankruptcy Institute; and Ed Boltz, Esq. on behalf of 
the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. On 
April 24, 2008, the Subcommittee ordered the bill favorably 
reported, with an amendment, by voice vote. On April 30, 2008 
and on June 11, 2008, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill favorably reported on June 11, 2008, with an 
amendment, by voice vote. On June 20, 2008, the Committee 
reported the bill, as amended, as H. Rept. No. 110-726. On June 
23, 2008, the House passed the bill, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote. The bill was received in 
the Senate on the following day and referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
    Although no further action on this measure was taken, 
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), on June 26, 2008, introduced S. 
3197, the ``National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 
2008,'' a bill that was substantially identical to H.R. 4044, 
as ordered to be reported by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary. On September 30, 2008, the Senate passed S. 3197 
with an amendment on unanimous consent. On October 2, 2008, the 
House began its consideration of the bill and, on the following 
day, the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules by 
a roll call vote of 411 to 0. On October 20, 2008, the measure 
was signed into law by the President as Public Law No. 110-438.

H.R. 7328, the ``Homeowners' Protection Act of 2008''

    Summary.--As of December 2008, reports indicated that a 
record ten percent of all American homeowners with mortgages 
were either facing foreclosure or otherwise delinquent on their 
payments.\73\ That same month, Credit Suisse released its 
estimate that 8.1 million families could lose their homes to 
foreclosure by the end of 2012 and that if the recession 
becomes severe, which seems increasingly possible every day, 
the number of foreclosures could rise to 10.2 million.\74\ 
Further, the chief regulator of national banks acknowledged 
that most U.S. mortgages modified in a voluntary effort to keep 
struggling borrowers in their homes and stem foreclosures fell 
back into delinquency within six months.\75\ Voluntary mortgage 
modifications do not work in part because many mortgages have 
been securitized, which makes reaching an agreement among all 
those who have an interest in a mortgage extremely difficult. 
The problem is further compounded by the fact that some 
investors have sued while others have threatened to sue 
servicers if they modify these loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ Kathleen M. Howley, Mortgage Delinquencies, Foreclosures Rise 
to Record, Bloomberg.com (Dec. 5, 2008).
    \74\ Credit Suisse, Foreclosure Update: Over 8 Million Foreclosures 
Expected, Fixed Income Research (Dec. 4, 2008).
    \75\ Alison Vekshin, Majority of Modified Loans Fail Again, 
Regulator Says, Bloomberg.com (Dec. 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--On December 10, 2008, Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr. (for himself and Representatives William Delahunt 
(D-MA) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)) introduced H.R. 7328, the 
``Homeowners' Protection Act of 2008.'' The bill was not 
further considered prior to the end of the 110th Congress.

                      U.S. ATTORNEYS INVESTIGATION

Hearing on H.R. 580, ``Restoring Checks and Balances in the 
        Confirmation Process of U.S. Attorneys''

    Summary.--On March 9, 2006, the Republican-led Congress at 
the behest of the Bush administration amended the USA PATRIOT 
Act with respect to interim appointment of U.S. Attorneys.\76\ 
The amendment eliminated judicial input in the interim 
appointment process and, perhaps more importantly, conferred 
unprecedented authority that could permit U.S. Attorneys 
appointed on an interim basis to serve indefinitely without 
Senate confirmation. Documents from the Justice Department 
indicated that some Administration officials had considered the 
use of this authority to replace fired U.S. Attorneys with 
party loyalists. Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced 
H.R. 580, which sought to restore the interim appointment 
process to the procedure in place prior to the 2005 amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. 
L. No. 109-177, tit. V, Sec. 502, 120 Stat. 246 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on March 6, 2007 in order 
to further probe the U.S. Attorney firings, the rationale for 
the 2005 amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act, the merits of H.R. 
580, and other related matters. Witnesses at the hearing 
included: Carol C. Lam, former United States Attorney for the 
Southern District of California; David C. Iglesias, former 
United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico; H.E. 
Cummins III, former United States Attorney for the Eastern 
District of Arkansas; John McKay, former United States Attorney 
for the Western District of Washington; Daniel Bogden, former 
United States Attorney for the District of Nevada; Paul K. 
Charlton, former United States Attorney for the District of 
Arizona; William E. Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy 
Attorney General, Department of Justice; John A. Smietanka, 
partner with Smietanka, Buckleitner, Steffes & Gezon and former 
Untied States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan; 
T.J. Halstead, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, 
Congressional Research Service; Atlee W. Wampler III, President 
of the National Association of Former United States Attorneys; 
Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA); former Representative Asa 
Hutchinson (R-AR); and George Terwilliger, former Deputy 
Attorney General of the Department of Justice.
    Legislative History.--After the hearing on H.R. 580 on 
March 6, 2007, the Committee met in open session on March 15, 
2007 and ordered the bill H.R. 580 favorably reported with an 
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present. H.R. 580, as 
amended by the Committee, is intended to clarify that section 
546 of title 28 of the United States Code is the exclusive 
means for appointing an individual to temporarily preform the 
functions of a United States Attorney for a district in which 
the office of United States Attorney is vacant. It specifies 
that such individual may serve until the earlier of either: (1) 
the qualification of a United States Attorney appointed by the 
President pursuant to section 541 of title 28 of the United 
States Code; or (2) the expiration of 120 days after 
appointment by the Attorney General of the individual as 
interim United States Attorney. Upon the expiration of 120 
days, and if no permanent United States Attorney has been 
appointed with Senate confirmation, the district court for such 
district may appoint a United States Attorney to serve until 
the vacancy is filled.
    On March 26, 2007, H.R. 580 as amended passed in the House 
on the suspension calendar by a recorded vote of 329-78. On May 
22, 2007, the House passed companion legislation (S. 214 as 
amended) on the suspension calendar by a recorded vote of 306-
114. S. 214 as amended became Public Law No. 110-34.

              STATE TAXATION AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE

H.R. 3359, the ``Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Fairness and 
        Simplification Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 3359, the ``Mobile Workforce State Income 
Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2007,'' would provide 
for a uniform law setting at 60 work days within a calendar 
year before businesses are required to withhold state income 
taxes on its employees and employees are liable for paying 
those taxes. The legislation exempts certain individuals 
(professional athletes, entertainers, and certain public 
figures) from the threshold, and allows states immediately to 
impose state income taxes on those individuals.
    Legislative History.--Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) 
introduced H.R. 3359 on August 3, 2007. On November 1, 2007, 
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. Witnesses 
who testified at the hearing included: Mr. Harley Duncan, 
Executive Director of the Federation of Tax Administrators; Mr. 
Douglas Lindholm, President and Executive Director of the 
Council on State Taxation; Ms. Dee Nelson, a payroll manager at 
Afognak Native Corp., Alutiiq LLC, and Subsidiaries, and 
representing the American Payroll Association; and Mr. Walter 
Hellerstein, a professor at the University of Georgia Law 
School. The Subcommittee took no further action on H.R. 3359 
prior to the end of the 110th Congress.

H.R. 3396, the ``Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 3396, the ``Sales Tax Fairness and 
Simplification Act,'' would convey the sense of the Congress 
that the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (``SSUTA'') 
meets the minimum simplification requirements to warrant 
Congressional approval for States that implement the SSUTA to 
require remote sellers to collect sales and use taxes. Notably, 
H.R. 3396 would (1) authorize Member States to require the 
collection and remittance of sales and use taxes by remote 
sellers only after at least ten States, comprising at least 
twenty percent of the total population of all states imposing a 
sales tax, have become Member States and, (2) would provide for 
an exemption from the requirement for remote sellers to collect 
and remit sales and use taxes if the remote seller and its 
affiliates collectively had gross remote annual taxable sales 
nationwide of less than $5,000,000 in the calendar year 
preceding the date of such sale or if the seller and its 
affiliates collectively meet the $5,000,000 threshold, but have 
less than $100,000 in gross remote taxable sales nationwide. 
H.R. 3396 also imposes minimum simplification requirements for 
the SSUTA, including a centralized, multi-state registration; 
uniform definitions of products and product based exemptions; 
uniform rules for sourcing; single, state level administration 
of sales taxes; and, reasonable seller compensation for 
expenses incurred by a seller for collecting and remitting 
sales and use taxes.
    Legislative History.--Representative William Delahunt (D-
MA) introduced H.R. 3396 on August 3, 2007. On December 6, 
2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. 
Witnesses who testified at the hearing included: Ms. Joan 
Wagnon, Secretary of Revenue for the State of Kansas, and 
President of the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board; Mr. 
Wayne Zakrzewski, Vice President and Associate General Counsel 
of Tax for J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., and appearing on 
behalf of the National Retail Federation; Mr. George Isaacson, 
Senior Partner at Brann & Isaacson, and appearing on behalf of 
the Direct Marketing Association; and Honorable Steven J. 
Rauschenberger, Past President of the National Conference of 
State Legislatures. The Subcommittee took no further action on 
H.R. 3396 prior to the end of the 110th Congress.

H.R. 3679, the ``State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 3679, the ``State Video Tax Fairness Act of 
2007,'' would prohibit states from imposing discriminatory 
taxes on any television service provider. This would include 
services provided by satellite and cable television companies. 
H.R. 3679 also defines ``discriminatory tax'' as ``any form of 
direct or indirect tax that results in different net State 
charges being imposed on substantially equivalent multichannel 
video programming services based on the means by which those 
services are delivered.''
    Legislative History.--Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) 
introduced H.R. 3679 on September 27, 2007. On February 14, 
2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. 
Witnesses who testified at the hearing included: Mr. Mike 
Palkovic, Executive Vice President of Operations at DirecTV; 
Mr. Howard J. Symons, an attorney at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, 
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., and representing the National 
Cable and Telecommunications Association; Ms. Kristina 
Rasmussen, the Director of Government Affairs at the National 
Taxpayers Union; and Mr. David Quam, Director of Office of 
Federal Relations for the National Governors Association. On 
July 24, 2008, the Subcommittee marked up H.R. 3679, and 
ordered it to be favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote. 
The bill as amended added the word ``technology'' to ``Internet 
protocol'' to conform with the description in certain state tax 
laws of this method of delivering multichannel video 
programming services. The bill as amended also clarified when a 
state tax law or taxation system will constitute a 
``discriminatory tax'' under the Act, to eliminate any possible 
ambiguity that state tax discrimination is impermissible in all 
its forms. The bill as amended also contained a grandfather 
clause that limits the scope of this Act to provide that the 
Act will not apply to any state tax law or taxation system in 
effect prior to January 1, 2008. The six states most affected 
by this provision are Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Tennessee, and Utah. The Committee took no further action on 
H.R. 3679 prior to the end of the 110th Congress.

H.R. 5267, the ``Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5267, the ``Business Activity Tax 
Simplification Act of 2008,'' would prohibit state taxation of 
interstate commerce of out-of-state transactions involving all 
forms of property, including intangible personal property and 
services (currently, only sales of tangible personal property 
are protected), and would prohibit state taxation of an out-of-
state entity unless such entity has a physical presence in the 
taxing state. H.R. 5267 would effectively eliminate the current 
economic presence standard followed by most state governments 
for decades by prohibiting a State from imposing a business 
activity tax on any person unless such person has a physical 
presence in the State. ``Physical presence'' is established 
only if the business activities within the state include any of 
the following: the person has employees in a State; the person 
uses a third party to provide services that enhance or maintain 
the person's market in a State, unless the third party performs 
market-enhancing services for at least one other business; or 
the person leases or owns tangible personal property or real 
property in a State. H.R. 5267 also provides that ``physical 
presence'' does not include de minimis physical presence, 
defined to include a presence in a state for up to 14 days in a 
taxable year (or a greater number of days if provided by State 
law) or presence in a state to conduct limited or transient 
business activity. H.R. 5267 would also amend Public Law 86-272 
by striking references to ``tangible personal property,'' 
thereby extending the prohibition on the imposition by States 
of net income taxes where the only business activity of a 
company is the solicitation in connection with all sales and 
transactions, not just sales of tangible personal property.
    Legislative History.--Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) 
introduced H.R. 5267 on February 7, 2008. On June 24, 2008, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. Witnesses who 
testified at the hearing included: Representative Rick Boucher 
(D-VA), who introduced H.R. 5267; Representative Bob Goodlatte 
(R-VA), who introduced earlier versions of H.R. 5267 in prior 
Congresses; Mr. Mark Ducharme, Vice President and CFO of 
Monterey Boats; Mr. R. Bruce Johnson, Commissioner of the Utah 
State Tax Commission; Mr. Michael Petricone, Vice President of 
Technology Policy at the Consumer Electronics Association; and 
Mr. David C. Quam, Director of Office of Federal Relations at 
the National Governors Association. The Subcommittee took no 
further action on H.R. 5267 prior to the end of the 110th 
Congress.

H.R. 5793, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5793, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2008,'' 
would impose on states a five-year moratorium on any new 
discriminatory taxes on mobile services, mobile service 
providers, and mobile service property. H.R. 5793 sets forth 
the rules of construction to determine whether a new tax is 
discriminatory, sets the burden of proof a party seeking relief 
must meet when bringing proceedings under the Act, and allows 
for specific relief for that party.
    Legislative History.--Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) 
introduced H.R. 5793 on April 15, 2008. On September 18, 2008, 
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. Witnesses 
who testified at the hearing included: Honorable Gail W. 
Mahoney, Commissioner of Jackson County, Michigan, and 
testifying on behalf of the National Association of Counties; 
Honorable James Clayborne, Illinois State Senator; Mr. Scott 
Mackey, Esq., an attorney at Kimbell Sherman Ellis; and Mr. 
Tillman L. Lay, Esq., an attorney at Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP, 
and testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
National League of Cities, the Government Finance Officers 
Association, and the National Association of Telecommunications 
Officers and Administrators. The Subcommittee took no further 
action on H.R. 5793 prior to the end of the 110th Congress.

Legislative Hearing on the ``Internet Tax Freedom Act''

    Summary.--The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) was enacted 
on October 21, 1998 as Public Law No. 105-277. The ITFA placed 
a 3-year moratorium on the ability of State and local 
governments to (1) impose new taxes on Internet access, or (2) 
impose any multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic 
commerce. The ITFA also grandfathered the State and local 
access taxes that were ``generally imposed and actually 
enforced prior to October 1, 1998.'' This initial Internet tax 
moratorium expired on October 21, 2001. The Internet Tax 
Nondiscrimination Act was then enacted on November 28, 2001 as 
Public Law No. 107-75. It provided for a 2-year extension of 
the prior moratorium, through November 1, 2003. The Internet 
Tax Nondiscrimination Act of 2003 was enacted on December 3, 
2004, as Public Law No. 108-435. It extended the moratorium for 
an additional 4 years through November 1, 2007. Taxes on 
Internet access that were in place before October 1, 1998, were 
protected by a grandfather clause.
    Legislative History.--On July 26, 2007, the Subcommittee 
held a hearing on proposed legislation amending the Internet 
Tax Freedom Act. The Subcommittee reviewed the issues 
concerning the ITFA through two legislative bills (H.R. 743 and 
H.R. 1077). Witnesses who testified at the hearing included: 
Representative John Campbell (R-CA); Representative Anna G. 
Eshoo (D-CA); Mr. David C. Quam, Director of Office of Federal 
Relations at the National Governors Association; and Ms. 
Meredith Garwood, Vice President Tax Policy at Time Warner 
Cable. The Subcommittee took no further action on H.R. 743 or 
H.R. 1077.

                        FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT

H.R. 3010, the ``Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 3010, the ``Arbitration Fairness Act of 
2007,'' would amend the Federal Arbitration Act to require that 
agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or 
civil rights disputes may be valid and enforceable only if they 
were made voluntarily and after the dispute had arisen. H.R. 
3010 would expand exemptions from the FAA to include 
``employment dispute'', ``consumer dispute'', and ``franchise 
dispute''. H.R. 3010 also would require a court rather than an 
arbitrator to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act 
applies to disputes over contracts which include arbitration 
clauses. Notably, H.R. 3010 would apply to claims and disputes 
arising on or after the date of enactment of the legislation.
    Legislative History.--Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) 
introduced H.R. 3010 on July 12, 2007. On October 25, 2007, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. Witnesses who 
testified at the hearing included: Ms. Laura MacCleery, 
Director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch Division; Mr. 
Richard Naimark, Senior Vice President of the American 
Arbitration Association; Honorable Roy E. Barnes, of the The 
Barnes Law Group, LLC; Mr. Ken Connor, an attorney with Wilkes 
& McHugh, P.A.; Ms. Deborah Williams, a franchisee from 
Maryland; Ms. Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, an attorney with the Law 
Offices of Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, on behalf of the National 
Employment Lawyers Association; Peter Rutledge, a professor at 
the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law; and 
Mr. Theodore G. Eppenstein, Esq., an attorney with Eppenstein 
and Eppenstein. On July 15, 2008, the Subcommittee marked up 
H.R. 3010, and ordered it to be favorably reported, by voice 
vote. The Committee took no further action on H.R. 3010 prior 
to the end of the 110th Congress.

H.R. 5312, the ``Automobile Arbitration Fairness Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5312, the ``Automobile Arbitration Fairness 
Act of 2008,'' would amend the Federal Arbitration Act to 
require that agreements to arbitrate motor vehicle consumer 
sales or lease contracts may be valid and enforceable only if 
they were made after the dispute had arisen. H.R. 5312 would 
extend to consumers what motor vehicle dealers received in 2002 
with the enactment of legislation requiring consent by both 
parties to a motor vehicle franchise contract to arbitrate a 
dispute. Leading up to the passage of that legislation, the 
National Automobile Dealers Association, the primary group 
supporting that legislation, stated that it would not oppose 
future legislation limiting the use of mandatory binding 
arbitration agreements. H.R. 5312 would provide that any party 
to the arbitration agreement may request a written decision 
from the arbitrator. H.R. 5312 also would provide that the 
amendments made by this legislation will apply only to 
contracts made, modified, or renewed on or after the date of 
enactment of this legislation.
    Legislative History.--Representative Linda Sanchez 
introduced H.R. 5312 on February 7, 2008. On March 6, 2008, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. Witnesses who 
testified at the hearing included: Ms. Rosemary Shahan, 
President of Consumers for Automobile Reliability and Safety; 
Ms. Erika Rice, a consumer from Ohio; Mr. Richard Naimark, 
Senior Vice President of the American Arbitration Association; 
and Mr. Hallen Rosner, Esq., an attorney with Rosner & 
Mansfield, LLP. On July 15, 2008, the Subcommittee marked up 
H.R. 5312, and ordered it to be favorably reported, by voice 
vote. The Committee took no further action on H.R. 5312 prior 
to the end of the 110th Congress.

H.R. 6126, the ``Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 6126, the ``Fairness in Nursing Home 
Arbitration Act of 2008,'' would amend the Federal Arbitration 
Act to make certain pre-dispute arbitration agreements between 
the operators of long-term care facilities and their residents 
invalid or unenforceable. In a pre-dispute arbitration 
agreement, the parties agree to arbitrate a potential dispute 
rather than seek redress through the courts. H.R. 6126 would 
apply to agreements entered into or modified on or after the 
date of the legislation's enactment. Under current law, the 
operators of long-term care facilities can include clauses in 
contracts with residents that provide for mandatory arbitration 
if a dispute should arise. H.R. 6126 effectively requires 
arbitration to be consented to by both parties.
    Legislative History.--Representative Linda Sanchez 
introduced H.R. 6126 on May 22, 2008. On June 10, 2008, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 6126. Witnesses who 
testified at the hearing included: Mr. William J. Hall, MD, who 
appeared on behalf of AARP; Ms. Linda Stewart, RN, a nurse from 
Texas; Mr. Gavin J. Gadberry, Esq., an attorney with Underwood, 
Wilson, Berry, Stein and Johnson, PC, who appeared on behalf of 
the American Health Care Association and the National Center 
for Assisted Living; and Mr. Ken Connor, an attorney with 
Wilkes & McHugh, P.A. On July 15, 2008, the Subcommittee marked 
up H.R. 6126, and ordered it to be favorably reported, by a 
roll call vote of 5 to 4. On July 30, 2008, the Committee 
marked up H.R. 6126, and ordered it favorably reported, by a 
roll call vote of 17 to 10. The legislation was reported to the 
House on September 26, 2008 (H. Rept. No. 110-894).

                           TORT REFORM ISSUES

H.R. 5913, the ``Protecting Americans from Unsafe Foreign Products 
        Act''

    Summary.--Because of the difficulties associated with 
serving process on and establishing jurisdiction over foreign 
manufacturers, many Americans harmed by defective foreign-made 
products never get their day in court. H.R. 5913 was introduced 
to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by 
foreign manufacturers and ensure that they are held accountable 
for injuries consumers suffer as a result of defective 
products.
    The legislation would amend current law to facilitate 
service of process on foreign manufacturers by permitting 
service on the manufacturer wherever they reside, are found, 
have an agent, or transacts business. Service of process and 
personal jurisdiction is proper so long as one of the following 
two criteria is met: (1) the manufacturer knew or reasonably 
should have known that the product or component would be 
imported for or use in the U.S.; or (2) the manufacturer had 
contacts with the U.S. whether or not such contacts occurred in 
the place where the injury occurred.
    Given the increase of imported products that do not meet 
U.S. standards for heath, safety, and quality, and the fact 
that neither the Consumer Product Safety Commission nor the 
Food and Drug Administration have effectively prevented the 
importation of defective products, more consumers have become 
endangered. The purpose of this legislation is to improve 
accountability of foreign manufacturers and promote consumer 
safety.
    Legislative History.--On April 29, 2008, Subcommittee Chair 
Linda Sanchez introduced H.R. 5913, ``Protecting Americans from 
Unsafe Foreign Products Act,'' with Chairman John Conyers, Rep. 
Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Steve Cohen, and Rep. Raul Grijalva as 
original cosponsors. The Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
legislation on May 1, 2008. Witnesses at the hearing included: 
Professor Ralph Steinhardt, George Washington School of Law; 
Richard Schlueter, Esq., Childers Buck & Schlueter, LLP; Ed 
Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest 
Research Group; and Victor Schwartz, Esq., Institute for Legal 
Reform of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There was no further 
consideration of H.R. 5913 in the 110th Congress.

H.R. 5884, the ``Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5884, the ``Sunshine in Litigation Act of 
2008,'' would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 111 by adding a new section 
1660 entitled ``Restrictions on protective orders and sealing 
of cases and settlements.'' Section 1660's main provision would 
prohibit a federal court from entering a protective order under 
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
``restricting the disclosure of information obtained through 
discovery, an order approving a settlement agreement that would 
restrict the disclosure of such information, or an order 
restricting access to court records,'' unless the court finds 
that: (1) the ``order would not restrict the disclosure of 
information which is relevant to the protection of public 
health or safety,'' or (2) ``the public interest in the 
disclosure of the potential health or safety hazards is 
outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in 
maintaining the confidentiality of the information or records 
in question'' and ``the requested . . . order is no broader 
than necessary to protect the privacy interests asserted.'' 
H.R. 5884 would also prohibit court from entering an order 
enforcing a settlement agreement in case involving ``public 
health or safety'' that prohibits a party from disclosing the 
existence of the agreement or evidence offered in the case. 
Introduction of H.R. 5884 was prompted by concerns that federal 
courts too often restrict the disclosure of health and safety 
information produced in personal injury and other suits without 
considering the public interest.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5884 was introduced by 
Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) on April 23, 2008. The Full 
Committee referred the bill to the Subcommittee for a hearing. 
The Subcommittee held a hearing on July 31, 2008. Four 
witnesses testified: the Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., 
United States District Court Judge, United States District 
Court for the District of South Carolina; John P. Freeman, 
Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Law, University of South 
Carolina School of Law; the Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, United 
States District Court Judge, United States District Court for 
the District of Connecticut, who testified on behalf of the 
Judicial Conference of the United States; and Richard D. 
Meadow, Partner, The Lanier Law Firm. H.R. 5884 was not 
considered further prior to the end of the 110th Congress.

                             CLAIMS ISSUES

H.R. 4854, the ``False Claims Act Correction Act of 2007''

    Summary.--On June 19, 2008, the Subcommittee held a joint 
legislative hearing with the Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property on H.R. 4854, the ``False 
Claims Act Correction Act of 2007.'' The witnesses at the 
hearing included: Albert Campbell, a qui tam relator; Shelley 
Slade, Esq., an attorney with Vogel, Slade & Goldstein, LLP; 
Peter B. Hutt, II, Esq., an attorney with Akin Gump Strauss 
Hauer & Feld, LLP; and James B. Helmer, Jr., the President of 
Helmer, Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A.
    On July 16, 2008, the Committee marked up H.R. 4854, and 
ordered it favorably reported, by a voice vote. H.R. 4854 was 
not considered further prior to the end of the 110th Congress.

                          Oversight Activities


               ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PROCESS, AND PROCEDURE

Executive Order 13422

    Summary.--In 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 
(EO) 12866, which governs White House review of agency 
rules.\77\ The EO provides for centralized review of agency 
rulemaking in the Office of Management and Budget, but affirms 
the primacy of agencies' rulemaking authority. In January 2007, 
President George W. Bush, ``[w]ith little fanfare,'' \78\ 
issued EO 13422, which made significant amendments to EO 
12866.\79\ EO 13422 instituted greater specificity and market 
analysis requirements for rules, required heightened scrutiny 
of guidance documents, required greater emphasis on cost-
benefit analysis in the rulemaking process, and facilitated a 
greater role for political appointees in this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ Exec. Ord. No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
    \78\ Lisa Heinzerling, Deregulatory Review, Georgetown Law Faculty 
Blog, http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/2007/01/
deregulatory_re.html (visited Jan. 24, 2007). A commentator similarly 
noted, ``On Jan. 18, while the headlines in the U.S. focused on the war 
in Iraq, the new Democratic Congress, and actress Lindsay Lohan's 
alcohol problem, the Bush administration rewrote the book on federal 
regulation.'' Cindy Skrzycki, Bush Gains Power on Rules After Losing 
Congress, Bloomberg.com, at http://bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=206700001&refer=columnist.
    \79\ Exec. Ord. No. 13422, 72 Fed. Reg. 2,763 (Jan. 23, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the request of the Committee, the Congressional Research 
Service (CRS) reviewed EO 13422 and issued a report.\80\ CRS 
concluded, inter alia, that the executive order represented ``a 
clear expansion of presidential authority over rulemaking 
agencies'' and that it ``can be viewed as part of a broader 
statement of presidential authority presented throughout the 
Bush Administration--from declining to provide access to 
executive branch documents and information to presidential 
signing statements indicating that certain statutory provisions 
will be interpreted consistent with the President's view of the 
`unitary executive.' '' Similarly, the New York Times noted 
that the directive gave ``the White House much greater control 
over the rules and policy statements that the government 
develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, 
civil rights and privacy.'' \81\ Critics of the new executive 
order questioned whether it was an attempt to establish 
standards for rulemaking that are inconsistent with statutory 
requirements.\82\ Paul Krugman, in a New York Times commentary 
noted, for example, that EO 13422 ``will make it even easier 
for political appointees to overrule the professionals, 
tailoring government regulations to suit the interests of 
companies that support the G.O.P.'' \83\ On the other hand, 
OMB's General Counsel, Jeffrey Rosen, explained: ``Simply put: 
what we are doing here is `good government.' We are building 
upon a process that has been used by presidents of both parties 
to try to institutionalize best practices.'' \84\ Proponents of 
EO 13422 argue that it represents ``long overdue action to 
constrain the growing burden of federal regulation on the 
economy.'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ Curtis W. Copeland, Changes to the OMB Regulatory Review 
Process by Executive Order 13422, Congressional Research Service Report 
for Congress, RL 33862, at 14 (Feb. 5, 2007).
    \81\ Robert Pear, Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation, N.Y. 
Times, Jan. 30, 2007, at A1.
    \82\ See, e.g., Press Release, Public Citizen, New Executive Order 
Is Latest White House Power Grab (Jan. 18, 2007), at http://
www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2361; Garrett Epps, The Power 
of King George, Salon.com (Feb. 1, 2007) (describing EO 13422 as a 
``power grab'' by the Bush Administration), at http://www.salon.com/
opinion/feature/2007/02/01/presidential_ power/.
    \83\ Paul Krugman, Op-Ed., The Green-Zoning of America, N.Y. Times, 
Feb. 5, 2007, at A25.
    \84\ Cindy Skrzycki, Bush Gains Power on Rules After Losing 
Congress, Bloomberg.com, at http://bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=206700001&refer=columnist. In another statement to the press, 
Mr. Rosen noted, ``This is a class good-government measure that will 
make federal agencies more open and accountable.'' Robert Pear, Bush 
Directive Increases Sway on Regulation, N.Y. Times, Jan. 30, 2007, at 
A1. Paul Noe, a former OIRA advisor, similarly noted, ``The executive 
order promotes better-informed and more accountable regulatory 
decisions.'' Cindy Skrzycki, Bush Gains Power on Rules After Losing 
Congress, Bloomberg.com, at http://bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=206700001&refer=columnist.
    \85\ Bruce Bartlett, Regulatory Respite, Wash Times, Feb. 7, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 13, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on the issues presented by EO 
13422, entitled ``Amending Executive Order 12866: Good 
Governance or Regulatory Usurpation?'' Witnesses included: 
Steven D. Aitken, Acting Administrator, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; 
Professor Sally Katzen of the University of Michigan Law 
School; Curtis W. Copeland, Specialist in American National 
Government at the Congressional Research Service; Paul Noe, a 
partner with C&M Capitolink LLC; and Professor Peter L. Strauss 
of Columbia University School of Law.

Rulemaking Process and the Unitary Executive Theory

    Summary.--Over the course of the George W. Bush 
Administration, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) returned to the role it had during the Reagan 
Administration, even describing itself in an annual report as 
the ``gatekeeper for new rulemakings.'' \86\ The Administrator 
of OIRA explained that one of his office's functions is ``to 
protect people from poorly designed rules,'' and that OIRA 
review is a way to ``combat the tunnel vision that plagues the 
thinking of single-mission regulators.'' \87\ This return to 
the gatekeeper perspective of OIRA's role has implications for 
an array of OIRA's functions.\88\ At the request of the 
Committee, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reviewed 
the actions of OIRA and noted various instances of its 
heightened role in the rulemaking process:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Curtis Copeland, Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Congressional Research Service 
Report for Congress RLS 32397, at 21 (May 28, 2004) (quoting Office of 
Management and Budget, Stimulating Smarter Regulation: 2002 Report to 
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded 
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, Dec. 2002).
    \87\ John Graham, Administrator, OIRA, Remarks to the Board of 
Trustees, The Keystone Center, at Washington, DC (June 18, 2002), at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/keystone_ speech061802.html.
    \88\ See, e.g., Interim Report on the Administrative Law, Process 
and Procedure Project for the 21st Century, Subcomm. on Commercial and 
Administrative Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 56 
(2006) available at http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Printers/
109th/31505.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           The development of a detailed economic 
        analysis circular and what agency officials described 
        as a perceptible ``stepping up the bar'' in the amount 
        of support required from agencies for their rules, with 
        OIRA reportedly more often looking for regulatory 
        benefits to be quantified and a cost-benefit analysis 
        for every regulatory option that the agency considered, 
        not just the option selected;
           The issuance of 21 letters returning rules 
        to the agencies between July 2001 and March 2002--three 
        times the number of return letters issued during the 
        last six years of the Clinton Administration. However, 
        OIRA returned only two rules in 2003, one rule in 2004, 
        one rule in 2005, no rules in 2006, and one rule in 
        2007. OIRA officials indicated that the pace of return 
        letters declined after 2002 because agencies had gotten 
        the message about the seriousness of OIRA reviews;
           The issuance of 13 ``prompt letters'' 
        between September 2001 and December 2003 suggesting 
        that agencies develop regulations in a particular area 
        or encouraging ongoing efforts. However, OIRA issued 
        two prompt letters in 2004, none in 2005, one in 2006, 
        and none in 2007;
           The increased use of ``informal'' OIRA 
        reviews in which agencies share preliminary drafts of 
        rules and analyses before final decisionmaking at the 
        agencies--a period when OIRA says it can have its 
        greatest impact on the rules, but when OIRA says that 
        some of the transparency requirements in Executive 
        Order 12866 do not apply;
           Extensions of OIRA review for certain rules 
        for months or years beyond the 90-day time limit 
        delineated in the executive order;
           Using a general statutory requirement that 
        OIRA provide Congress with ``recommendations for 
        reform'' to request the public to identify rules that 
        it believes should be eliminated or reformed;
           A leadership role for OIRA in the 
        development of electronic rulemaking, which has led to 
        the development of a centralized rulemaking docket, but 
        which some observers believe can lead to increased 
        presidential influence over the agencies;
           The development of an OMB bulletin on peer 
        review that, in its original form, some believed could 
        have led to a centralized system within OMB that could 
        be vulnerable to political manipulation or control;
           The development of a proposed bulletin 
        standardizing agency risk assessment procedures that 
        the National Academy of Sciences concluded was 
        ``fundamentally flawed,'' and that OIRA later withdrew; 
        and
           the development of a ``good guidance 
        practices'' bulletin that standardizes certain agency 
        guidance practices.
    According to CRS, these initiatives ``represent the 
strongest assertion of presidential power in the area of 
rulemaking in at least 20 years.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other developments also appeared to illustrate the 
Administration's heightened involvement in the rulemaking 
process. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
may have weakened some of its limits on smog-forming ozone 
``after an unusual last-minute intervention by President Bush, 
according to documents released by the EPA.'' \90\ Although the 
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee supported the 
EPA's proposed ozone standard rule, OIRA Administrator Dudley 
``urged the EPA to consider the effects of cutting ozone 
further on `economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.' '' \91\ President Bush intervened and he ``decided on a 
requirement weaker than what the EPA wanted.'' \92\ Another 
example concern's the Administration apparent effort to delay 
final approval of a regulation first initiated four years ago 
that would have protected the endangered right whale from being 
killed by commercial ships.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ Juliet Eilperin, Ozone Rules Weakened at Bush's Behest, Wash. 
Post., Mar. 14, 2008, at A1.
    \91\ Id. (quoting OIRA Administrator Susan Dudley).
    \92\ Cindy Skrzycki, It's Not a Backroom Deal If the Call Is Made 
in the Oval Office, Wash. Post, Apr. 8, 2008, at D2.
    \93\ H. Josef Hebert, Delay in Ruling on Endangered Right Whales 
Criticized, Wash. Post, Apr. 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 6, 2008, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing entitled, ``Rulemaking 
Process and the Unitary Executive Theory.'' Witnesses included: 
Susan E. Dudley, Administrator, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; Dr. Curtis 
W. Copeland, Specialist in American National Government, 
Congressional Research Service; Professor Peter L. Strauss, 
Columbia Law School; Dr. Rick Melberth, Director of Regulatory 
Policy, OMB Watch; and James L. Gattuso, Esq., Senior Fellow in 
Regulatory Policy, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at 
The Heritage Foundation. The hearing highlighted various ways 
where the current Administration may have expanded its control 
over the rulemaking process. In particular, the hearing 
identified various manifestations of the Administration's 
enhanced role in rulemaking, including its increased use of 
return letters, quality assessments, peer reviews, and cost-
benefit risk assessments. The ramifications of these efforts 
were considered as well as the impact of President Bush's 
Executive Order 13422, which substantially increased the 
Administration's control of the rulemaking process.

Oversight Hearing on the ``Congressional Review Act''

    Summary.--The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a 
congressional review mechanism of agency rules. The CRA 
requires all agencies promulgating a rule \94\ to submit a 
report to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller 
General at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that 
contains a copy of the rule, a concise general statement 
describing the rule (including whether it is a major rule 
\95\), and the proposed effective date of the rule.\96\ The CRA 
authorizes Congress, pursuant to a joint resolution of 
disapproval, to disapprove an agency rule that it determines to 
be too burdensome, excessive, inappropriate, duplicative, or 
otherwise objectionable. For a joint resolution of disapproval 
to become law, it must pass both Houses of Congress and be 
signed by the President. If a joint resolution is enacted into 
law, the rule is deemed not to have had any effect at any 
time.\97\ Additionally, the CRA prohibits an agency from 
reissuing a rule that is substantially the same as the 
disapproved rule. Such a resolution must be introduced within 
the specified review period, which is at least 60 days.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ The term rule ``means the whole or part of an agency statement 
of general . . . applicability and future effect designed to implement, 
interpret, or prescribe law or policy.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(3).
    \95\ A major rule is defined as a rule that will likely have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, increase costs or 
prices for consumers, industries or state and local governments, or 
have significant adverse effects on the economy.
    \96\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 801-808. On March 29, 1996, President Bill 
Clinton signed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996, P.L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857-874. Subtitle E of that Act 
established the procedures for congressional review of agency rules.
    \97\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(f) (2007).
    \98\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)(3)-(4) (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In more than 12 years, the disapproval mechanism 
established by the CRA has yielded only one congressional 
disapproval, the OSHA disapproval, which was the result of a 
confluence of unusual factors.\99\ These factors include: ``the 
White House and both Houses of Congress in the hands of the 
same political party, a contentious rule promulgated in the 
waning days of an outgoing administration, longstanding 
opposition to the rule by some in Congress and by a broad 
coalition of business interests, and encouragement of repeal by 
the President.'' \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ Id.
    \100\ Morton Rosenberg, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking: 
An Update and Assessment of the Congressional Review Act After Ten 
Years, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL 30116, at 
1 (May 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of the burdens of implementing the CRA and its 
infrequent use, the Subcommittee held a hearing on November 6, 
2007 that explored possible approaches to reforming the CRA. 
Witnesses at the hearing included: the Honorable John V. 
Sullivan, Parliamentarian, House of Representatives; Morton 
Rosenberg, Congressional Research Service; and Professor Sally 
Katzen, George Mason University School of Law.

                               BANKRUPTCY

Executive Compensation in Chapter 11 Cases

    Summary.--In recent years, there have been numerous high 
profile Chapter 11 cases where workers made major concessions 
with regard to their job security, compensation, pensions, and 
health benefits, while the chief executives received high 
incentive and retention bonuses. The poential inequity of such 
disparate pay packages is further heightened where the 
company's financial difficulties stem from bad decisions made 
by management. ``All too often,'' as one bankruptcy judge 
recently observed, executive retention plans ``have been widely 
used to lavishly reward--at the expense of the creditor body--
the very executives whose bad decisions or lack of foresight 
were responsible for the debtor's financial plight.'' \101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\ In re U.S. Airways, Inc., 329 B.R. 793, 797 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to these abuses, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) 
proposed an amendment intended to cap executive compensation in 
Chapter 11 cases, which was passed as part of comprehensive 
bankruptcy reform legislation enacted into law in 2005.\102\ 
These reforms, however, may have had limited effect, as 
demonstrated by recent court decisions.\103\ Given these 
continuing problems, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John C. 
Conyers, Jr. introduced legislation in the last Congress 
intended to reform executive compensation in corporate 
bankruptcies.\104\ The issue of executive compensation in 
Chapter 11 cases had not been the subject of an oversight 
hearing before the House Judiciary Committee for at least the 
last four Congresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 
2005, Pub. L. No. 109-8, Sec. 331, 119 Stat. 23, 102-03 (2005).
    \103\ Cf. In re Dana Corp., 2006 WL 3479406 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 
30, 2006); In re Dana Corp., 351 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006).
    \104\ H.R. 5113, 109th Cong. (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 17, 2008, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held an oversight hearing on ``Executive 
Compensation in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases: How Much Is Too 
Much?'' Witnesses included: Damon Silvers, Associate General 
Counsel for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
Industrial Organizations; Antoinette Muoneke, a flight 
attendant with United Airlines on behalf of the Association of 
Flight Attendants; Mark S. Wintner, a partner with Stroock & 
Stroock & Lavan, LLP; and Richard Levin on behalf of the 
National Bankruptcy Conference. The hearing provided an 
opportunity to consider this issue from the perspective of 
labor and management as well as that of the National Bankruptcy 
Conference.\105\ It also provided an opportunity for the 
Subcommittee to determine whether the current law adequately 
addresses this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\ The National Bankruptcy Conference is a nonpartisan 
organization comprised of the nation's leading bankruptcy scholars and 
practitioners. It was informally organized in the 1930's at the request 
of Congress to assist in the drafting of major Depression-era 
bankruptcy law amendments. National Bankruptcy Conference, Mission 
Statement, http://www.nationalbankruptcyconference.org/mission.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
        Protection Act of 2005

    Summary.--The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2005 (the 2005 Act) \106\ was signed into law 
by President George W. Bush on April 20, 2005. The Act is the 
most comprehensive overhaul of the Bankruptcy Code in more than 
25 years, particularly with respect to its consumer bankruptcy 
reforms. These consumer bankruptcy amendments included, for 
example, the establishment of a means testing mechanism to 
determine a debtor's ability to repay debts and a requirement 
that consumer debtors receive credit counseling prior to filing 
for bankruptcy relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005). Pursuant to section 
1501 of the Act, most of its provisions became effective on October 17, 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the two years since its enactment, consumer advocates 
have become increasingly concerned that some of the 2005 Act's 
requirements are unduly burdensome for debtors in dire 
financial distress.\107\ Their concerns are heightened by the 
growing inability of many Americans to meet their repayment 
obligations on subprime mortgages.\108\ For example, 
foreclosures in the United States for the month of March 2007 
increased by 47 percent over the prior year.\109\ These 
advocacy groups warned that ``primarily low-income subprime 
mortgage borrowers face often insurmountable bankruptcy hurdles 
to hold onto their homes.'' \110\ Based on a survey conducted 
by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys 
(NACBA),\111\ 81 percent of bankruptcy attorneys surveyed 
agreed that it is more difficult ``for people facing 
foreclosure to file [bankruptcy] to save their homes than 
before bankruptcy law changes were enacted in 2005.'' \112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\ Press Release, National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy 
Attorneys, Consumer Federation of America & Center for Responsible 
Lending, Consumer Groups: Fix Bankruptcy Laws So Hundreds of Thousands 
of Americans Can Avoid Home Foreclosures in Subprime Mortgage Crisis 
(Apr. 12, 2007) (on file with the Subcomm. on Commercial and 
Administrative Law of the House Comm. on the Judiciary).
    \108\ See, e.g., Ruth Simon, More Borrowers Fall Behind on Home 
Loans, WalL St. J., Apr. 11, 2007 (noting that the mortgage-delinquency 
rate is at its ``highest level'' since 2000 and that delinquencies were 
``also up sharply for home-equity loans and lines of credit'').
    \109\ Press Release, RealtyTrac, Inc., Foreclosure Activity 
Increases 7 Percent in March -Foreclosure Filings Up 47 Percent From 
Year Ago; Nevada, Colorado, California Post Highest Foreclosure Rates 
(Apr. 18, 2007). For March 2007, the national foreclosure rate was 
reported to be one foreclosure filing for every 775 U.S. households. 
Id. According to this report, ``The five states with the most 
foreclosure filings in March--California, Florida, Texas, Michigan and 
Ohio--together accounted for 50 percent of the nation's total.'' Id.
    \110\ Press Release, National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy 
Attorneys, Consumer Federation of America & Center for Responsible 
Lending, Consumer Groups: Fix Bankruptcy Laws So Hundreds of Thousands 
of Americans Can Avoid Home Foreclosures in Subprime Mortgage Crisis 
(Apr. 12, 2007) (on file with the Subcomm. on Commercial and 
Administrative Law of the House Comm. on the Judiciary).
    \111\ NACBA is a nonprofit organization with more than 2,500 
consumer bankruptcy attorneys nationwide. Id. at 4.
    \112\ Id. The survey, conducted from April 2 to 9, 2007 by NACBA of 
its members, received responses from 640 attorneys, representing 26 
percent of NACBA's membership. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To assess the value and benefit to consumers of pre-filing 
credit counseling, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr., along with other Members of Congress, requested 
the Government Accountability Office in 2005 to examine: (1) 
the process by which credit counseling and financial training 
providers are approved; (2) the content and results of the 
counseling and education sessions; (3) the fees charged; and 
(4) the availability of and challenges to accessing 
services.\113\ In response to this request, the GAO made 
several findings of possible concern. Although the GAO found 
that the providers generally complied with the Act, it was 
unable to ``find evidence that agencies that provided prefiling 
credit counseling discouraged clients from filing for 
bankruptcy and very few clients appeared to be entering into 
repayment plans administered by these agencies.'' \114\ The GAO 
also noted that ``it is not clear whether the prefiling 
requirement is serving its intended purpose . . . of helping 
consumers make an informed choice about bankruptcy and its 
alternatives.'' \115\ It continued, ``Anecdotal evidence 
suggests that by the time that most consumers receive the 
prefiling counseling, their financial situations are dire, 
leaving them with no viable alternative to bankruptcy.'' \116\ 
The GAO noted that there was a dearth of data on ``the outcomes 
of counseling sessions.'' \117\ Such data, it observed, ``could 
help program managers and policymakers determine how well the 
prefiling requirement is serving its intended purpose.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Letter from Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) et al. to David M. 
Walker, Comptroller General of the United States (Oct. 18, 2005) (on 
file with the Comm. on the Judiciary).
    \114\ U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, Bankruptcy 
Reform: Value of Credit Counseling Is Not Clear, GAO-Pub. No. 07-203, 
at 3 (Apr. 2007).
    \115\ Id.
    \116\ Id.
    \117\ Id.
    \118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 1, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held an oversight hearing on the ``Second 
Anniversary of the Enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention 
and Consumer Protection Act of 2005: Are Consumers Really Being 
Protected Under the Act?'' Witnesses included: Henry J. Sommer, 
President of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy 
Attorneys; Shirley Jones Burroughs, a chapter 13 debtor; Yvonne 
Jones, Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment 
at the United States Government Accountability Office; and 
Steve Bartlett, President and CEO, Financial Services 
Roundtable.

Medical Debt

    Summary.--In recent years, the cost of healthcare in the 
United States has ``risen precipitously.'' \119\ Healthcare 
spending accounts for 16 percent of the national Gross Domestic 
Product, which reflects a 13.8 percent increase from 2000.\120\ 
By 2015, these costs are projected to be $4 trillion.\121\ 
Correlatively, health insurance premiums have increased by 73.8 
percent since 2000, while median income increased only 11.6 
percent.\122\ The United States, however, does not provide 
health care for all of its citizens unlike many other 
industrialized nations. Medicare and Medicaid cover only the 
elderly and indigent. In addition, some families earn ``too 
much money to qualify for public health insurance but too 
little to afford a private policy'' and as a result they are 
``caught in a Catch 22 that puts many U.S. workers at risk of 
financial ruin.'' \123\ As a result, many go without insurance. 
Approximately 45 million or 15 percent of Americans did not 
have health insurance in 2005, reflecting a 3 percent increase 
over the previous year.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\ Cindy Zeldin & Mark Rukavina, Borrowing To Stay Healthy: How 
Credit Card Debt Is Related to Medical Expenses, Demos/The Access 
Project, at 2 (2006).
    \120\ Id.
    \121\ Lisa Baertlein, Health Care Crisis Squeezes Working Families, 
Wash. Post, May 23, 2007.
    \122\ Cindy Zeldin & Mark Rukavina, Borrowing To Stay Healthy: How 
Credit Card Debt Is Related to Medical Expenses, Demos/The Access 
Project, at 2 (2006).
    \123\ Lisa Baertlein, Health Care Crisis Squeezes Working Families, 
Wash. Post, May 23, 2007. For example,
    Volunteer Cindy Holland has no medical insurance, and her husband's 
health benefits as a full-time paramedic do not extend to family 
members and their three children go without.
    John Holland, like most Americans, gets his health insurance 
through his job as a paramedic with a private ambulance company, which 
pays half the expense.
    When Cindy, 36, shopped for coverage for herself and their 
children, she found it would cost about $1,000 a month, excluding 
dental insurance.
    ``It would kill us financially to do the insurance--if we want to 
keep a roof over our head and food in my kids. You end up rolling the 
dice,'' said Cindy, a California native who works a pair of part-time 
jobs on top of firefighting.
    \124\ Id. On January 24, 2007, House Judiciary Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr. introduced H.R. 676, the ``United States National Health 
Insurance Act.'' The Act establishes a program that would provide 
Americans with free health care that includes all medically necessary 
care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, 
emergency care, and mental health services. The measure prohibits an 
institution from participating in the program unless it is a public or 
nonprofit institution and gives patients the freedom to choose among 
participating physicians and institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even the insured face economic distress. According to one 
recent study, ``29 percent of low- and middle-income households 
with credit card debt reported that medical expenses 
contributed to current level of credit card debt.'' \125\ The 
study suggests that ``medical debt among the insured results 
from a variety of causes and the interaction of a number of 
factors, including the adequacy of people's insurance plans, 
the nature of their medical needs, the cost of their 
treatments, and their financial resources.'' \126\ In 
particular, the study identified several reasons why the 
insured accrued debt, including the cost of premiums and 
deductibles, coverage caps, and uninsured medical 
conditions.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\ Cindy Zeldin & Mark Rukavina, Borrowing To Stay Healthy: How 
Credit Card Debt Is Related to Medical Expenses, Demos/The Access 
Project, at 1 (2006). This study also found: Within that group, 69 
percent had a major medical expense in the previous three years. 
Overall, 20 percent of indebted low- and middle-income households 
reported both having a major medical expense in the previous three 
years and that medical expenses contributed to their current level of 
credit card debt. Id. Another study, which surveyed 383 people living 
in Missouri, found that ``[m]edical bills can cripple hardworking 
families.'' Sidney D. Watson et al., Living in the Red--Medical Debt 
and Housing Security in Missouri, Survey Findings and Profiles of 
Working Families, The Access Project, at 1 (2007).
    \126\ Carol Pryor et al., The Illusion of Coverage: How Health 
Insurance Fails People When They Got Sick, The Access Project, at 5 
(2007).
    \127\ Id. at 5-6; see also Mark Rukavina et al., Not Making the 
Grade: Lessons Learned from the Massachusetts Student Health Insurance 
Mandate, The Access Project (May 2007) (finding mandatory health 
insurance coverage for students attending institutions of higher 
learning in Massachusetts was inadequate as the program allowed 
unreasonable levels of cost-sharing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 2005 study demonstrated a significant connection between 
medical debt and financial hardship.\128\ The study, which 
surveyed 1,692 low and moderate income people in various 
locales around the nation, \129\ found that one-quarter of the 
respondents stated that they had housing problems as a result 
of their medical debt.\130\ These problems included: (1) the 
inability to qualify for a mortgage; (2) the inability to make 
rent or mortgage payments; (3) being rejected from renting a 
home; and (4) being forced to move to less expensive 
housing.\131\ Some of the respondents reported that they were 
evicted or were rendered homeless because of medical debt.\132\ 
The financial ramifications of medical debt represent only part 
of the problem. Research shows that ``privately insured adults 
with medical debt are more likely than those without debt to 
skip recommended treatments, leave drug prescriptions unfilled, 
and postpone care due to cost[.]'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\ Robert W. Seifert, Home Sick--How Medical Debt Undermines 
Housing Security, The Access Project (Nov. 2005).
    \129\ These locales were Bridgeport, Connecticut; Des Moines, Iowa; 
Phoenix, Arizona; Providence, Rhode Island; St. Louis, Missouri; Tulsa, 
Oklahoma; and West Palm Beach, Florida. Id. at 27.
    \130\ Id. at 1.
    \131\ Id.
    \132\ Id.
    \133\ Carol Pryor et al., The Illusion of Coverage: How Health 
Insurance Fails People When They Got Sick, The Access Project, at 3 
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 17, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on ``Working Families in 
Financial Crisis: Medical Debt and Bankruptcy.'' Witnesses 
included: Professor Elizabeth Warren, Leo Gottlieb Professor of 
Law, Harvard Law School; Dr. David Himmelstein, Associate 
Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and a primary 
care physician at Cambridge Hospital in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts; Donna Smith, a former chapter 7 debtor; Mark 
Rukavina, Executive Director, The Access Project; Clifford J. 
White, III, Director, Executive Office for United States 
Trustees; and Professor Todd Zywicki, George Mason University 
School of Law.

Treatment of Employees and Retirees under Chapter 11

    Chapter 11, in essence, is a statutorily orchestrated 
mechanism by which parties, ``having divergent, if not mutually 
exclusive, interests are given an opportunity to work out their 
economic differences with the shared goal of maximizing the 
return for all.'' \134\ As one writer observed, ``Much 
bankruptcy law and analysis searches for an `equitable' 
resolution of issues as a way of placing some flex in the 
joints of what is perceived to be an otherwise rigid statutory 
scheme.'' \135\ Chapter 11 offers: (1) Immediate relief from 
the forces which threaten to destroy the debtor beyond repair, 
in combination with provisions to keep it in operation while 
the salvage job is assayed and undertaken; and (2) a legal 
framework in which non-consenting creditors and other parties 
can be bound by the desires of a majority of their peers, or 
otherwise prevented from fractious disruption of the debtor's 
affairs.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ Susan Jensen-Conklin, Do Confirmed Chapter 11 Plans 
Consummate? The Results of a Study and Analysis of the Law, 97 COMM. L. 
J. 297, 299 (1992).
    \135\ Thomas H. Jackson, Of Liquidation, Continuation, and Delay: 
An Analysis of Bankruptcy Policy and Nonbankruptcy Rules, 60 Am. Bankr. 
L. J. 399, 399 (1986).
    \136\ Paul F. Festersen, Equitable Poers in Bankruptcy 
Rehabilitation: Protection of the Debtor and the Doomsday Principle, 46 
Am. Bankr. L. J. 311, 311 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In recent years, there have been numerous news reports 
about the financial collapse of such corporate giants as Enron, 
WorldCom, Global Crossing, Delta Airlines, Delphi Corporation 
and Northwest Airlines. In 2002 alone, the ten largest 
companies filing for bankruptcy employed nearly 445,000 
employees.\137\ In many of these cases, workers made major 
concessions with regard to their job security, compensation, 
pensions, and health benefits. As the Wall Street Journal 
observed, once bankruptcy intervenes ``workers have to get in 
line with other unsecured creditors for severance benefits, 
unused vacation pay, expenses and commissions--a process that 
can leave them with mere pennies on the dollars that they're 
owed.'' \138\ Pensions funded by a company's stock are 
typically rendered worthless once bankruptcy intervenes.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\ Shawn Young, In Bankruptcy, Getting Laid Off Hurts Even 
Worse--WorldCom's Ex-Employees Suffer Loss of Severance, End of Health 
Insurance--Moving into the Garage, Wall St. J., Sept. 20, 2002, at A1.
    \138\ Id.
    \139\ See, e.g., Andrew Countryman, New Pension Rules Change Little 
in Post-Enron Era, Chi Trib., Nov. 3, 2002 (``Perhaps the must enduring 
legacy of the Enron affair is the decimated 401(k) accounts of 
thousands of Enron workers); Simon Romero, Winnick Offers Restitution, 
N.Y. Times (Oct. 2, 2002), (reporting that several thousand employees 
of Global Crossing lost their retirement money when the company's stock 
collapsed as a result of insider fraud); Shawn Young, In Bankruptcy, 
Getting Laid Off Hurts Even Worse--WorldCom's Ex-Employees Suffer Loss 
of Severance, End of Health Insurance--Moving into the Garage, Wall St. 
J. (Sept. 20, 2002), at A1 (reporting that WorldCom employees' stock-
backed pensions became ``essentially worthless'' in the wake of a 
``massive accounting scandal'' and the company's subsequent 
bankruptcy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast, the chief executives of these debtors often 
received extravagant incentive and retention bonuses. The 
inequity of such disparate pay packages is further heightened 
where the company's financial difficulties stem from bad 
decisions made by management. ``All too often,'' as one 
bankruptcy judge observed, executive retention plans ``have 
been widely used to lavishly reward--at the expense of the 
creditor body--the very executives whose bad decisions or lack 
of foresight were responsible for the debtor's financial 
plight.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\ In re U.S. Airways, Inc., 329 B.R. 793, 797 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 
2005). While Bankruptcy Code section 503 restricts the use of key 
employee retention plans, the Chapter 11 bar has already pursued 
alternatives to avoid its restrictions. If, for example, the 
compensation package is intended to incentivize management, the 
arrangement may then be scrutinized under Bankruptcy Code section 363's 
``more liberal business judgment review.'' In re Global Home Products, 
LLC, 2007 WL 689747, at *5 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 6, 2007). Section 
363(b) allows a Chapter 11 debtor to use property of the bankruptcy 
estate that is not in the ordinary course of the debtor's business, 
providing parties in interest, such as creditors, receive notice of the 
undertaking and have an opportunity to object. 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 363(b) 
(2006).Where there is a legitimate business justification for the 
undertaking, such as giving the debtor's officers an incentive package 
or performance bonus, the courts will defer to the debtor. See, e.g., 
Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank, Ltd. V. Montgomery Ward Holding Corp. (In re 
Montgomery Ward Holding Corp., 242 B.R. 147, 159 (D. Del. 1999) (citing 
``a sound business purpose'' may justify an employee incentive plan); 
In re Global Home Products, LLC, 2007 WL 689747, at *5 (Bankr. D. Del. 
Mar. 6, 2007); In re U.S. Airways, Inc., 329 B.R. 793, 795 (Bankr. E.D. 
Va. 2005). The court in U.S. Airways, for example, found that with 
respect to the debtor's management employees (below the officer level), 
the proposed severance payments were appropriate. In re U.S. Airways, 
Inc., 329 B.R. at 801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to the rejection of collective bargaining 
agreements pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 1113, several 
issues are presented. First, there is a split among the federal 
circuits as to what constitutes sufficient grounds for 
rejecting a collective bargaining agreement within the meaning 
of section 1113. Under that provision, a court may approve the 
rejection of a collective bargaining agreement if it is 
``necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor.'' \141\ 
The Third Circuit interprets this phrase to mean ``necessary to 
prevent liquidation,'' \142\ whereas the Second Circuit applies 
``a more debtor-friendly'' standard,\143\ that focuses on the 
``debtor's ultimate long-term economic health.'' \144\ As a 
result, the Second Circuit is often the venue sought by 
reorganizing debtors to file for relief under Chapter 11 
because of its more employer favorable standard. It is ``among 
the reasons that Delphi, a Michigan company, filed for 
bankruptcy in New York.'' \145\ As one commentator observed: 
``In case after case, bankruptcy courts have applied 
Congressional intent favoring long-term rehabilitation to sweep 
aside wage and benefits concessions won at the bargaining 
table.'' \146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\ 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1113(b)(1) (2006).
    \142\ Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers, 791 
F.2d 1074, 1088 (3rd Cir. 1986) (noting that ``it appears from the 
legislators'' remarks that they placed the emphasis in determining 
whether and what modifications should be made to a negotiated 
collective bargaining agreement on the somewhat shorter term goal of 
preventing the debtor's liquidation'').
    \143\ Commentary, Samuel J. Gerdano, The Future of Collective 
Bargaining Under Bankruptcy--The Brave New World Facing the Old Economy 
Industries, American Bankruptcy Institute (Mar. 2006) at http://
www.abiworld.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/
ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=41342 (last visited Sept. 4, 2007).
    \144\ Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 7 Collier on Bankruptcy 
para. 1113.06[2][b] (15th ed. rev'd 2007); see, e.g., Truck Drivers 
Local 807, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouseman & 
Helpers of America v. Carey Transp. Inc., 816 F.2d 82, 89 (2nd Cir. 
1987) (``Thus, in virtually every case, it becomes impossible to weigh 
necessity as to reorganization without looking into the debtor's 
ultimate future and estimating what the debtor needs to attain 
financial health.'').
    \145\ Commentary, Samuel J. Gerdano, The Future of Collective 
Bargaining Under Bankruptcy--The Brave New World Facing the Old Economy 
Industries, American Bankruptcy Institute (Mar. 2006) at http://
www.abiworld.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/
ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=41342 (last visited Sept. 4, 2007).
    \146\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, Chapter 11 may also restrict other options 
available to workers. For example, the Second Circuit in In re 
Northwest Airlines Corp., earlier this year held that a labor 
union may be enjoined from striking in response to the 
rejection of its collective bargaining agreement pursuant to 
Bankruptcy Code section 1113.\147\ This is apparently ``the 
first federal appeals court to deny workers the right to strike 
following contract rejection in bankruptcy.'' \148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\ 483 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007).
    \148\ Press Release, Association of Flight Attendants--CWA, AFL-
CIO, The Potential Impact of the Northwest Airlines Injunction on the 
Labor Movement, at 1 (on file with the H. Comm. on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on ``American Workers in 
Crisis: Does the Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcy Law Treat 
Employees and Retirees Fairly?'' Witnesses included: Kim 
Townsend, United Auto Workers Local 138; Michael L. Bernstein, 
Arnold & Porter; Fred Redmond, International Vice President for 
Human Affairs, United Steelworkers; Captain John Prater, 
President, Air Line Pilots Association, International; Greg 
Davidowitch, President, United Master Executive Council, 
Association of Flight Attendants--CWA; and Richard L. Trumka, 
Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO.

United States Trustee Program

    Summary.--The United States Trustee Program is charged with 
supervising the administration of bankruptcy cases and private 
trustees.\149\ Its mission is to protect and preserve the 
integrity of our nation's bankruptcy system by regulating the 
conduct of parties, ensuring compliance with applicable laws 
and procedures, bringing civil actions to address bankruptcy 
abuse, securing the just and efficient resolution of bankruptcy 
cases, and referring bankruptcy crimes for prosecution. The 
Program is itself overseen by the Executive Office for United 
States Trustees (EOUST), which provides policy and management 
direction to United States Trustees. The Program operates 
through a system of 21 regions nationwide, except for North 
Carolina and Alabama.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \149\ 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec. 581-89a (2006).
    \150\ Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer 
Bankruptcy Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-554, 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 581 n. 
(2006). With respect to North Carolina and Alabama, the bankruptcy 
system is administered by a bankruptcy administrator appointed by the 
Judicial Conference. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Specific responsibilities of United States Trustees include 
appointing and supervising private trustees who administer 
Chapter 7,\151\ 12,\152\ and 13 \153\ bankruptcy estates; 
taking legal action to enforce the requirements of the 
Bankruptcy Code and to ferret out fraud and abuse; referring 
matters for investigation and criminal prosecution when 
appropriate; ensuring that bankruptcy estates are administered 
promptly and efficiently, and that professional fees are 
reasonable; appointing and convening creditors' committees in 
Chapter 11 business reorganization cases;\154\ and reviewing 
disclosure statements and retention applications for 
professional persons retained to represent certain interested 
parties in bankruptcy cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\ Under Chapter 7, a debtor's non-exempt assets are collected 
and liquidated to satisfy the claims of creditors. The United States 
Trustee appoints a private trustee who serves as a fiduciary for the 
debtor's creditors and administers the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate. An 
eligible debtor may receive a discharge from his or her unsecured debts 
under Chapter 7, except for certain debts prohibited from discharge 
under the Bankruptcy Code.
    \152\ Chapter 12 permits an eligible family farmer to reorganize 
the farm's financial obligations while continuing his or her farming 
operations. The United States Trustee typically appoints a standing 
trustee who serves as a fiduciary for the debtor's creditors and 
oversees the fulfillment of debtor's obligations under a repayment 
plan. Upon completion of the plan payments, the Chapter 12 debtor is 
eligible to receive a discharge.
    \153\ Chapter 13 is used primarily by individual consumers to 
reorganize their financial affairs pursuant to a repayment plan 
approved by the court. To be eligible for Chapter 13 relief, a consumer 
must have regular income and may not have more than a certain amount of 
debt. A standing trustee appointed by the United States Trustee serves 
as a fiduciary for the debtor's creditors and oversees the fulfillment 
of the debtor's obligations under a repayment plan. Upon completion of 
the plan payments, the Chapter 13 debtor is eligible to receive a 
discharge.
    \154\ Chapter 11 provides an individual or business entity the 
opportunity to reorganize financial liabilities while remaining in 
business. The debtor, typically with the participation of its 
creditors, prepares a reorganization plan to repay all or part of its 
debts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 2, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held an oversight hearing on the ``United 
States Trustee Program: Watchdog or Attack Dog?'' Witnesses 
included: Clifford White, III, Director, Executive Office for 
United States Trustees; the Honorable A. Jay Cristol, United 
States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of Florida; 
the Honorable Eugene Wedoff, United States Bankruptcy Judge for 
the Northern District of Illinois; Paul Uyehara, an attorney 
with the Community Legal Services Language Access Project in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the National 
Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys; and Mary Powers, 
a former United States Trustee Program trial attorney. The 
hearing provided an opportunity to consider the work and 
responsibilities of the United States Trustee Program, 
particularly in light of recent criticisms concerning its 
enforcement efforts in the area of consumer bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy Trustee Compensation

    Summary.--Bankruptcy trustees supervise the administration 
of chapter 7 cases on behalf of, and as a fiduciary for, the 
chapter 7 estate. Their principal function is to collect and 
liquidate the property of the estate and to distribute the 
proceeds to the estate's creditors. Trustees are indispensable 
to the functioning of the bankruptcy system. Most chapter 7 
cases are handled by trustees with only minimal involvement by 
the bankruptcy court. Despite their importance, trustees 
receive only a $60 per-case fee as compensation for their 
services in most cases. Serious questions have been raised as 
to whether this minimal compensation is adequate to attract and 
retain qualified trustees.
    On September 16, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the subject of chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee compensation. The 
hearing provided an opportunity for Subcommittee members to 
hear testimony on the adequacy of trustee compensation, the 
effect of compensation levels on the functioning of the 
bankruptcy system, and proposals to increase trustee 
compensation. Four witnesses testified: Edward Crane, former 
President, National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees; Robert 
Furr, President, National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees; 
the Honorable Margaret D. McGarity, United States Bankruptcy 
Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District 
of Wisconsin; and Jack Williams, Professor of Law, Georgia 
State University College of Law, and Scholar-in-Residence, 
American Bankruptcy Institute.

Viability of Chapter 11

    Summary.--The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2005 (the 2005 Act) was signed into law by 
President George W. Bush on April 20, 2005.\155\ Although much 
of the debate concerning the 2005 Act's amendments focused on 
consumer bankruptcy,\156\ there were a number of significant 
amendments to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. After nearly 
three years since the enactment of these amendments, some 
question whether these amendments have worked as intended and 
whether they have had an adverse impact on a debtor's ability 
to reorganize, especially in light of recently filed cases. 
There are concerns that the 2005 Act has made it more difficult 
for business debtors in Chapter 11 to reorganize.\157\ In sum, 
they claim that these ``changes that, for the most part, will 
adversely affect the ability of businesses to reorganize.'' 
\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\ Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005).
    \156\ See, e.g., Susan Jensen, A Legislative History of the 
Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, 79 Am. Bankr. L. 
J. 485, 486 (2005).
    \157\ See, e.g, Harvey R. Miller, Chapter 11 in Transition--From 
Boom to Bust and Into the Future, 81 Am. Bankr. L. J. 375, 378 (2007) 
(``The changes in the Bankruptcy Law, which culminated in the 2005 
amendments, make bankruptcy unappealing to most debtor 
organizations.''); Richard Levin & Alesia Ranney-Marinell, The Creeping 
Repeal of Chapter 11: The Significant Business Provisions of the 
Bankruptcy Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act, 79 Am. Bankr. 
L. J. 603 (2005).
    \158\ Richard Levin & Alesia Ranney-Marinell, The Creeping Repeal 
of Chapter 11: The Significant Business Provisions of the Bankruptcy 
Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act, 79 Am. Bankr. L. J. 603, 
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to the 2005 Act's amendments to the Bankruptcy 
Code exempting certain types of financial contracts from the 
Code, some fear that these ``financial safe harbors are indeed 
a `bankruptcy opt-out clause' for a certain class of 
capitalists because their money is more important than everyone 
else's.'' \159\ They argue that the 2005 Act's expanded 
exemption for credit derivatives from the Bankruptcy Code was 
done ``with little or no consideration of the larger 
implications of credit derivatives for chapter 11 policy.'' 
\160\ Concerns have also been raised about the 2005 Act's 
amendments to Bankruptcy Code section 365 dealing with 
nonresidential leases.\161\ Others fear that the financial 
impact of the administrative expense priority for reclamation 
creditors ``on certain types of debtors (for example, 
retailers) is likely to be substantial, as administrative 
expense claims must be paid in full in cash as a condition to 
confirming a plan.'' \162\ Commentators assert that the 2005 
Act's amendments to Chapter 11 ``were particularly hard on 
retailers.'' \163\ And, there are many in the bankruptcy 
community who believe that external developments have weakened 
Chapter 11's viability as a venue for a successful 
reorganization. These developments include the growing trend 
for businesses to be highly leveraged, the decreasing quality 
of new issue loans,\164\ the increasing use of state law 
authorized asset-backed securitizations that make assets 
``bankruptcy-remote,'' and the exponential rise in credit 
default swaps.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \159\ Rhett G. Campbell, Financial Markets Contracts and BAPCPA, 79 
Am. Bankr. L. J. 697, 712 (2005).
    \160\ Stephen J. Lubben, Credit Derivatives and the Future of 
Chapter, 81 Am. Bankr. L. J. 405, (2007).
    \161\ Richard Levin & Alesia Ranney-Marinell, The Creeping Repeal 
of Chapter 11: The Significant Business Provisions of the Bankruptcy 
Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act, 79 Am. Bankr. L. J. 603, 
624 (2005).
    \162\ Id. at 605. Especially with respect to larger debtors, the 
authors also expressed concern that this provision will require the 
debtor to establish a `` system to monitor reclamation demands and to 
segregate or track reclaimed goods,'' and that this, ``even if 
possible, will create a substantial administrative burden in terms of 
time and expense that they will not be equipped to handle.'' Id.
    \163\ Pallavi Gogoi, Bankrupt Retailers: Pushed to the Brink--
Changes in the law have sharply reduced retailers' ability to 
reorganize, driving many to liquidate quickly, Business Week, Aug. 11, 
2008.
    \164\ Harvey R. Miller, Chapter 11 in Transition--From Boom to Bust 
and Into the Future, 81 Am. Bankr. L. J. 375, 378 (2007) (noting that 
the ``total amount of below investment grade debt has materially 
increased since 2000 while the riskiest debt has increased the most'').
    \165\ Stephen J. Lubben, Credit Derivatives and the Future of 
Chapter, 81 Am. Bankr. L. J. 405 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 26, 2008, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held an oversight hearing on ``Lehman 
Brothers, Sharper Image, Bennigan's, and Beyond: Does Chapter 
11 Bankruptcy Still Work?'' Witnesses included: Professor Jay 
Westbrook, University of Texas, School of Law; Professor Barry 
E. Adler, New York University School of Law; and Lawrence 
Gottlieb, Esq., Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. The hearing 
examined--in light of the 2005 amendments to Chapter 11 of the 
Bankruptcy Code and other developments--whether Chapter 11 was 
working as Congress intended. As part of this examination, the 
hearing focused on certain recently filed high profile 
bankruptcy business cases, including those filed by Lehman 
Brothers and retailers.

                                PRIVACY

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and the Privacy Officer for 
        the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

    Summary.--In 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist 
Attacks Upon the United States was established to ``examine and 
report upon the facts and causes relating to the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001.'' \166\ The Commission made 
three privacy-related recommendations,\167\ one of which 
pertained to the establishment of a board to protect our 
citizens' privacy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\ Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. 
No. 107-306, title VI, Sec. Sec. 602(1), (5), 604, 116 Stat. 2383, 
2408-13 (2002).
    \167\ The other privacy-related recommendations were as follows:
    As the President determines the guidelines for information sharing 
among government agencies and by those agencies with the private 
sector, he should safeguard the privacy of individuals about whom 
information is shared.
    The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power 
should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually 
materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision 
of the executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil 
liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines 
and oversight to properly confine its use. Id. at 394-95.
    With respect to its first recommendation, the Commission explained 
that this recommendation related to another Commission recommendation 
for agencies to ``open up the sharing of information'' among themselves 
and with the private sector and to have the President take 
responsibility for determining what information can be shared and the 
conditions under which it can be shared. As part of the President's 
determinative process, the Commission suggested that the protection of 
privacy rights should be considered as a ``key element.'' Id. at 395.
    As to its second recommendation, the Commission noted that while 
the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act facilitating the sharing of 
information among intelligence agencies ``appear, on balance, to be 
beneficial,'' the Commission cited ``concerns regarding the shifting 
balance of power to the government'' relating to the Act. Accordingly, 
it observed that a ``full and informed debate'' on the Act ``would be 
healthy.'' Id. at 395.

          At this time of increased and consolidated government 
        authority, there should be a board within the executive 
        branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we 
        recommend and the commitment the government makes to 
        defend our civil liberties. \168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\ Id. at 395.

    In response to this recommendation, the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board was created as part of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.\169\ 
Pursuant to the Act, the Board was established within the 
Executive Office of the President and its five members were 
appointed by the President, who then serve at the pleasure of 
the President.\170\ The Act specified the Board's functions. 
For the purpose of providing advice to the President or to 
Federal agencies, the Board is required to review proposed 
regulations and executive branch policies ``related to efforts 
to protect the Nation from terrorism, including the development 
and adoption of information sharing guidelines.'' \171\ In 
addition, the Board must review the implementation of laws, 
regulations, and policies pertaining to efforts to protect the 
Nation from terrorism.\172\ The Board must also advise the 
President and any Federal agency ``to ensure that privacy and 
civil liberties are appropriately considered in the development 
and implementation of such regulations and executive branch 
policies.'' \173\ Further, the Board, as part of its oversight 
responsibilities, must review ``the information sharing 
practices of the departments, agencies, and elements of the 
executive branch to determine whether or not such practices 
appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties and adhere to 
the information sharing guidelines . . . and to other 
applicable laws, regulations, and executive branch policies 
regarding the protection of privacy and civil liberties.\174\ 
Finally, the Board must annually report to Congress ``on the 
Board's major activities during the preceding period.'' \175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\ Pub. L. No. 108-458, Sec. 1061, 118 Stat. 3638, 3684 (2004).
    \170\ Id. at Sec. 1061(b), (e), 118 Stat. 3684-87. The chair and 
vice chair are confirmed by the Senate. Id. at Sec. 1061(e)(1)(B), 118 
Stat. 3686.
    \171\ Pub. L. No. 108-458, Sec. 1061(c)(1)(A), 118 Stat. 3638, 3684 
(2004).
    \172\ Id. at Sec. 1061(c)(1)(B), 118 Stat. 3684-85.
    \173\ Id. at Sec. 1061(c)(1)(C), 118 Stat. 3685. In providing 
advice on proposals to retain or enhance a particular governmental 
power, the Board must consider whether the department, agency, or 
element of the executive branch concerned has explained:
    (i) that there is adequate supervision of the use by the executive 
branch of the power to ensure protection of privacy and civil 
liberties;
    (ii) that there are adequate guidelines and oversight to properly 
confine the use of the power; and
    (iii) that the need for the power, including the risk presented to 
the national security if the Federal Government does not take certain 
actions, is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil 
liberties. Id. at Sec. 1061(c)(1)(D), 118 Stat. 3685.
    \174\ Id. at Sec. 1061(c)(2)(B), 118 Stat. 3685.
    \175\ Id. at Sec. 1061(c)(4), 118 Stat. 3685.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 20, 2007, the Board issued its first report to 
Congress. The 42-page report provided background on 
organizational matters as well as the Board's outreach and 
education efforts. It also included a section discussing issue 
identification and prioritization. Shortly after the Board 
issued its report, Lanny Davis, one of the Board members, 
resigned on May 14, 2007.\176\ In his letter of resignation, 
Mr. Davis explained: ``My reasons for resignation are based on 
my respectful disagreement with administration officials and 
most members of the Board over (1) the scope of the Board's 
oversight responsibilities; and (2) the interpretation of an 
ambiguous statute and the degree of the Board intended by 
congress under that statute.'' \177\ With regard to his first 
reason, Mr. Davis cited the Board's ``refusal to include a more 
lengthy and critical section in the congressional report 
concerning FBI abuses of National Security Letters.'' \178\ In 
substantiation of his second reason, Mr. Davis cited the 
``extensive `redlining' of the Board's report to the congress 
by administration officials, and the majority of the Board's 
willingness to accept most of these proposed edits and 
deletions.'' \179\ In the 110th Congress, legislation was 
introduced in both the House and Senate that would strengthen 
the independence of the Board and to equip it with greater 
authorities.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\ Letter from Lanny J. Davis to the Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Oversight Board Members (May 14, 2007) (on file with the CAL 
Subcommittee).
    \177\ Id. at 1.
    \178\ Id.
    \179\ Id. at 2.
    \180\ H.R. 1, 110th Cong. (2007); S. 4, 110th Cong. (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress has 
sought to balance two competing goals: keeping the nation 
secure and protecting the privacy rights of our nation's 
citizens. The desire to achieve and maintain this balance was 
reflected in the debate concerning the creation of DHS. In 
2002, the Subcommittee held a hearing on various privacy and 
administrative law issues presented by the anticipated creation 
of the Department.\181\ Among the matters considered were 
issues concerning how the new Department would ensure the 
privacy of personally identifiable information as it 
``establishes necessary databases that coordinate with other 
agencies of the Government.'' \182\ Concerns were expressed on 
a bipartisan basis about the agency's ability to collect, 
manage, share, and secure personally identifiable 
information.\183\ In response to persuasive testimony received 
at the hearing, the Judiciary Committee, on a bipartisan basis, 
successfully amended legislation creating the Department to 
require the appointment of a privacy officer.\184\ The first 
statutorily-mandated privacy office was signed into law as part 
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 on November 25, 2002.\185\ 
The current DHS Chief Privacy Officer was appointed by 
Secretary Michael Chertoff on July 23, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \181\ Administrative Law, Adjudicatory Issues, and Privacy 
Ramifications of Creating a Department of Homeland Security: Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Administrative Law of the House 
Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Congress (2002).
    \182\ Id. at 2.
    \183\ See, e.g., id. at 4 (statements of Rep. Mark Green (R-WI) and 
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)).
    \184\ H. Rept. No. 107-609, at 9-10 (2002).
    \185\ Pub. L. No. 107-296, Sec. 222, 116 Stat. 2135, 2155 (2002). 
Section 222 provides:
    The Secretary shall appoint a senior official in the Department to 
assume primary responsibility for privacy policy, including--
    (1) assuring that the use of technologies sustain, and do not 
erode, privacy protections relating to the use, collection, and 
disclosure of personal information;
    (2) assuring that personal information contained in Privacy Act 
systems of records is handled in full compliance with fair information 
practices as set out in the Privacy Act of 1974;
    (3) evaluating legislative and regulatory proposals involving 
collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by the Federal 
Government;
    (4) conducting a privacy impact assessment of proposed rules of the 
Department or that of the Department on the privacy of personal 
information, including the type of personal information collected and 
the number of people affected; and
    (5) preparing a report to Congress on an annual basis on activities 
of the Department that affect privacy, including complaints of privacy 
violations, implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, internal 
controls, and other matters. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on ``Privacy in the Hands of 
the Government: The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 
and the Privacy Officer for the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security.'' Witnesses at the hearing included: Lanny Davis, 
former member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 
Board; Alan Charles Raul, Vice Chair, Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board; Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy 
Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Linda 
Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office. The hearing provided an 
opportunity to review the work and performance of the 
principals charged with protecting the privacy of our Nation's 
citizens at the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and 
the Department of Homeland Security.

                              ARBITRATION

The Federal Arbitration Act

    Summary.--The Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the 
Federal Arbitration Act, Title 9 of the United States Code. 
Title 9 was adopted as a means to put arbitration agreements on 
the same footing as other contracts, and as a way to avoid the 
costly and time consuming litigation process. Arbitration law 
establishes alternative dispute resolution procedures for 
certain types of disputes with an eye towards keeping those 
disputes out of court, thereby facilitating efficient 
adjudication. The Act supersedes all state laws in conflict 
with the spirit of the Act. In order to facilitate settlements 
by arbitration, Title 9 provides a strong presumption that 
courts will enforce determinations arrived at under this 
process. Avenues for judicial review of arbitration 
determinations do exist and occasionally have been utilized by 
the parties. The Supreme Court has upheld arbitration clauses 
in a wide array of contracts by recognizing Congress' expansive 
powers under the Commerce Clause.
    Although businesses initially used arbitration to resolve 
disputes voluntarily among each other, businesses have expanded 
the use of arbitration into their interactions with consumers 
and employees. Anecdotally and empirically, businesses have 
exploited their greater bargaining power by drafting 
arbitration clauses and inserting them within their contracts. 
These binding clauses can disadvantage consumers, employees, 
and franchisees. Because of the prevalence of arbitration 
clauses, individuals may have little choice but to accept an 
arbitration clause mandated by a business, an employer, or a 
franchisor. Ironically, during the passage of the Federal 
Arbitration Act, Congress did not intend to allow binding 
arbitration agreements on individuals if the contracts were 
between parties of unequal bargaining power.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \186\ Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 
414 (1967) (Black, J. dissenting) (citing Hearing on S. 4213 and S. 
4214 Before the Subcomm. of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 67th Cong., 
9-11 (1923)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because arbitration avoids the public court system in favor 
of a private industry of arbitration groups, individuals lose 
some of the benefits and rights associated with traditional 
litigation. These benefits and rights include lower initial 
financial hurdles, pretrial discovery, formal civil procedure 
rules, proximity to the resolution forum, access to counsel, 
class action options, and fairness. Arbitration clauses may 
even negate the protection of some federal statutes.
    On June 12, 2007, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on the Federal Arbitration Act. Witnesses at the 
hearing included Mr. F. Paul Bland, Jr., an attorney with 
Public Justice; Ms. Jordan Fogel, a homeowner from Texas; Mr. 
Mark J. Levin, Esq., an attorney with Ballard Spahr Andrews and 
Ingersoll, LLP; and Mr. David S. Schwartz, a professor at the 
University of Wisconsin Law School. The hearing provided an 
opportunity for the Subcommittee to review the use of 
arbitration and to determine whether mandatory binding 
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are an equitable use 
of the arbitration process.

Oversight Hearing on the National Football League's System for 
        Compensating Retired Players: An Uneven Playing Field?

    Summary.--Recently, the National Football League (NFL) and 
National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) have been 
criticized for their treatment of injured retired football 
players. A number of high-profile incidents have contributed to 
this increased scrutiny, including the Fourth Circuit's 
decision to award the estate of Mike Webster, the former star 
center for the Pittsburgh Steelers, more than $1.1 million in 
disability payments to which the NFL's retirement plan claimed 
he was not entitled; \187\ the suicide of former Eagles safety 
Andre Waters and the subsequent assessment by a leading 
neuropathologist that brain damage sustained during Waters' 
football career led to his depression; \188\ former New York 
Giants linebacker Harry Carson's use of his Hall of Fame 
induction speech to request that the NFL improve its treatment 
of retired players; \189\ and the heated public spat about 
disability and pension benefits between then-NFLPA President 
Gene Upshaw and many of the retired players.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\ Jani v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan, 2006 
U.S. App. LEXIS 30594 (4th Cir. 2006).
    \188\ Alan Schwarz, Expert Ties Ex-Player's Suicide to Brain Damage 
from Football, N.Y. Times, Jan. 18, 2007, at D1.
    \189\ Pro Football Hall of Fame, Harry Carson's Enshrinement Speech 
Transcript, Aug. 5, 2006, available at http://www.profootballhof.com/
history/release.jsp?release_id=2177.
    \190\ Greg Johnson, A Break-Neck Place, L.A. Times, June 6, 2007, 
at D1. For example, after Pro Football Hall of Fame member Joe 
DeLamielleure complained about the modest union-provided health and 
pension benefits awarded to some NFL retirees, NFLPA President Gene 
Upshaw said, ``A guy like DeLamielleure says the things he said about 
me, you think I'm going to invite him to dinner? No. I'm going to break 
his . . . damn neck.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As part of its review of arbitration provisions, the 
Subcommittee examined the complex process that NFL retirees 
must navigate in order to obtain disability benefits. The 
retirement plan provides, in certain circumstances, for an 
arbitrator to ultimately determine whether a retired player 
should receive medical benefits.\191\ Arbitration, a process in 
which the parties to a dispute have a third-party decide the 
outcome of the dispute, has been used as a means of dispute 
resolution for thousands of years.\192\ It is commonly 
designated in collective agreements between employers and 
employees as the way to resolve disputes where the parties 
select a neutral third party (an arbiter) to hold a formal or 
informal hearing on the disagreement.\193\ The practice of 
arbitration is governed by both federal and state law. While 
the Federal Arbitration Act,\194\ by its own terms, is not 
applicable to employment contracts, federal courts are 
increasingly applying the law in labor disputes.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \191\ Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan: Plan 
Document Sec. 8.3(b-c) (2001).
    \192\ See Jean R. Sternlight, Creeping Mandatory Arbitration: Is it 
Just?, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1631, 1635 (Apr. 2005).
    \193\ Cornel University Law School, Legal Information Institute: 
Collective Bargaining, available at http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/wex/
index.php/Collective_bargaining.
    \194\ Federal Arbitration Act, ch. 213, 43 Stat. 883 (1925) 
(codified as amended at 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1, et seq.).
    \195\ Id. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 26, 2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
determine whether arbitration should have a more prominent role 
in the complicated disability benefits procedure and whether an 
arbitrator should ultimately decide whether a retired player 
should receive benefits. Witnesses at the hearing included: 
Mike Ditka, retired National Football League (NFL) player and 
coach; Harry Carson, retired NFL player; Curt Marsh, retired 
NFL player; Brent Boyd, retired NFL player; Dennis Curran, a 
representative from the NFL; Douglas Ell, a representative from 
the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) and 
counsel to the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Players Retirement 
Plan; Cyril V. Smith, partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and 
counsel for the estate of Mike Webster; and Martha Jo Wagner, 
employee benefits partner at Venable LLP.

              STATE TAXATION AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Oversight Hearing on the ``Internet Tax Freedom Act: Internet Tax 
        Moratorium''

    Summary.--The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which was 
enacted on October 21, 1998 during the 105th Congress,\196\ 
established an Internet tax moratorium that was originally 
intended to foster the growth of the Internet and electronic 
commerce. Although commonly misunderstood as a moratorium on 
all taxes related to an Internet transaction, ITFA does not 
prohibit states from requiring in-state consumers to pay sales 
and use taxes on goods purchased online, nor does it prevent 
states from requiring out-of-state sellers with a substantial 
physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales and 
use taxes.\197\ Instead, the primary purposes of ITFA were to 
establish a three-year moratorium to prevent state and 
localities from imposing new taxes on Internet access,\198\ to 
ensure that multiple states could not tax the same electronic 
commerce transaction, and to ensure that commerce over the 
Internet would not be singled out for new discriminatory tax 
treatment.\199\ ITFA also allowed state and local Internet 
access taxes levied prior to ITFA's enactment to be protected 
by a grandfather clause.\200\ Subsequent laws extended the 
temporary moratorium, revised definitions, and expanded or 
extended certain grandfather protections until November 1, 
2007.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\ The Internet Tax Freedom Act comprises Titles XI and XII of 
Division C of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (H.R. 4328, Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, 
719-728 (1998)). It can be found at 47 U.S.C. 151 note Sec. 1100.
    \197\ Any imposed tax must be consistent with the guidance given by 
the Supreme Court in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 
(1977), and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).
    \198\ Simply defined, Internet access is the service by which users 
connect to the Internet, such as by dial-up, cable modem, Wi-Fi, and 
wireless cell phone. However, the definition of ``Internet access'' in 
ITFA has led to differing interpretations.
    \199\ ITFA prohibits states and localities from levying different 
rates of taxes on similar goods or services whether procured through 
electronic commerce or through other means, such as from a brick-and-
mortar business.
    \200\ New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio (on commercial use only), 
South Dakota, Texas (on monthly charges over $25), and Wisconsin 
currently impose a sales tax (or equivalent tax) on Internet access. 
Tax Cybrary: State Summaries, available at http://www.vertexinc.com/
taxcybrary/internet/state_by_state.asp. In addition, Hawaii levies its 
general excise tax, New Hampshire its communications services tax 
(imposed on all two-way communications equipment), and Washington State 
its business and occupation tax (a gross receipts tax levied on 
business) on Internet access.
    \201\ The Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (Pub. L. No. 107-75, 
115 Stat. 703 (2001)) extended the moratorium until November 1, 2003. 
The Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (Pub. L. No. 108-435, 118 Stat. 
2615 (2004)) extended the moratorium until November 1, 2007 and 
reimposed the moratorium retroactively to November 1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 22, 2007, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
to examine significant issues concerning ITFA. With the 
impending expiration of the Internet tax moratorium, the 
Subcommittee considered whether the moratorium should be 
extended permanently, temporarily, or simply be allowed to 
lapse.\202\ Furthermore, the Subcommittee weighed whether to 
continue granting grandfather protection to states and 
localities that had previously imposed and collected taxes on 
Internet access.\203\ The Subcommittee also considered 
definitions in ITFA that have been the source of some 
apprehension and legal uncertainty for state and local 
governments, providers of Internet access service, 
telecommunications companies, and other entities. Witnesses at 
the hearing included: David C. Quam, Director of Federal 
Relations at the National Governors Association; Mark Murphy, 
Fiscal Policy Analyst for the American Federation of State, 
County and Municipal Employees; Jerry Johnson, Vice Chairman of 
the Oklahoma Tax Commission; Scott Mackey, Partner at Kimbell 
Sherman Ellis; and John Rutledge, Senior Fellow at the 
Heartland Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \202\ The past Congresses have only enacted temporary moratoriums. 
The 108th Congress reimposed the temporary moratorium retroactive to 
the end of the prior moratorium (November 1, 2003). However, the 107th 
Congress did not make the temporary moratorium retroactive to the end 
of the prior moratorium (October 21, 2001). Therefore, about a five-
week period existed when there was no moratorium in place.
    \203\ ITFA exempted from the moratorium taxes on Internet access 
that were ``generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 
1998.'' Sec. 1104(a)(1) of ITFA. The grandfathering protection has been 
extended through Pub. L. Nos. 107-75 and 108-435. However, grandfather 
protection ended for pre-November 2003 enforced Internet access taxes 
(primarily on DSL services) on November 1, 2005 and for Wisconsin's 
Internet access taxes on November 1, 2006. See footnote 5 for the 
jurisdictions which currently tax Internet access. Also, according to a 
GAO report, eliminating grandfather protection could cost state and 
local governments an estimated $120 million per year. Internet Access 
Tax Moratorium: Revenue Impacts Will Vary by State, GAO-06-273 (Jan. 
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislation to address the expiring tax moratorium was 
introduced on September 27, 2007 as H.R. 3678, the ``Internet 
Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007.''

                           PRODUCT LIABILITY

Oversight Hearing on Protecting the Playroom: Holding Foreign 
        Manufacturers Accountable for Defective Products

    Summary.--Given the increase of imported products that do 
not meet U.S. standards for heath, safety, and quality, and the 
fact that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been 
largely ineffective in preventing the importation of defective 
products, consumers have been exposed to unnecessary harm. When 
consumers are injured by foreign-made products, current law 
leaves them little recourse in receiving compensation from a 
foreign manufacturer.
    Consumers seeking to hold foreign manufacturers accountable 
face a number of daunting barriers. First, a consumer must 
establish personal jurisdiction, an increasingly difficult task 
given the uncertainty of the law. A consumer must then navigate 
the complex service of process requirements when serving a 
manufacturer in a foreign country. This may include translating 
materials into the language of that country. Even if the 
consumer succeeds in having the matter heard and winning a 
favorable judgment, collecting compensation may be difficult as 
most countries resist enforcing U.S. judgments.
    On November 15, 2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing that 
probed these barriers and explored ways in which the law could 
be changed so that U.S. consumers could hold foreign 
manufacturers accountable for injuries suffered as a result of 
defective products. Witnesses at the hearing included: 
Professor Andrew Popper, American University Washington College 
of Law; Pamela Gilbert, Esq., Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; 
Thomas Gowan, Esq., The Locks Law Firm; and Victor Schwartz, 
Esq., Institute for Legal Reform, of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce.

                     DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MATTERS

Oversight Hearing on the Implementation of the U.S. Department of 
        Justice's Special Counsel Regulations

    Summary.--When the independent counsel law expired after 
June 30, 1999, the Attorney General promulgated specific 
regulations concerning the appointment of outside, temporary 
counsels.\204\ According to the regulations, such ``special 
counsels'' are to be appointed by the Attorney General to 
conduct investigations and possible prosecutions of certain 
sensitive criminal matters where the Department may have a 
conflict of interest and where the circumstances determine that 
it would be in the public interest.\205\ The regulations 
specify that a special counsel must be selected from outside 
the government.\206\ According to Justice Department drafters 
of the regulations, this is a critical safeguard for a fair and 
independent investigation because a Special Counsel would have 
``no vested interest in the Department of Justice, no long-term 
job at stake and no political identification with or antipathy 
toward the Administration.'' \207\ Although a special counsel 
comes from outside of the government, he or she shall have the 
full power and prosecutorial functions of any U.S. Attorney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \204\ Jack Maskell, Independent Counsel Law Expiration and the 
Appointment of ``Special Counsels,'' Congressional Research Service 
Report for Congress, RL 31246, at 4 (Jan. 15, 2002).
    \205\ 28 CFR Sec. 600.1(a)-(b).
    \206\ 28 CFR Sec. 600.3. (emphasis added).
    \207\ H.R. 2083, the ``Special Counsel Act of 1999'': Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Administrative Law of the H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (1999) (statement of James K. 
Robinson, Assist. Attorney General, Criminal Div., U.S. Dep't of 
Justice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soon after the special counsel regulations were issued, 
Attorney General Janet Reno appointed former Senator John 
Danforth on September 9, 1999 as a special counsel to 
investigate whether law enforcement personnel used excessive 
force or other improper conduct in the Branch Davidian incident 
near Waco, Texas.\208\ At the conclusion of a 14-month 
investigation, Senator Danforth found no evidence of illegal 
acts by federal agents in the 51-day standoff with the Branch 
Davidians.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \208\ Jack Maskell, Independent Counsel Law Expiration and the 
Appointment of ``Special Counsels,'' Congressional Research Service 
Report for Congress, RL 31246, at 4 (Jan. 15, 2002).
    \209\ Dan Eggen, FBI Resisted Waco Investigation, Says Special 
Counsel, Wash. Post, June 1, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite several opportunities to do so, Attorney Generals 
in the Bush Administration have yet to utilize the special 
counsel regulations. Some prominent examples where the Bush 
Administration refused to appoint a special counsel under the 
regulations are the following: the investigation of the alleged 
unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, the CIA's 
destruction of detainee interrogation videotapes, and the 
investigation into the firings of U.S. Attorneys.
    In order to review Department of Justice's utilization of 
the Special Counsel regulations and to consider whether 
legislation in this area would be appropriate, the Subcommittee 
held a hearing on February 26, 2008. Witnesses at the hearing 
included: Patrick Fitzgerald, former ``special counsel,'' \210\ 
U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Illinois; Carol Elder 
Bruce, former Independent Counsel, Partner, Venable LLP; 
Professor Neal Katyal, Georgetown University Law School; Barry 
Coburn, Partner, Coburn & Coffman PLLC; and Lee A. Casey, 
Partner, Baker Hostetler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \210\ While Patrick Fitzgerald was given the title ``Special 
Counsel,'' he was not appointed as a Special Counsel under the 
Department of Justice's regulations. Letter from James B. Comey, Acting 
Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. 
Attorney, Northern District of Illinois (Feb. 6, 2004) (on file with 
the Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oversight Hearing on Deferred Prosecution: Should Corporate Settlement 
        Agreements Be Without Guidelines?

    Summary.--In a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) or non-
prosecution agreement (NPA), a corporation against which the 
government has sufficient evidence to file criminal charges 
enters into an agreement with the government to period of 
probation, subject to specific conditions. A DPA differs from 
an NPA in that a DPA typically includes a formal charging 
document--an indictment or a complaint--and the agreement is 
normally filed with the court, while in the NPA context, there 
is typically no charging document and the agreement is normally 
maintained by the parties rather than filed with a court. The 
obligations imposed pursuant to the agreements usually include 
payment of a substantial monetary penalty, implementation of 
stringent corporate governance and compliance measures, 
cooperation with the government's ongoing investigation (often 
requiring waivers of the corporation's attorney-client 
privilege and work-product protection), waivers of speedy trial 
rights and statute of limitations defenses, and agreement to 
external oversight by an independent monitor approved by the 
government.
    Since at least 1993, DPAs and NPAs have been used in a 
variety of cases involving a range of crimes, including 
security and commodities fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 
violations, health care fraud, and money laundering and tax 
offenses. The use of DPAs and NPAs has grown exponentially in 
the wake of the demise of Arthur Anderson, LLP in 2002, where a 
criminal conviction had substantial collateral consequences.
    On March 11, 2008, the Subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing of DPAs and NPAs. Because there were minimal guidelines 
on corporate settlement agreements until the eve of the 
Subcommittee's hearing, the Subcommittee examined how 
agreements should be structured and how independent monitors 
should be selected. Specifically, the Subcommittee explored New 
Jersey U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie's appointment of John 
Ashcroft, his former Attorney General, to serve as an 
independent corporate monitor and collect fees potentially 
between $28 and $52 million. Witnesses at the hearing included: 
John Ashcroft, former Attorney General, The Ashcroft Group, 
LLC; David Nahmias, U.S. Attorney, Northern District of 
Georgia; Timothy Dickinson, Partner, Paul Hastings LLP; 
Professor Brandon Garrett, University of Virginia School of 
Law; and George Terwilliger, Partner, White & Case LLP.

Oversight Hearing on the Executive Office for United States Attorneys

    Summary.--The Subcommittee has oversight jurisdiction over 
five components of the Justice Department, including the 
Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). The U.S. 
Attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators under the 
direction of the Attorney General. There are 93 U.S. Attorneys 
stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. U.S. Attorneys 
are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President 
of the United States, with advice and consent of the United 
States Senate. One U.S. Attorney is assigned to each of the 
judicial districts, with the exception of Guam and the Northern 
Mariana Islands, where a single U.S. Attorney serves both 
districts. Each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law 
enforcement officer of the U.S. within his or her particular 
jurisdiction.
    EOUSA was created on April 6, 1953, by AG Order No. 8-53 to 
serve as a close liaison between the Justice Department in 
Washington, D.C. and the 93 U.S. Attorneys.\211\ It is the 
responsibility of EOUSA to provide support to the U.S. Attorney 
offices throughout the country in the following areas: general 
executive assistance and direction; policy development; 
administrative management direction and oversight; operations; 
and coordination with other components within the Justice 
Department and other federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \211\ Department of Justice Website, http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/
eousa/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 25, 2008, the Subcommittee conducted an oversight 
of EOUSA that examined, among other things, the operation of 
EOUSA in the aftermath of the U.S. Attorneys controversy, the 
March 2008 decision to eliminate the public corruption and 
environmental crimes section in the U.S. Attorney's Office for 
the Central District of California, the Administration's FY 
2009 budget request for U.S. Attorneys, the increase in 
immigration prosecutions relative to the prosecutions of other 
crimes, and the Justice Department's record on terrorism 
prosecutions. Witnesses at the hearing included: Kenneth E. 
Melson, Director, Executive Office for United States Attorneys; 
Richard L. Delonis, President, National Association of 
Assistant United States Attorneys; Professor Jonathan Turley, 
George Washington Law School; and Heather Williams, First 
Assistant to the Federal Public Defender, District of Arizona.

U.S. Attorneys Investigation

    At the beginning of the 110th Congress, reports appeared 
that several U.S. Attorneys had been asked to resign by the 
Justice Department under suspicious circumstances.\212\ Because 
of concerns that the U.S. Attorneys may have been dismissed for 
improper partisan reasons, the Subcommittee initiated an 
investigation into the firings. The investigation eventually 
grew to address broader questions about the extent to which 
core functions of the Justice Department such as criminal 
prosecution decisions and hiring of career personnel may have 
been improperly politicized. A more detailed description of the 
investigation can be found in the full Judiciary Committee's 
oversight activities report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \212\ See, e.g., David Johnston, Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Received 
Strong Evaluations, N.Y. Times, Feb. 25, 2007, at A19; Dan Eggen, 
Justice Department Fires 8th U.S. Attorney; Dispute Over Death Penalty 
Cited, Wash. Post, Feb. 24, 2007, at A2; Dan Eggen, Fired Prosecutor 
Disputes Justice Dept. Allegation; He Calls Testimony `Unfair'; 
Meanwhile, Senate Panel Votes to Limit Attorney General's Power, Wash. 
Post, Feb. 9, 2007, at A6; Marisa Taylor & Greg Gordon, U.S. Attorneys' 
Selection Is Questioned, Seattle Times, Jan. 28, 2007, at A8 (noting 
that the Attorney General ``is transforming the ranks of the nation's 
top federal prosecutors by firing some and appointing conservative 
loyalists from the Bush Administration's inner circle who critics say 
are unlikely to buck Washington, D.C.''); Onell R. Soto & Kelly 
Thornton, Lam to Resign Feb. 15 as Speculation Swirls; Some See 
Politics at Play in Ouster of U.S. Attorney, San Diego Union-Trib., 
Jan. 17, 2007, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meeting to Consider a Resolution to Authorize Issuance of Subpoenas to 
        Former United States Attorneys

    On March 1, 2007, the Subcommittee approved by voice vote, 
a quorum being present, a resolution authorizing the Chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee to issue subpoenas to Carol C. Lam, 
former United States Attorney for the Southern District of 
California; David C. Iglesias, former United States Attorney 
for the District of New Mexico; H.E. Cummins III, former United 
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas; and John 
McKay, former United States Attorney for the Western District 
of Washington, for the purpose of securing their appearance and 
testimony.

Meeting to Consider Resolutions to Authorize Issuance of Subpoenas to 
        Former United States Attorneys

    On March 6, 2007, the Subcommittee approved by voice vote, 
a quorum being present, resolutions authorizing the Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee to issue subpoenas to Daniel Bogden, 
former United States Attorney for the District of Nevada and 
Paul K. Charlton, former United States Attorney for the 
District of Arizona, for the purpose of securing their 
appearance and testimony.

Meeting to Authorize Issuance of Subpoenas Concerning the Recent 
        Termination of United States Attorneys and Related Subjects

    By voice vote, a quorum being present, the Subcommittee 
authorized Chairman Conyers on March 21, 2007 to issue 
subpoenas to J. Scott Jennings, Special Assistant to the 
President, Office of Political Affairs; William Kelley, Deputy 
White House Counsel; Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel; 
Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the 
President; Joshua Bolton, White House Chief of Staff; and Fred 
Fielding, White House Counsel, in order to obtain testimony and 
documents.

Oversight Hearing on Ensuring Executive Branch Accountability

    Summary.--Critics contend that in a wide variety of areas, 
the Bush Administration has failed to provide the Congress and 
the public with important information about their operations. 
As a result, the Bush Administration has been criticized for 
lacking sufficient transparency and accountability. In response 
to requests for information about the U.S. Attorneys 
controversy being investigated by the Subcommittee, the White 
House adopted an extremely restrictive view and refused to 
produce any information about communications or conduct inside 
the White House (though assertedly not involving the President) 
on this matter or to permit White House officials to provide 
information to Congress through testimony under oath or even 
through interviews with a transcript. This is despite the fact 
that information already available shows that White House 
officials were directly and deeply involved in the controversy.
    On March 29, 2007, the Subcommittee reviewed the White 
House's assertions concerning efforts to resist the provision 
of testimony and documents to Congress in the U.S. Attorneys 
controversy. Witnesses at the hearing included: John Podesta, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for 
American Progress and former White House Chief of Staff to 
President Bill Clinton; Beth Nolan, a partner with Crowell & 
Moring and former White House Counsel to President Bill 
Clinton; Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel at the 
Brennan Center for Justice; and Noel J. Francisco, a partner at 
Jones Day and former Associate Counsel to President George W. 
Bush.

Meeting to Consider a Resolution to Authorize Issuance of Subpoenas to 
        James Comey

    On May 1, 2007, the Subcommittee approved by voice vote, a 
quorum being present, a resolution authorizing the Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee to issue a subpoena to James Comey, 
former Deputy Attorney General, for the purpose of securing his 
appearance and testimony.

Oversight Hearing on The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. 
        Attorneys Controversy (James Comey)

    On May 3, 2007, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey 
testified before the Subcommittee regarding his knowledge of 
the U.S. Attorney firings, performance of particular U.S. 
Attorneys, and related matters.

Oversight Hearing on: The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. 
        Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters (Paul McNulty)

    On June 21, 2007, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty 
testified before the Subcommittee regarding his knowledge of 
the U.S. Attorney firings, performance of particular U.S. 
Attorneys, and related matters.

Meeting to Consider a Resolution to Authorize Issuance of Subpoena to 
        the Republican National Committee

    On July 12, 2007, the Subcommittee approved by voice vote, 
a quorum being present, a resolution authorizing the Chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee to issue a subpoena to Republican 
National Committee (RNC), for the purpose of securing 
documents.

Oversight Hearing on: The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. 
        Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters (Harriet Miers)

    Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers refused to comply 
with a subpoena requiring her appearance before the 
Subcommittee on July 12, 2007. Ms. Miers not only failed to 
provide testimony or documents, but she also failed to appear 
for the hearing. Subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez proceeded to 
overrule the claims of immunity and privilege with respect to 
Ms. Miers, and the ruling was sustained by Subcommittee Members 
in a recorded vote of 7-5.

Meeting to consider the Executive Privilege claims asserted by White 
        House Counsel in response to the subpoena for the production of 
        documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, 
        or appropriate custodian of records

    The Subcommittee met on July 19, 2007 to consider the 
executive privilege claims asserted by White House Counsel Fred 
Fielding in response to the subpoena for the production of 
documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, 
or appropriate custodian of records. Subcommittee Chair Linda 
Sanchez ruled against the privilege claims with respect to Mr. 
Bolten's refusal to produce any documents pursuant to the 
subpoena issued to him, and that ruling was upheld by a 7-3 
vote.

Joint Hearing on Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of 
        Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System

    On October 23, 2007, the Subcommittee held a joint hearing 
with the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security exploring several cases of alleged selective 
prosecution, including the prosecutions of former Democratic 
Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Wisconsin state employee 
Georgia Thompson, and prominent Democrat Cyril Wecht in 
Pittsburgh. Witnesses at the hearing included: former Attorney 
General Richard Thornburgh, Professor Donald C. Shields, and 
former Alabama U.S. Attorney Doug Jones.

Allegations of Selective Prosecution Part II: The Erosion of Public 
        Confidence in Our Federal Justice System

    On May 14, 2008, the Subcommittee held the second of two 
joint hearings with the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security exploring several cases of alleged selective 
prosecution. The witnesses at the hearing included: Honorable 
Paul W. Hodes (D-NH); consultant Allen Raymond and the author 
of ``How to Rig an Election''; Paul Twomey, Esq., counsel for 
the New Hampshire Democratic Party; and Mark C. Miller, the 
author of ``Fooled Again'' and a professor at New York 
University.

Oversight Hearing on the Politicization of the Justice Department and 
        Allegations of Selective Prosecution (Karl Rove)

    Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove refused 
to comply with a subpoena requiring his appearance before the 
Subcommittee on July 10, 2008, failing to appear for the 
hearing to answer questions. Subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez 
proceeded to overrule the claims of immunity and privilege with 
respect to Mr. Rove, and the ruling was sustained by 
Subcommittee Members in a recorded vote of 7-1.

Meeting to Consider a Resolution to Authorize Issuance of Subpoena to 
        Attorney General Michael Mukasey for Certain Documents 
        Previously Requested

    On June 21, 2008, the Subcommittee approved by voice vote, 
a quorum being present, a resolution authorizing the Chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee to issue a subpoena to Attorney 
General Michael Mukasey, for the purpose of securing documents 
related to several Justice Department oversight requests, 
including documents related to the U.S. Attorneys 
investigation.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, and CIVIL LIBERTIES \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 26, 
2007, and February 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
DARRELL ISSA, California             KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
STEVE KING, Iowa                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
                                     Virginia
                                     MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
                                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.........................   169
Legislation on which hearings were held..........................     9
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.............     3
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.....................     0
Legislation pending before the full Committee....................     3
Legislation reported to the House................................     3
Legislation discharged from the Committee........................     1
Legislation pending in the House.................................     0
Legislation failed passage by the House..........................     0
Legislation passed by the House..................................     4
Legislation pending in the Senate................................     2
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).............     0
Legislation enacted into Public Law..............................     2
Days of legislative hearings.....................................     8
Days of oversight hearings.......................................    21

                         Legislative Activities


H.R. 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-
        Americans Act

    Summary.--H.R. 40, the ``Commission to Study Reparation 
Proposals for African-Americans Act'' was introduced by 
Representative John Conyers, Jr. to create a commission 
responsible for examining the fundamental injustice, cruelty, 
and brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States 
and the lingering negative effects of the institution of 
slavery. After examining these issues, the Commission would 
recommend appropriate remedies to Congress.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Conyers, Jr. 
introduced H.R. 40 on January 4, 2007, and the bill was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On February 2, 
2007, H.R. 40 was referred to the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. On December 
18, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 
and Civil Liberties held a hearing on H.R. 40 entitled ``The 
Legacy of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.'' The hearing 
witnesses were the Honorable JoAnn Watson, Councilwoman, 
Detroit City Council; Ms. Kibibi Tyehimba, Co-Chair, National 
Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N'COBRA); Mr. 
H. Thomas Wells, Jr., President-Elect, American Bar 
Association; Professor Charles Ogletree, Jesse Climenko 
Professor of Law, Harvard Law; Professor Eric Miller, Assistant 
Professor of Law, St. Louis University School of Law; Bishop M. 
Thomas Shaw, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts; 
Professor Stephan Thernstrom, Winthrop Professor of History, 
Harvard University; and Mr. Roger Clegg, President, Center for 
Equal Opportunity. There was no further action on H.R. 40 in 
the Committee on the Judiciary or U.S. House of 
Representatives.

H.R. 558--the ``African-American Farmers Benefits Relief Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 558 provides de novo review for qualifying 
claims filed under the consolidated class action lawsuits of 
Pigford v. Veneman and Brewington v. Veneman.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 558, the ``African-American 
Farmers Benefits Relief Act of 2007,'' was introduced by House 
Judiciary Committee member Artur Davis on January 18, 2007. On 
June 21, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties held a hearing on H.R. 558 and a 
related bill, H.R. 899, the ``Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 
2007.'' Testimony was received from the following witnesses: 
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, United States Senate; John 
Zippert, Director of Program Operations, The Federation of 
Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund; Cassandra Jones 
Harvard, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore 
School of Law; Phillip L. Fraas, Esq., Pigford Class Counsel; 
The Honorable A. Donald McEachin, Virginia House of Delegates 
and Dr. John W. Boyd Jr., President, National Black Farmers 
Association. The substance of H.R. 558 was incorporated into 
H.R. 3073, the ``Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007,'' and 
enacted as Section 14012 of H.R. 2419, the ``Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,'' Public Law No. 110-234, 
on May 22, 2008, following an initial veto by President Bush.

H.R. 692, Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment 
        Act of 2007

    Summary--The Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag 
Code Amendment Act of 2007--Amends federal law with regard to 
the flying of the national flag at half-staff to: (1) allow a 
governor of a state, territory, or possession of the United 
States to proclaim that the national flag be flown at half-
staff upon the death of a member of the Armed Forces from the 
governor's state, territory, or possession who dies while 
serving on active duty; (2) provide the same authority to the 
Mayor of the District of Columbia with respect to present or 
former District officials and members of the Armed Forces from 
the District; and (3) require, when a governor or Mayor of the 
District issues such a proclamation, the national flag flown at 
any federal installation or facility in that state, territory, 
possession, or District to be flown at half-staff consistent 
with that proclamation.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 692 was introduced on January 
24, 2007 by Rep. Bart Stupak. It was reported favorably to the 
House by a voice vote on April 25, 2007 (H. Rept. 110-139), and 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 81. On motion to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by 
the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 408-4 (Roll No. 346). On June 
7, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill 
favorably and without amendment, and without a written report. 
It was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders on June 7, 2007. (Calendar No. 191). It passed the 
Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent on June 14, 2007. 
The President Signed it on June 29, 2007. Pub. L. No. (110-41).

H.R. 899--the ``Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 899 declares that any Pigford claimant 
(relating to a racial discrimination action against the 
Department of Agriculture) who has not previously obtained a 
determination on the merits of a Pigford claim may, in a civil 
action, obtain that determination. The legislation asserts that 
it is Congress' intent that this Act be liberally construed so 
as to effectuate its remedial purpose of giving a full 
determination on the merits for each denied Pigford claim. For 
the purposes of the legislation, a ``Pigford claimant'' is 
defined as an individual who previously submitted a late-filing 
request under the consent decree in the case of Pigford v. 
Glickman (1999); and a ``Pigford claim'' as a discrimination 
complaint as defined and documented by such consent decree.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 899, the ``Pigford Claims Remedy 
Act of 2007,'' was introduced by House Judiciary Committee 
member Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott on February 7, 2007. On June 
21, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights 
and Civil Liberties held a hearing on H.R. 899 and a related 
bill, H.R. 558, the ``African-American Farmers Benefits Relief 
Act of 2007.'' Testimony was received from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, United States 
Senate; John Zippert, Director of Program Operations, The 
Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund; 
Cassandra Jones Harvard, Associate Professor of Law, University 
of Baltimore School of Law; Phillip L. Fraas, Esq., Pigford 
Class Counsel; The Honorable A. Donald McEachin, Virginia House 
of Delegates and Dr. John W. Boyd Jr., President, National 
Black Farmers Association. The substance of H.R. 899 was 
incorporated into H.R. 3073, the ``Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 
2007,'' and enacted as Section 14012 of H.R. 2419, the ``Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,'' Public Law No. 110-234, 
on May 22, 2008, following an initial veto by President Bush.

H.R. 923--the ``Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 923, as introduced, establishes an Unsolved 
Crimes Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department 
of Justice (DOJ) and an Unsolved Civil Rights Crime 
Investigative Office in the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with the responsibility of 
investigating violations of criminal civil rights statutes in 
which the alleged violation occurred before January 1, 1970 and 
resulted in death. The legislation also amends the Crime 
Control Act of 1990 to authorize staff of an Inspector General 
to assist the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children by conducting reviews of inactive case files to 
develop recommendations for further investigations and engaging 
in similar activities.
    As amended, the legislation allows for the expanded 
prosecution of unsolved civil rights crimes resulting in death 
that occurred on or before December 31, 1969, by authorizing 
additional funding to the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights 
Section of the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Section 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the FBI's 
Community Relations Department. The bill would designate 
specific administrative authority for the investigation and 
prosecution of unsolved Civil Rights Era crimes and require an 
annual accounting to Congress on the progress of the 
investigative initiatives, with a 10-year sunset provision. In 
addition, the legislation amends the Crime Control Act of 1990 
to authorize Inspector General staff to assist the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children by conducting reviews 
of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further 
investigations.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 923, the ``Emmett Till Unsolved 
Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007,'' was introduced by 
Representative John Lewis on February 8, 2007. On June 12, 
2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 
Civil Liberties and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security jointly held hearings on H.R. 923. Testimony 
was received from Myrlie Evers-Williams, activist, community 
leader and widow of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers; 
Richard Cohen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
Southern Poverty Law Center; G. Douglas Jones, former United 
States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama; Rita 
Bender, attorney, activist and widow of slain civil rights 
activist Michael Schwerner; Alvin Sykes, President of the 
Emmett Till Justice Campaign, Inc.; and Grace Chung Becker, 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice 
Civil Rights Division. On June 12, 2007, the Subcommittee on 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties met in open 
session and ordered the bill H.R. 923 favorably reported, as 
amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. On June 13, 
2007, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill 
H.R. 923 favorably reported with an amendment, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. (H. Rept. No. 110-200.). On June 22, 
2007, H.R. 923 was passed by the House by a roll call vote of 
422 to 2. On September 24, 2008, H.R. 923 was passed by the 
Senate, without amendment, by unanimous consent. The President 
signed H.R. 923 on October 7, 2008, which became Public Law No. 
110-344.

H.R. 1905, the ``District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1905, the ``District of Columbia House 
Voting Rights Act of 2007'' was introduced by Delegate Eleanor 
Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis in a bipartisan 
attempt to secure full representation in the U.S. House of 
Representatives for the citizens of the District of Columbia. 
H.R. 1905 permanently expands the U.S. House of Representatives 
from 435 to 437 seats, providing a seat to the District of 
Columbia and a new, at-large seat to Utah. Based on the 2000 
Census, Utah is the state next in line to enlarge its 
Congressional delegation.
    Legislative History.--Delegate Norton and Representative 
Davis introduced H.R. 1905 on April 18, 2007, and the bill was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On April 19, 2007, 
H.R. 1905 passed the House by a roll call vote of 241 to 177. 
The following day, the bill was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. Prior 
to House passage of H.R. 1905, the House Committee on the 
Judiciary considered similar legislation, H.R. 1433. H.R. 1433 
was introduced on March 9, 2007, by Delegate Norton and 
Representative Davis and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 
On March 14, 2007, the Committee on the Judiciary held a 
hearing on H.R. 1433. The hearing witnesses were Viet D. Dinh, 
former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy at the 
U.S. Department of Justice; Bruce Spiva, founding partner of 
Spiva & Hartnett and Chair of the Board of DC Vote; Rick Bress, 
partner in the Washington, DC office of Latham & Watkins; and 
Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington 
University. On March 15, 2007, the Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H.R. 1433 favorably by a roll call vote of 21 to 13. 
On March 22, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives proceeded 
with general debate and debate on a motion to commit, with 
further proceedings on the motion postponed. There was no 
further House action on H.R. 1433.

H.R. 1281, the ``Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention 
        Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1281, the ``Deceptive Practices and Voter 
Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007'' was introduced by 
Representative Rahm Emanuel and Representative John Conyers, 
Jr. to protect a citizen's right to vote by criminalizing 
deceptive electioneering practices. H.R. 1281 prohibits a 
person from knowingly providing false information with the 
intent to prevent another person from voting, increases 
criminal penalties for voter intimidation, and requires the 
U.S. Attorney General to respond to deceptive practices with 
corrective measures.
    Legislative History.--Representative Rahm Emanuel and 
Representative John Conyers, Jr. introduced H.R. 1905 on March 
1, 2007, and the bill was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. On March 7, 2007, the Committee on the Judiciary 
held a hearing on H.R. 1281 entitled ``Protecting the Right to 
Vote: Election Deception and Irregularities in Recent Federal 
Elections.'' The hearing witnesses were Senator Barack Obama 
(D-IL); Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD); Representative Loretta 
Sanchez (D-CA); Representative Steve King (R-IA); 
Representative Brian Bilbray (R-CA); Representative Rahm 
Emanuel (D-IL); Donna Brazile, Chair, DNC Voting Rights 
Institute; Eve Sandberg, Associate Professor of Politics, 
Oberlin College; John Fund, Wall Street Journalist columnist; 
and Ralph Neas, President and CEO of People for the American 
Way. On March 29, 2007, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 1281 favorably by voice vote. On June 25, 2007, Committee 
on the Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend 
the rules and the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 
1281 by voice vote. The following day, the bill was received in 
the U.S. Senate, read twice, and referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 1995, the ``Tulsa-Greenwood Race Riot Claims Accountability Act of 
        2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1995 provides that any Greenwood, Oklahoma, 
claimant (a survivor or descendant of victims of the Tulsa, 
Oklahoma, Race Riot of 1921) who has not previously obtained a 
determination on the merits of a Greenwood claim may, in a 
civil action commenced within five years after enactment of 
this Act, obtain that determination.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1995, ``Tulsa-Greenwood Race 
Riot Claims Accountability Act of 2007,'' was introduced by 
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. on April 
23, 2007. On April 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held a hearing 
on H.R. 1995. Testimony was received from the following 
witnesses: John Hope Franklin Ph.D., James B. Duke Professor 
Emeritus of History, Duke University School of Law; Alfred L. 
Brophy Ph.D., Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of 
Law; Olivia Hooker Ph.D., Professor of Psychology (retired), 
Fordham University and Professor Charles Ogletree, Jesse 
Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.

H.R. 2316, the ``Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 2316 would have required registered 
lobbyists to provide quarterly reports to the House clerk and 
secretary of the Senate regarding the ``bundled'' contributions 
totaling more than $5,000 in a quarter that they provide to a 
covered recipient.
    Under the bill, bundled contributions include contributions 
that are received by a registered lobbyist and forwarded to a 
covered recipient, or contributions that are somehow credited 
or attributed to a lobbyist through records, designations or 
other means of tracking, such as placing the lobbyist's name on 
a check's memo line or using another symbol. The bill's 
definition of ``covered recipients'' applies to federal 
candidates, federal officeholders, leadership political action 
committees or political party committees.
    The required reports would disclose the name of the 
lobbyist, the name of his or her employer, and the name of the 
covered recipient to whom the contributions were given, as well 
as the amount of the contributions made or a good-faith 
estimate thereof. The report would be due within 45 days of the 
end of the quarterly period. These reports would not include 
certain information that is included in other required 
disclosure reports.
    The bill also required a lobbyist, within 25 days of the 
end of a quarterly reporting period, to send a notification by 
certified mail to a covered recipient outlining the information 
that will be included in the lobbyists' report, and the source 
of each contribution. According to the committee report, this 
would allow the recipient of bundled contributions to raise 
questions with the lobbyist, and take appropriate action, 
before the lobbyist files his or her report with Congress. As 
modified, the bill requires the statement to notify the 
recipient that he or she has the right to respond in order to 
challenge or correct any information before the lobbyist files 
the disclosure report.
    The bill also would have Members and senior staff from 
influencing hiring decisions or practices of private entities 
for partisan political gain. Violations can result in not only 
fines, but imprisonment for up to 15 years. The measure would 
have required the disclosure of lobbying activities by many 
coalitions, as well as the past executive branch and 
congressional employment of registered lobbyists. It would have 
required lobbyists to file more detailed reports disclosing 
their contacts with Congress, as well as certifications that 
the lobbyist did not give a gift or pay for travel in violation 
of the rules. These reports were to be filed electronically and 
more frequently, quarterly rather than semiannually, and then 
be made available to the public for free over the Internet in a 
timely fashion. Finally, the legislation provided for stronger 
enforcement. This measure significantly increased the penalties 
for noncompliance with Lobbying Disclosure Act requirements. 
Civil penalties are increased from the current $50,000 per 
violation to $100,000, and there are new criminal penalties for 
knowing, willful and corrupt violations, with potential 
sentences of imprisonment up to 5 years.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2316 was introduced by Chairman 
John Conyers, Jr. on May 15, 2007 and referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, 
and House Administration. A markup session was held on May 17, 
2007. It was ordered reported, as amended by a voice vote. (H. 
Rept. 110-161, Part I). It was placed on the Union Calendar, 
Calendar No. 97. On May 27, 2007, it was considered, pursuant 
to a rule (H. Res. 437). The following amendments were 
considered: H. Amdt. 232, offered by Mr. Conyers. The amendment 
clarifies the application of the bill's provisions regarding 
the posting of financial disclosure forms on the Internet. The 
Conyers amendment was agreed to by voice vote. H. Amdt. 233, 
offered by Mr. Dreier. The amendment requires that when Members 
and House employees end their service in the House, they be 
given notice of the exact dates in which their post-employment 
restrictions apply and also requires that that information be 
made available on the Internet. The Dreier amendment was agreed 
to by voice vote. H. Amdt. 234, offered by Mr. Conyers. 
Amendment sought to place a one-year ban on flag and general 
officers of the Armed Services from receiving compensation from 
any company that does greater than $50 million in business with 
the Department of Defense. The Conyers amendment passed by 
voice vote, and Mr. Smith of Texas demanded a recorded vote. 
The amendment subsequently failed by recorded vote: 152-271, 1 
Present (Roll No. 421). H. Amdt. 235 offered by Mr. Castle. An 
amendment stating that it is the sense of Congress that the use 
of a family relationship by a lobbyist who is an immediate 
family member of a Member of Congress to gain special 
advantages over other lobbyists is inappropriate. The Castle 
amendment was agreed to by voice vote. H. Amdt. 236 offered by 
Mr. Cardoza. The amendment gives judges the discretion to 
increase the sentence for public officials convicted of 
bribery, fraud, extortion or theft of public funds greater than 
$10,000. The Cardoza amendment was agreed to by voice vote. Mr. 
Chabot moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary to 
require the bill to be reported back to the House with 
amendments to limit gifts to Members, Officers, and Employees 
of the House from State and local governments. The motion to 
recommit with instructions Agreed to by recorded vote: 346-71, 
2 Present (Roll No. 422). The bill passed the House by a 
recorded vote: 396-22, 1 Present (Roll No. 423). The bill was 
received in the Senate. It was placed on Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 182. See S. 1 for 
further action.

H.R. 2317, the ``Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 2317 required the quarterly disclosure of 
campaign contributions that are ``bundled'' by lobbyists. Under 
the bill, lobbyists would have been required to provide such 
information in the quarterly reports that would be filed with 
congressional officials.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) 
introduced H.R. 2317 on May 15, 2007. On May 17, 2007, it was 
marked up by the Judiciary Committee and ordered reported, as 
amended, by a voice vote. H. Rept. 110-162. It was placed on 
the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 98. On May 24, 2007 it was 
considered by the House of Representatives. Ranking Minority 
Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) moved to recommit with instructions 
to Judiciary to require the bill to be reported back to the 
House with an amendment inserting a multicandidate political 
committee described the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. 
The motion to recommit with instructions Agreed to by the Yeas 
and Nays: 228-192 (Roll No. 419). The bill passed by the Yeas 
and Nays: 382-37 (Roll No. 420). On June 4, 2007 it was placed 
on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar 
No. 183. See S. 1 for further action.

H.R. 2356, To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the 
        display of the flag of the United States on Father's Day

    Summary.--H.R. 2356 amends the Flag Code to add Father's 
Day, the third Sunday in June, to the official occasions for 
the display of the U.S. flag.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2356 was introduced on May 17, 
2007, by Rep. Scott of Georgia, and referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary. It was referred to the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on June 
4, 2007. On June 11, 2007, Rep. Baldwin moved to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill. The motion was agreed to by a roll 
call vote of 386-0 (Roll No. 448). On May 15, 2008, it passed 
Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. The President 
signed it on June 3, 2008, and it became Public Law No. 110-
239.

H.R. 2826, To amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to restore 
        habeas corpus for individuals detained by the United States at 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other purposes

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Ike Skelton and 
Representative John Conyers, Jr. on June 22, 2007 to restore 
habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo 
Bay.
    Legislative History.--On September 6, 2007, the 
Subcommittee met in open session and favorably reported H.R. 
2826 by a roll call vote of 7 to 4. H.R. 2826 was forwarded to 
the Committee, but no further action was taken during this 
Congress.

H.R. 3073, the ``Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 3073 provides a mechanism for a 
determination on the merits of the claims of persons who met 
the class criteria in a civil action relating to racial 
discrimination by the Department of Agriculture but who were 
denied that determination. For the purposes of the legislation, 
a ``Pigford claimant'' was defined as an individual who 
previously submitted a late-filing request under the consent 
decree in the case of Pigford v. Glickman (1999); and ``Pigford 
claim'' as a discrimination complaint as defined and documented 
by such consent decree. The legislation also directs the 
Secretary of Agriculture to provide a claimant with a report on 
farm credit loans made within the claimant's county or adjacent 
county during a specified period which shall contain 
information on all accepted applicants (but without any 
personally identifiable information), including: (1) the 
applicant's race; (2) the application and loan decision dates; 
and (3) the location of the office making the loan decision.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3073, the ``Pigford Claims 
Remedy Act of 2007,'' was introduced by House Judiciary 
Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. on July 18, 2007 and 
referred jointly to the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Agriculture. The legislation was the follow-up 
product of a hearing held on June 21, 2007, on H.R. 558, the 
``African-American Farmers Benefits Relief Act of 2007'' and 
H.R. 899, the ``Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007.'' On July 
17, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights 
and Civil Liberties met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 3073, without amendment, by voice vote. 
The Pigford Claims Remedy Act was enacted as Section 14012 of 
H.R. 2419, the ``Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,'' 
Public Law No. 110-234, on May 22, 2008, following an initial 
veto by President Bush.

H.R. 3189, the ``National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007'' (April 
        15, 2008)

    Summary.--The September 11, 2001 attacks prompted a review 
of the law enforcement and intelligence tools which were 
designed to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Specifically, 
the Administration expressed concern about the delays in 
effectuating the preparation and ultimate dissemination of 
NSLs.\213\ The PATRIOT Act substantially expanded the FBI's 
preexisting authority to obtain information through NSLs by 
amending three of the four existing NSL statutes and adding a 
fifth.\214\ In each of the three NSL statutes available 
exclusively to the FBI--the ECPA, RFPA, and FCRA--Section 505 
of the PATRIOT Act broadened the previously more rigorous FBI 
authority in four major areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \213\ Hearing Before the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 107th Cong. 57-
58 (2001) (Administration's Draft of Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001).
    \214\ Charles Doyle, National Security Letters in Foreign 
Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background and Recent Amendments, 
CRS Report, March 17, 2006, at 4 [hereinafter Doyle CRS Report].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The PATRIOT Act: (1) eliminated the requirement that the 
information sought by a NSL must pertain to a foreign power or 
an agent of a foreign power, and instead substituted the lower 
threshold that the information requested be relevant to or 
sought for an authorized investigation to protect against 
international terrorism or espionage; (2) expanded the FBI 
issuing authority beyond FBI headquarters officials to include 
the heads of FBI field offices (i.e., Special Agents in 
Charge); (3) added the caveat that no such investigation of an 
American can be predicated exclusively on the basis of 
activities protected by the First Amendment; and (4) permitted 
NSLs to obtain information from communications providers, 
financial institutions, and consumer credit agencies about 
persons other than the subjects of FBI national security 
investigations so long as the requested information is relevant 
to an authorized investigation.\215\ Similarly, subsection 
358(g) of the Act amended the FCRA to add a fifth and final 
NSL, which, notably, allowed any federal government agency (not 
merely the FBI) investigating or analyzing international 
terrorism to obtain a consumer's full credit report.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\ P.L. 107-56, Sec. 505, 115 Stat. 365-66 (2001).
    \216\ P.L. 107-56, Sec. 358(g), 115 Stat. 327 (2001). Prior to this 
amendment, the FBI could use FCRA NSLs only to obtain basic financial 
institution and consumer-identifying information about the person's 
bank accounts, places of employment, and addresses. See 15 U.S.C. 1681u 
(2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3189, the ``NSL Reform Act,'' would remedy the 
deficiencies in issuing and using NSLs. Specifically, the 
legislation would address: the documentation of deficient 
process by FBI agents issuing national security letters and 
utilizing their results; the broad scope of national security 
letters, lack of transparency in their issuance, and the 
problems raised by gag orders and use of information that are 
authorized under existing law; the need for statutory 
safeguards and judicial review; and the protections of 
constitutional rights and personal privacy, while permitting 
appropriate federal investigations of threats to national 
security.
    The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG) issued a report, ``A Review of the FBI's Use of National 
Security Letters: Assessment of Corrective Actions and 
Examination of NSL Usage in 2006 which raised concerns 
regarding the manner in which our government agencies approach 
the investigations of individuals. The Report released in March 
2007 revealed that the FBI has reported inaccurate and 
incomplete data to Congress. It further exposed that the FBI 
had engaged in improper methods to acquire data on individuals. 
Moreover, the Report indicated that even information about 
individuals who are irrelevant to terrorism investigations is 
nonetheless indefinitely retained and never purged from FBI 
database systems.
    At an April 15, 2007 legislative hearing on H.R. 3189 
before the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties of the House Judiciary Committee, Inspector General 
Glenn Fine testified on the findings and recommendations 
included in the recent 2008 released report.
    On April 15, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
use of National Security Letters by the FBI. Mr. Glenn Fine, 
Justice Department Inspector General; Ms. Valerie Caproni, FBI 
General Counsel; Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National 
Security Project; Bruce Fein, adjunct scholar with the American 
Enterprise Institute, resident scholar at the Heritage 
Foundation, lecturer at the Brookings Institution, and adjunct 
professor at George Washington University; Michael Woods, 
former chief of the FBI's National Security Unit (1997-2002); 
and David Kris, former Associate Deputy Attorney General (2000-
2003) and currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown 
University Law Center.
    In this hearing, the subcommittee explored the need to 
revise and improve the FBI's use of national security letters 
(NSLs), in light of the abuses documented in the 2007 and 2008 
Justice Department's Inspector General's Reports regarding 
NSLs. H.R. 3189, introduced by Representative Jerrold Nadler, 
was a potential legislative solution, which would incorporate 
the pre-PATRIOT Act NSL issuance standard requiring ``specific 
and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the 
information or records sought . . . pertain to a foreign power 
or agent of a foreign power,''; provide the recipient of an NSL 
the right to challenge the NSL and its nondisclosure 
requirement; provide a cause of action to any person aggrieved 
by the illegal provision of records pertaining to that person 
as a result of an NSL issued contrary to law; place a time 
limit on an NSL gag order and allow for a court approved 
extension; and provide for minimization procedures to ensure 
that information obtained pursuant to an NSL regarding persons 
who are no longer of interest in an authorized investigation is 
destroyed.
    Legislative History.--On June 24, 2008, the Subcommittee 
met in open session and favorably reported H.R. 3189 by a roll 
call vote of 7 to 3. The Subcommittee forwarded H.R. 3189 to 
the Committee, but no further action was taken during the 100th 
Congress.

H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Amendments Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 amends 
the definition of disability in the Americans with Disabilities 
Act of 1990 (ADA), Pub. L. No. 101-386 (1990), 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 12101-12213, and provides related rules of 
construction for applying the amended definition. The bill 
restores protection for the broad range of individuals with 
disabilities as originally envisioned by Congress by responding 
to the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of the definition 
of disability. Through its decisions, the Supreme Court has 
prevented individuals that Congress unquestionably intended to 
cover from qualifying as disabled and entitled to protection 
under the ADA, thus barring these individuals from ever getting 
the chance to prove their case of unlawful disability 
discrimination. H.R. 3195 restores Congressional intent by 
prohibiting consideration of mitigating measures that help 
control or lessen the impact of an impairment when determining 
whether an impairment is sufficiently limiting to qualify as a 
disability. It also reduces the burden of establishing that an 
impairment qualifies as a disability by defining terms in the 
definition that have proven most troubling for the courts. H.R. 
3195 requires a broad construction of the definition of 
disability and clarifies agency authority to promulgate 
regulations.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3195 was introduced by House 
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) and Representative F. 
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) on July 26, 2007. The 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties held a hearing on the legislation on October 4, 2007, 
at which the following witnesses testified: Majority Leader 
Steny H. Hoyer; Cheryl Sensenbrenner, Chair, American 
Association of People with Disabilities; Stephen C. Orr, 
plaintiff in Orr v. Wal-Mart; Michael C. Collins, Executive 
Director, National Council on Disability; Lawrence Z. Lorber, 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Chai R. Feldblum, Professor, 
Georgetown University Law Center. On June 18, 2008, H.R. 3195 
was ordered reported (as amended) by the House Judiciary 
Committee by a roll call vote of 27 to 0. On June 25, 2008, the 
House passed H.R. 3195 by a roll call vote of 402-17. On 
September 11, 2008, the Senate passed by unanimous consent S. 
3406, a similar measure that was introduced on July 31, 2008 by 
Tom Harkin (D-IA). S. 3406 retained most of the language of 
H.R. 3195 but differed in its treatment of the term 
``substantially limits'' in the ADA's definition of disability. 
H.R. 3195 redefined ``substantially limits'' as ``materially 
restricts'' to set a lower standard for qualifying as disabled; 
S. 3406 retained the term ``substantially limits'' but, through 
findings and statutory rules of construction, set a lower 
standard that, like H.R. 3195, makes it easier to qualify as 
disabled. Thus, while the language of the two bills differed, 
Congressional intent and the result achieved by both bills was 
the same. On September 17, 2008, the House passed by voice vote 
S. 3406, which became Public Law No. 110-325 on September 25, 
2008.

H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007

    Summary--Millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
heterosexual Americans can be fired from their jobs, refused 
work, paid less and otherwise subjected to employment 
discrimination because of their actual or perceived sexual 
orientation with no recourse under Federal law. Currently, it 
is legal in 30 states to fire someone based on their sexual 
orientation.
    Workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, 
affecting heterosexual, as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
transgender Americans, has been widespread and well-documented 
over the years. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act protects 
all Americans who are or may be perceived to be gay, lesbian, 
or bisexual by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, 
refuse to promote employees based on notions of a person's 
sexual orientation. Furthermore, employers are prohibited from 
requiring gay, lesbian, or bisexual employees to work in a 
discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment.
     Specifically, ENDA extends Federal employment protections 
to gay, lesbian, or bisexual workers similar to those 
protections provided to a person based on race, religion, sex, 
national origin, age or disability. The Act prohibits an 
employer from using an individual's sexual orientation as the 
basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, 
promotion or compensation. ENDA also creates a cause of action 
for any individual--whether actually homosexual or 
heterosexual--who is discriminated against because that 
individual is `perceived' as homosexual due to the fact that 
the individual does not conform to the sex or gender 
stereotypes associated with that individual's sex. Furthermore, 
ENDA provides for the similar procedures, while giving somewhat 
more limited remedies as those under Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3685 was introduced by Rep. 
Frank on September 27, 2007, and referred to the Committee on 
Education and Labor, the Committee on House Administration, the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee 
on the Judiciary. The Committee on Education and Labor reported 
the bill on October 22, 2007 (H. Rept. 110-406, Part I). The 
Committee on House Administration, the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform, and the Committee on Judiciary were 
discharged.
    The House considered H.R. 3685 on November 7, 2007. The 
House considered the following amendments:
    H. Amdt. 882 offered by Rep. George Miller, providing 
explicitly that any religious corporation, school, association 
or society that is exempt under either Section 702(a) or 
703(e)(2) of Title VII's religious exemptions is exempt under 
END; it clarifies that the scope of Title VII's exemption is 
exactly the scope of ENDA's exemption and clarifying that ENDA 
does not alter the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in any way. 
It strikes language referencing ``a same-sex couple who are not 
married'' in the Employee Benefits section of ENDA. It also 
inserts language clarifying that the term ``married'' has the 
meaning given such term in DOMA, directly incorporating DOMA's 
definition of marriage. The Miller amendment was agreed to by 
recorded vote: 402-25 (Roll No. 1054).
    H. Amdt. 883, offered by Rep. Souder, to strike paragraph 
(3) of section 8(a), which prohibits employers from 
conditioning employment on a person being married or being 
eligible to be married. The Souder amendment was agreed to by 
recorded vote: 325-101 (Roll No. 1055).
    H. Amdt. 884, offered by Rep. Baldwin, to expand ENDA's 
protections to persons discriminated against based on gender 
identity, defined as the gender-related identity, appearance, 
or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an 
individual, with or without regard to the individual's 
designated sex at birth, including language concerning shared 
facilities, dress, and grooming standards, as well as a 
paragraph stating that the construction of additional 
facilities are not required. By unanimous consent, the Baldwin 
amendment was withdrawn.
    Rep. Forbes moved to recommit with instructions to 
Education and Labor. The instructions contained in the motion 
seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with 
an amendment to add at the end of section 8(c) that ``nothing 
in this Act may be construed to modify, limit, restrict, or in 
any way overturn any State or Federal definition of marriage as 
between one man and one woman, including the use of this Act as 
a legal predicate in litigation on the issue of marriage.'' The 
motion to recommit with instructions failed by the Yeas and 
Nays: 198-222 (Roll No. 1056).
    The bill passed by the Yeas and Nays: 235-184 (Roll No. 
1057). On November 13, 2007 it was placed on Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 479. No further 
action was taken.

H.R. 3773, the ``Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, 
        Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 (the RESTORE Act of 2007)''

    Summary.--The purpose of H.R. 3773 was to provide a 
mechanism, through December 2009, to conduct foreign electronic 
surveillance for the purpose of defense against terrorism and 
other national security threats, without the need for 
individual warrants for overseas targets, while protecting the 
civil liberties of Americans whose communications may be 
intercepted in the process. It would also require increased 
accountability through data collection, auditing, and mandatory 
reporting to Congress. And it would provide additional 
resources for the National Security Agency and Department of 
Justice to ensure that there are no backlogs of critical 
intelligence gathering. It removed any `foreign-to-foreign' 
ambiguity by making it clear that purely foreign communications 
do not require a court order even when they transit the U.S. or 
the acquisition is in the United States as a result of changes 
in communications technology since FISA was first enacted. The 
RESTORE Act specifically prevented the extension of any Fourth 
Amendment or statutory protections to overseas targets such as 
Osama Bin Laden or other members of terrorist organizations.
    Legislative History.--Chairman John Conyers, Jr. introduced 
H.R. 3773 on October 9, 2007 and referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and to the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. On October 10, 2007, the Judiciary Committee held 
a mark-up session and ordered the bill reported, as amended, by 
a roll call vote of 20-14. (H. Rept. 110-373, Part I). The 
Committee on Intelligence reported the bill, as amended the 
same day. (H. Rept. 110-373, Part II). The bill was considered 
by the House on November 15, 2007. Rep. Lamar Smith moved to 
recommit to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to amend 
the bill and report it back to the House ``promptly.'' The 
motion to recommit with instructions failed by the Yeas and 
Nays: 194-222 (Roll No. 1119). The bill passed by recorded 
vote: 227-189 (Roll No. 1120). It was received in the Senate. 
Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders. Calendar No. 517. On February 12, 2008, the Senate 
struck all after the Enacting Clause and substituted the 
language of S. 2248 as amended. It passed the Senate with an 
amendment by Unanimous Consent. No further action was taken.

H.R. 5038, the ``Caging Prohibition Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5038, the ``Caging Prohibition Act of 2008'' 
was introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr. to prohibit 
the pernicious practice of voter caging that has been used to 
prevent or discourage eligible voters from casting their vote 
on Election Day and having that vote counted. H.R. 5038 clearly 
defines and criminalizes voter caging and other questionable 
challenges intended to disqualify eligible voters and requires 
persons other than election officials to base voter challenges 
on first hand knowledge.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Conyers, Jr. 
introduced H.R. 5038 on January 17, 2008, and the bill was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On February 4, 
2008, H.R. 5038 was referred to the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties and the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. On 
July 24, 2008, the issue of caging was examined at a 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties hearing entitled ``Lessons Learned from the 2004 
Presidential Elections. Hearing witnesses were J. Kenneth 
Blackwell, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow, The Buckeye 
Institute for Public Policy Solutions; Dan Tokaji, Associate 
Professor of Law & Associate Director, Election Law, Ohio State 
University, Michael E. Moritz College of Law; Cleta Mitchell, 
Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP; Gilda Daniels, Assistant 
Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law; Hans 
Von Spakovsky, Visiting Scholar, The Heritage Foundation; and 
J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director & Director of Litigation, 
The Campaign Legal Center. There was no further action on H.R. 
5038 in the Committee on the Judiciary or U.S. House of 
Representatives.

 H.R. 5607, the ``State Secret Protection Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5607, the State Secret Protection Act of 
2008, codifies the common law state secret privilege and 
provides uniform standards and procedures for courts to apply 
when considering governmental claims of state secret privilege 
in civil litigation. H.R. 5607 responds to concerns that the 
courts have failed to apply consistent standards and have been 
reluctant to test government claims of secrecy, often failing 
to examine the evidence that the government seeks to withhold 
or deferring to government assertions of harm and, as a result, 
dismissing cases prematurely and unfairly. Modeled on the 
Classified Information Procedures Act--legislation passed by 
Congress in 1980 to govern court handling of secret information 
in criminal cases--but adjusted for civil litigation, H.R. 5607 
protects legitimate secrets from harmful disclosure while 
preventing abuse and maximizing the ability of litigants to 
achieve justice in the courts.
    Legislative History.--On January 29, 2008, the Subcommittee 
on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held an 
oversight hearing on reform of the state secrets privilege, at 
which the following witnesses testified: H. Thomas Wells, Jr., 
President-Elect, American Bar Association; Judith Loether, 
daughter of one of the victims of the plane crash at issue in 
U.S. v. Reynolds; Hon. Patricia Wald, retired Chief Judge for 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; Patrick 
Philbin, partner at Kirkland & Ellis; and Kevin Bankston, 
Senior Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Based on the 
findings of this hearing, Rep. Nadler (D-NY) introduced H.R. 
5607 on March 13, 2008. On July 31, 2008, the Subcommittee on 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 5607, at which the following 
witnesses testified: Meredith Fuchs, General Counsel, National 
Security Archives; Steven Shapiro, Legal Director, American 
Civil Liberties Union; Michael A. Vatis, partner, Steptoe & 
Johnson, LLP; Bruce Fein, Chairman, The American Freedom 
Agenda. Letters in support of H.R. 5607 were submitted by Hon. 
William S. Sessions, retired Chief Judge of the U.S. District 
court for the Western District of Texas and former Director of 
the FBI; Hon. Patricia Wald, retired Chief Judge for the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; The Constitution 
Project; Human Rights First; Common Cause; and Public Citizen. 
On September 18, 2008, the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Civil Liberties reported the bill reported 
favorably (as amended) to the House Judiciary Committee by a 
roll call vote of 6-3.

S. 1, the ``Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Responding to concerns about the role of money in 
politics, the Congress enacted legislation addressing a variety 
of issues. S. 1, the final bill signed into law, contained the 
following changes: it requires campaign committees to disclose 
``bundled'' contributions by lobbyists in excess of $15,000 in 
a six-month period. The disclosure would be available on a 
publicly accessible Web site of the Federal Election 
Commission. The measure extends to two years, for the Senate 
only, the ``cooling off'' period in which senators may not 
lobby after leaving office, while maintaining the current one-
year period for the House. It requires quarterly, rather than 
semi-annual, reports from lobbyists on their lobbying 
activities, while requiring twice-yearly reports on certain 
contributions made by lobbyists to campaign committees, events 
honoring members, presidential libraries, and for certain other 
purposes. The measure also denies congressional pensions to 
members convicted of certain felonies committed after enactment 
of this measure. The bill makes changes to House and Senate 
rules to impose new earmark disclosure requirements in the 
Senate, and to bar members of both chambers from negotiating 
for post-congressional employment unless such negotiations are 
disclosed to the respective ethics committees.
    Legislative History.--S. 1 was introduced by Sen. Harry 
Reid on January 4, 2007. It passed the Senate, as amended, on 
January 18, 2007, by a roll call vote of 96-2 (Roll No. 19). It 
passed the House on July 31, 2007, on a motion to suspend the 
rules and pass, as amended, by a roll call vote of 411-8 (Roll 
No. 763). On August 2, 2007, the Senate agreed to House 
amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 83-14 (Roll No. 294). It was signed 
by the President on September 14, 2007, and became Public Law 
No. 110-81. The House of Representatives also considered two 
other ethics reform bills, H.R. 2316, the ``Honest Leadership 
and Open Government Act of 2007,'' and H.R. 2317, the 
``Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007.''
    On March 1, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing on ``S. 1, the 
Senate Approach to Lobbying Reform.'' Testifying before the 
Subcommittee were Sarah Dufendach, Chief of Legislative 
Affairs, Common Cause; Kenneth A. Gross, Skadden, Arps, Slate, 
Meagher & Flom LLP; Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow, Governance 
Studies, The Brookings Institution; and Bradley A. Smith, 
Professor of Law, Capital University Law School.
    Ms. Dufendach argued for an increased ``cooling off 
period'' of from the existing one to two years, and in favor of 
a provision that would require disclosure by a lobbying firm or 
a firm that does not presently file federal lobbying reports 
but that earns at least $100,000 a quarter to engage in paid 
efforts to stimulate Astroturf lobbying. She also urged the 
establishment of an independent ethics office for Congress.
    Mr. Gross argued that the bundling provision should be 
drafted so it is limited to contributions physically handled by 
a lobbyist or those forwarded to a campaign in coded envelopes, 
as is currently required under Federal Election Commission 
rules. He also argued in favor of a narrowed ``astroturf'' 
provision, and against a broader restriction on post-employment 
lobbying.
    Mr. Mann testified in support of new ``bundling'' 
disclosure provisions, disclosure requirements for 
``astroturf,'' or professional grassroots lobbying, and broader 
post-employment restrictions on members and senior staff.
    Prof. Smith expressed reservations about the 
constitutionality of the ``astroturf'' provisions in the Senate 
bill, and concerns about the vagueness of the ``bundling'' 
provisions. He also testified in support of earmark reform.

 S. 188--A bill to revise the short title of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa 
        Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 
        and Amendments Act of 2006

    Summary.--S. 188 amends the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 
and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and 
Amendments Act of 2006 to change the short title to the Fannie 
Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, 
Barbara C. Jordan, William C. Velasquez, and Dr. Hector P. 
Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 
2006.
    Legislative History.--S. 188, ``A bill to revise the short 
title of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott 
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 
2006,'' was introduced by Senator Ken Salazar on January 4, 
2007. The House companion of the legislation, H.R. 745, was 
introduced by Judiciary Committee member Sheila Jackson-Lee on 
January 31, 2007. On February 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee ordered S. 188 to be reported with amendments 
favorably. On February 15, 2007, S. 188 passed the Senate, with 
amendments, by unanimous consent. On June 17, 2008, 
Representative Jackson-Lee moved that the House suspend the 
rules and pass S. 188, where after the bill was agreed to by 
voice vote. On July 1, 2008, S. 188 was signed by President and 
became Public Law No. 110-258.

Resolution Authorizing the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
        to Issue a Subpoena to J. Kenneth Blackwell

    On Tuesday, February 26, 2008, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties met for the 
purpose of considering whether to authorize the Chairman of the 
Committee to issue a subpoena to former Ohio Secretary of State 
J. Kenneth Blackwell. The Subcommittee sought Mr. Blackwell's 
testimony as part of its ongoing oversight of voting rights 
enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice. While serving as 
Secretary of State, Mr. Blackwell simultaneously served as co-
chair of the Bush-Cheney Ohio reelection campaign in 2004, and 
campaigned for office himself when he ran as Republican 
candidate for governor of Ohio in 2006. His conduct during the 
2004 election was the subject of a 102-page report on vote 
suppression produced in 2005 by the Democratic staff of the 
House Judiciary Committee.\217\ As the chief election officer 
during an election in which serious concerns regarding vote 
suppression have been raised, the Committee believed Mr. 
Blackwell's testimony was important to its ongoing oversight of 
voting rights enforcement and vote suppression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \217\ Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio (Status Report 
of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff) (Jan. 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution Authorizing the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
        to Issue a Subpoena to David Addington

    On May 6, 2008, the Subcommittee met and by a voice vote 
authorized the full Committee Chairman to issue a subpoena to 
the Chief of Staff to the Vice President, David Addington. This 
subpoena was issued on May 7, 2008, and compelled Mr. 
Addington's testimony on June 26, 2008.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \218\ See May 7, 2008, Letter from Hon. John Conyers, Jr. to Mr. 
David S. Addington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution Authorizing the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
        to issue a Subpoena to Douglas Feith

    On June 24, 2008, the Subcommittee met and by a bipartisan 
vote of 9-3 authorized the full Committee Chairman to issue a 
subpoena to former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. 
This subpoena was issued on July 10, 2008, and compelled Mr. 
Feith's testimony on July 15, 2008.

Resolution Authorizing the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
        to Issue a Subpoena to Christopher Coates

    On July 31, 2008, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties met for the purpose of 
considering whether to authorize the issuance of a subpoena to 
Christopher Coates, Voting Section Chief, Department of 
Justice, Civil Rights Division. The Subcommittee sought Mr. 
Coates testimony as part of its ongoing oversight of voting 
rights enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice. While 
states have primary authority for conducting elections, the 
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division's Voting Section 
should play a significant role in ensuring a fair election in 
2008 through its enforcement of voting rights laws. Given the 
controversy surrounding the last two presidential elections in 
2000 and 2004, the Subcommittee felt it was important for Mr. 
Coates to appear to explain how the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
plans to implement its legislative mandate during the 2008 
Presidential election to prevent voting rights problems and 
ensure a fair election.

H. Con. Res. 44, Honoring and praising the National Association for the 
        Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 98th 
        anniversary

    Summary.--H. Con. Res. 44 was introduced by Representative 
Al Green to commemorate the 98th anniversary of the founding of 
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
(NAACP). The NAACP is this nation's oldest and largest civil 
rights organization. The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909 
by Ida Wells-Barnett, W.E.B. DuBois, Henry Moscowitz, Mary 
White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villiard, and William English 
Walling. Since its inception, the NAACP has united students, 
laborers, professionals, scholars, officials, and others of all 
races to advance its vision of ``a society in which all 
individuals have equal rights and there is no racial hatred or 
racial discrimination.''
    Legislative History.--Representative Al Green introduced H. 
Con. Res. 44 on January 24, 2007, and the bill was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. On February 12, 2007, 
Representative Howard Berman moved to suspend the rules and the 
resolution passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice 
vote. The following day, the bill was received in the U.S. 
Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 
On March 1, 2007, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H. Con. Res. 44 without amendment and with a preamble. 
On March 26, 2007, the resolution was agreed to without 
amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent in the U.S. 
Senate.

H. Con. Res. 289, Honoring and praising the National Association for 
        the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 99th 
        anniversary

    Summary.--H. Con. Res. 289 was introduced by Representative 
Al Green to commemorate the 99th anniversary of the founding of 
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
(NAACP). The NAACP is this nation's oldest and largest civil 
rights organization. The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909 
by Ida Wells-Barnett, W.E.B. DuBois, Henry Moscowitz, Mary 
White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villiard, and William English 
Walling. Since its inception, the NAACP has united students, 
laborers, professionals, scholars, officials, and others of all 
races to advance its vision of ``a society in which all 
individuals have equal rights and there is no racial hatred or 
racial discrimination.''
    Legislative History.--Representative Al Green introduced H. 
Con. Res. 44 on February 7, 2008, and the bill was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. On February 13, 2008, 
Representative Steve Cohen moved to suspend the rules and on 
February 14, 2008, the resolution passed the U.S. House of 
Representatives by a roll call vote of 403-0. On February 25, 
2008, the bill was received in the U.S. Senate and referred to 
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. On March 5, 2008, the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged H. Con. Res. 289 
and the U.S. Senate agreed to H. Con. Res. 289 without 
amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent.

H. Con. Res. 381, Honoring and recognizing the dedication and 
        achievements of Thurgood Marshall on the 100th anniversary of 
        his birth

    Summary.--H. Con. Res. 381 was introduced by Representative 
Donald Payne to commemorate Thurgood Marshall's significant 
contributions and accomplishments in the field of law on the 
110th anniversary of his birth, July 2, 1908. Marshall 
challenged the separate but equal status quo in his capacity as 
Legal Director of the National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People (NAACP) from 1940 through 1967, winning 29 
out of 32 cases before the Supreme Court, the most Supreme 
Court cases won by any attorney. As a judge on the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961, Marshall authored 
112 opinions between 1961 and 1965, with not one of them being 
overturned. Marshall served as the first African American 
Solicitor General from 1965 until 1967. From 1967 until 1991, 
Marshall was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, making him 
the first African American Supreme Court Justice.
    Legislative History.--Representative Payne introduced H. 
Con. Res. 381 on June 24, 2008, and the bill was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. On July 14, 2008, 
Representative Adam Schiff moved to suspend the rules and the 
resolution passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice 
vote. On July 16, 2008, the resolution was agreed to without 
amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent in the U.S. 
Senate.

H. Res. 149, Supporting the goals of International Women's Day

    Summary.--H. Res. 149 states that the House of 
Representatives (1) supports the goals of International Women's 
Day; (2) recognizes and honors the women in the United States 
and in other countries who have fought and continue to struggle 
for equality in the face of adversity; (3) reaffirms its 
commitment to ending discrimination and violence against women 
and girls, to ensuring the safety and welfare of women and 
girls, and to pursuing policies that guarantee the basic human 
rights of women and girls both in the United States and in 
other countries; and (4) encourages the President to--(A) 
reaffirm his commitment to pursue policies to protect 
fundamental human rights and civil liberties, particularly 
those of women and girls; and (B) issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe International 
Women's Day with appropriate programs and activities.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Janice Schakowsky introduced H. 
Res. 149 on February 8, 2007. On February 8, 2007 it was 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On February 15, 2007, the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs reported it by a voice vote. On March 6, 
2007 Rep. Watson moved to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution. The motion to suspend the rules was agreed to by a 
roll call vote of 403-0 (Roll No. 122).

H. Res. 194, Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of 
        African-Americans

    Summary.--H. Res. 194 acknowledges that slavery is 
incompatible with the basic principle recognized in the 
Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. The 
resolution also acknowledges the fundamental injustice, 
cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow. The 
resolution offers an apology to African-Americans on behalf of 
the U.S. people for the wrongs committed against them and their 
ancestors and commits to rectifying the lingering consequences 
of slavery and Jim Crow and to stopping future human rights 
violations.
    Legislative History.--H. Res. 194 was introduced by 
Judiciary Committee Member Steve Cohen on February 27, 2007. On 
December 18, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties held an oversight hearing on the 
Legacy of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, where the substance 
of the resolution was discussed at length. Testimony was 
received from the following witnesses: M. Thomas Shaw, Bishop, 
The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts; Kibibi Tyehimba, 
National Co-Chair, National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations 
in America (N'COBRA); Stephan Thernstrom, Winthrop Professor of 
History, Harvard University; The Honorable JoAnn Watson, 
Council Member, Detroit City Council; Professor Charles 
Ogletree, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; 
H. Thomas Wells, Jr., President-Elect, American Bar 
Association; Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center 
for Equal Opportunity and Eric Miller, Assistant Professor of 
Law, Saint Louis University School of Law. On July 29, 2008, H. 
Res. 194 was passed by the House by voice vote.

H. Res. 431, Recognizing the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia 
        legalizing interracial marriage within the United States

    Summary.--H. Res. 431 was introduced by Representative 
Tammy Baldwin to recognize the 40th anniversary of the decision 
in the case Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1 (1967)), which 
legalized interracial marriage within the United States. On 
June 12, 1967, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court 
struck down Virginia's statute forbidding white and black 
persons from marrying persons of another race. The convictions 
of Mildred Jeter and Richard Perry Loving, the interracial 
Virginia couple who challenged the law, were overturned. 
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren conveyed that 
``the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice 
to marry not be restricted by invidious racial 
discriminations.''
    Legislative History.--Representative Baldwin introduced H. 
Res. 431 on May 23, 2007, and the bill was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On June 11, 2007, Representative 
Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and the resolution passed 
the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 668, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the September 25, 
        1957, desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the 
        Little Rock Nine

    Summary.--H. Res. 668 was introduced by Representative John 
Conyers, Jr. to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 
desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little 
Rock Nine on September 25, 1957. Three years after the 1954 
Brown v. Board decision (347 U.S. 483), the promise of equality 
within education had not been realized by the Little Rock Nine. 
In pursuit of that promise, the Little Rock Nine--Minnijean 
Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, 
Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, 
and Carlotta Walls--attempted to integrate Little Rock Central 
High. Despite death threats, verbal and physical assaults, 
school closings, and other adversities, the Little Rock Nine 
successfully integrated Little Rock Central High School on 
September 25, 1957.
    Legislative History.--Representative Conyers introduced H. 
Res. 668 on September 20, 2007, and the bill was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. On September 24, 2007, Chairman 
Conyers moved to suspend the rules and the resolution passed 
the U.S. House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 387-0.

H. Res. 826, Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that 
        the hanging of nooses is a horrible act when used for the 
        purpose of intimidation and which under certain circumstances 
        can be a criminal act that should be thoroughly investigated by 
        Federal law enforcement authorities and that any criminal 
        violations should be vigorously prosecuted

    Summary.--H. Res. 826 was introduced by Representative Al 
Green to condemn the hanging of nooses. The noose, a symbol of 
racial violence and hate, that had once been attributed to days 
ago, has resurfaced in recent years. Between September and 
December of 2007, there were approximately 50 noose incidents 
across the country. Since 2001, more than 30 lawsuits have been 
filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) due 
to nooses in the workplace. In the wake of the Jena 6 
controversy, noose incidents occurred with a disturbing 
frequency in our nation's schools. In 2007, noose incidents 
occurred at North Carolina's High Point Andrews High School, 
Columbia University, the University of Maryland, the University 
of Delaware, Perdue University, and Central Michigan 
University.
    Legislative History.--Representative Green introduced H. 
Res. 826 on November 14, 2007, and the bill was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On December 5, 2007, Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and the resolution 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 1061, Commemorating the 40th anniversary of the assassination 
        of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and encouraging people of the 
        United States to pause and remember the life and legacy of Dr. 
        Martin Luther King, Jr., and for other purposes

    Summary.--H. Res. 1061 was introduced by Representative 
John Lewis (D-GA) to celebrate the life and work of Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr., our nation's greatest civil rights leader, on 
the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination. On April 4, 
1968, Dr. King's life ended abruptly as he was fighting for the 
rights of African American sanitation workers in Memphis, 
Tennessee. In his short life, Dr. King had accomplished much, 
his work culminating in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and receipt of the 
Nobel Peace Prize. H. Res. 1061 continues Dr. King's legacy by 
renewing the country's commitment to Dr King's pursuit of 
justice, equality, and peace.
    Legislative History.--Representative Lewis introduced H. 
Res. 1061 on March 31, 2008, and the bill was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On September 24, 2007, Chairman 
John Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and the resolution 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 1095, Recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of 
        congressional passage of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
        1968 (the Fair Housing Act) and the 20th anniversary of the 
        Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988

    Summary.--H. Res. 1095 was introduced by Representative Al 
Green to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Fair Housing 
Act and its amendments. On April 11, 1968, just days after the 
assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., President Lyndon 
B. Johnson signed into law the federal Fair Housing Act, which 
prohibited discrimination in housing based on race, color, 
religion or national origin. Twenty years later, in 1988, the 
law was expanded by the Fair Housing Amendments Act to include 
protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, 
familial status and disability. Today, the Fair Housing Act 
remains an effective tool in our fight against discrimination.
    Legislative History.--Representative Green introduced H. 
Res. 1095 on April 9, 2008, and the bill was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On April 15, 2008, Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and the resolution 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 1182, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 
        American flags flown on Federal Government buildings and on 
        Federal property be made in the United States

    Summary.--H. Res. 1182 expresses the sense of the House of 
Representatives that all American flags flown over federal 
buildings should be entirely produced in the United States.
    Legislative History.--H. Res. 1182 was introduced by Rep. 
Bob Filner on May 8, 2008. On July 14, 2008, on a motion to 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution was Agreed to by 
voice vote.

H. Res. 1293, Commemorating the 44th anniversary of the deaths of civil 
        rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael 
        Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi, while working in the 
        name of American democracy to register voters and secure civil 
        rights during the summer of 1964, which became known as 
        ``Freedom Summer''

    Summary.--H. Res. 1293 was introduced by Representative 
John Lewis to salute civil rights activists Andrew Goodman, 
James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner on the 44th anniversary of 
their deaths during the Freedom Summer of 1964. These three 
young men paid the ultimate sacrifice in their dedication to 
ensuring that all Americans could exercise the right to vote. 
While advancing the voting rights of Black Mississippians, on 
June 21, 1964, Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner left Meridian, 
Mississippi's Congress on Racial Equality office for the nearby 
town of Philadelphia to investigate the recent burning of a 
Black church that had been operating as a Freedom School for 
education and voter registration. The civil rights workers 
never made it to their destination. They were arrested by 
police officers in Philadelphia, who turned them over to area 
Ku Klux Klan members. After more than six weeks of federal 
inquiries and searches, their desecrated bodies were found, 
buried under a mound of dirt. A federal criminal civil rights 
investigation and prosecution led to convictions for some, but 
a hung jury for others. Final justice would come 40 years 
later, with a 2005 State prosecution.
    Legislative History.--Representative Lewis introduced H. 
Res. 1293 on June 20, 2008, and the bill was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On June 23, 2007, Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and the resolution 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 1345, Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United 
        States, of high crimes and misdemeanors

    Summary.--The resolution was composed of one article of 
impeachment against the President for deceiving Congress with 
fabricated threats of Iraq WMDs to fraudulently obtain support 
for an authorization of the use of military force against Iraq.
    Legislative History.--H. Res. 1346, was introduced by Rep. 
Dennis Kucinich July 15, 2008 and referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary. On July 15, 2008, Mr. Kucinich rose 
to a question of the privileges of the House and offered the 
resolution. Mr. Kucinich moved to refer the resolution to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The motion to refer was agreed to 
by the Yeas and Nays: 238-180 (Roll No. 492). The resolution 
was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

                          Oversight Activities


Oversight hearing on the Impact of Ledbetter v. Goodyear on the 
        Effective Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws

    Summary.--On June 28, 2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. 
Goodyear \219\ on the effective enforcement of civil rights 
laws. Testimony was received from: Lilly Ledbetter, plaintiff 
in Ledbetter v. Goodyear; Martha Chamallas, Professor of Law, 
The Ohio State University; Neal Mollen, Esq., on behalf of the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Marcia Greenberger, Co-President, 
National Women's Law Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \219\ Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., __U.S.__, 
127 S.Ct. 2162 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Ledbetter, the Supreme Court ruled that employees cannot 
challenge unlawful pay discrimination unless they file a claim 
within six months of the discriminatory pay-setting decision. 
In a sharply divided 5-4 decision, the Court interpreted Title 
VII's 180-day statute of limitations period as running from the 
date that an employer decides to pay an employee less rather 
than each time an employee earns or is paid less as a result. 
This ruling departed from prior interpretations of when victims 
of pay discrimination can file timely charges under Title VII. 
The case also raised questions about the effectiveness and 
fairness of statutory caps on damages for victims of 
discrimination based on sex, religion, or disability. In Ms. 
Ledbetter's case, the jury's award of compensatory and punitive 
damages against Goodyear for intentional sex discrimination was 
reduced by 90% because of the caps on damages contained in 
Section 1981a.
    The Subcommittee's oversight hearing examined the two 
issues arising from the Ledbetter case: (1) the Court's ruling 
with respect to when victims of pay discrimination can file 
timely charges; and (2) the adequacy and fairness of remedies 
for victims of intentional employment discrimination. Ms. 
Ledbetter testified that, after filing a complaint with the 
EEOC shortly before her retirement, she discovered that she was 
making from $600 to $1,500 per month less than her male 
counterparts due to the cumulative effect of smaller raises, as 
compared to those received by her male colleagues, during her 
nineteen years working for Goodyear. Ms. Ledbetter explained 
that, following a trial, the jury found that Goodyear 
discriminated against her based on sex and awarded her more 
than $3 million in compensatory and punitive damages, an amount 
that she felt provided a deterrent effect on Goodyear. 
Professor Martha Chamallas testified that the statutory caps on 
damages undermine the deterrent effect of the law, are 
arbitrary, and harm victims of the most egregious and severe 
forms of discrimination. Both Professor Chamallas and Marcia 
Greenberger testified that Congress should enact legislation to 
correct the Supreme Court's ruling on the statute of limitation 
for pay discrimination claims and to lift the statutory caps on 
damages. Neal Mollen testified that the Court's ruling 
regarding the time period for filing a claim of discrimination 
was appropriate as it would encourage the prompt filing and 
resolution of charges.

Joint oversight hearing on Rendition to Torture: the Case of Maher Arar

    Summary.--On October 18, 2007, the Subcommittee held the 
first of two joint hearings with the Subcommittee on 
International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs on rendition to torture 
(``extraordinary'' rendition). Testimony was received from: 
Maher Arar; Kent Roach, Prichard-Wilson Chair, Faculty of Law, 
University of Toronto; Frederick P. Hitz, Lecturer and Senior 
Fellow, Center for National Security Law, University of 
Virginia School of Law; Daniel Benjamin, Director, Center on 
the United States and Europe, The Brookings Institution; 
Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney, American Law 
Division, Congressional Research Service; David D. Cole, 
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
    This first hearing into rendition to torture featured 
testimony from Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was sent by 
U.S. officials to Syria, where he was imprisoned for nearly a 
year and tortured, and also explored, more generally, the 
evolution in the use of rendition as an interrogation tool 
following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the legality of this 
practice.
    Mr. Arar testified, via video hookup from Canada, that he 
was stopped by U.S. immigration officials while transiting 
through JFK airport in New York, detained for nearly two weeks, 
and then sent to Syria against his wishes and despite telling 
U.S. officials that he would be tortured there. Mr. Arar 
described his year in a Syrian jail cell as being held ``in a 
grave'' and how, during interrogations, he was beaten with a 
shredded electrical cable, punched, and blindfolded. He 
recalled being placed outside other interrogation rooms where 
he could hear prisoners screaming in pain during 
interrogations, explaining that ``the women's screams haunt me 
the most.'' After nearly a year, Mr. Arar was finally released 
by Syria without charge.
    Professor Roach, who was appointed to the commission 
convened by the Canadian government to investigate Mr. Arar's 
case following his release by Syria and return to Canada, 
testified that the Canadian Arar Commission concluded that 
there was no evidence that Mr. Arar had any ties to terrorism, 
and that Canadian intelligence officials mistakenly had passed 
misinformation about Mr. Arar to U.S. intelligence officials. 
Professor Roach explained that, despite secrecy concerns raised 
by government officials, the Commission had been able to review 
documents and testimony and publish an extensive report without 
any harmful public disclosure of sensitive national security 
information.
    Fred Hitz testified that he opposed the rendition of 
suspects for purposes of interrogation, explaining that the 
practice undermines international intelligence cooperation. Mr. 
Garcia explained applicable immigration removal laws and U.S. 
obligations under the Convention Against Torture, while 
Professor Cole testified that extraordinary rendition violates 
U.S. and International Law. Daniel Benjamin testified that U.S. 
rendition policy puts at risk the willingness of our allies to 
cooperate with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts and diminishes our 
moral standing in the world.

Oversight hearing on Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading 
        Treatment of Detainees: the Effectiveness and Consequences of 
        ``Enhanced'' Interrogation

    Summary.--On November 8, 2007, the Subcommittee held its 
first oversight hearing to investigate the use of aggressive 
and physically coercive interrogation techniques. This initial 
hearing explored claims that aggressive interrogation--beyond 
the standards set forth in the Army Field Manual--is necessary 
and effective when questioning detainees in the 
Administration's war on terror. Testimony was received from: 
Malcolm W. Nance, Anti-Terrorism/Counter-Terrorism Intelligence 
Specialist, former SERE Instructor; Steven Kleinman, Colonel, 
USAFR, Intelligence and National Security Specialist, Senior 
Intelligence Officer/Military Interrogator; Amrit Singh, Staff 
Attorney, ACLU.
    Malcolm Nance, a former instructor at the U.S. Navy 
Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) School, opposed 
Administration claims that ``waterboarding'' a detainee does 
not constitute torture and described the technique as ``an 
overwhelming experience that induces horror, triggers a frantic 
survival instinct'' and results in a subject answering 
questions with ``a truth, a half-truth, or outright lie in 
order to stop the procedure.'' Mr. Nance testified that, by 
lowering the standard on how it treats detainees, the U.S. was 
setting a harmful and dangerous standard for treatment of its 
own service members and that the reported mistreatment of 
detainees by the U.S. was increasing anti-American feelings in 
the Middle East. Colonel Steven Kleinman, an expert 
interrogator and human intelligence officer, testified that the 
conclusion that coercion is an effective means of obtaining 
reliable intelligence information ``is, in my professional 
opinion, unequivocally false.'' He further testified that the 
standards of conduct for interrogation contained in the Army 
Field Manual are sufficiently flexible to allow for fully 
effective interrogation. Amrit Singh, an attorney who has 
reviewed hundreds of official documents obtained in a FOIA 
lawsuit against the Administration, testified that official 
authorization of harsh techniques had opened the door to 
widespread abuse and torture of detainees as illustrated by the 
widespread abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. All 
three witnesses agreed that information gained through 
aggressive, coercive interrogation is not reliable and that 
using such techniques has damaged U.S. moral and legal standing 
in the world.

Oversight hearing on Reform of the State Secrets Privilege

    On January 29, 2008, the Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing to explore judicial development and executive branch 
usage of the state secret privilege, and the need for 
legislative action. Testimony was received from H. Thomas 
Wells, Jr., President-Elect, American Bar Association; Judith 
Loether, daughter of one of the victims of the plane crash at 
issue in U.S. v. Reynolds; Hon. Patricia Wald, retired Chief 
Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; 
Patrick Philbin, partner at Kirkland & Ellis; and Kevin 
Bankston, Senior Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation.
    Mr. Wells explained that congressional reform was necessary 
to address increased use of the privilege to seek dismissal of 
cases at the pleadings stage, noting that ``[i]n the absence of 
congressional guidance, courts have adopted divergent 
approaches'' to these cases, with some courts ``deferring to 
the Government without engaging in sufficient inquiry into the 
Government's assertion of the privilege.'' Judge Wald agreed 
that ``the courts sometimes are so deferential that if the 
Government makes in its affidavits even a prima facie plausible 
claim of state security being involved, they will shy away and 
they will not go beyond that.'' Like the ABA, Judge Wald 
supported legislation that would require ``serious judicial 
review'' of state secret claims, including review of the actual 
material that the government seeks to withhold. Judge Wald and 
Mr. Bankston emphasized the need for judges to have sufficient 
flexibility to fashion appropriate orders. ``The thrust of 
legislation on state secrets should be to emphasize judicial 
flexibility and creativity in finding alternatives to the 
original material that will permit the case to proceed whenever 
possible.'' Mr. Wells, Judge Wald, and Mr. Bankston emphasized 
that Congress should enact procedures and standards that 
require courts independently to review privilege claims, make 
every effort to allow cases to proceed, avoid premature and 
unjust dismissal of claims or cases, and require a 
nonprivileged substitute (e.g., a summary or redacted version) 
for privileged material where at all possible. Patrick Philbin 
agreed that Congress has the constitutional authority to codify 
the state secret privilege but cautioned against 
``undermin[ing] the executive's authority to protect national 
security information.'' Mr. Philbin testified that judges 
should defer to the executive branch's judgment as to what 
constitutes a state secret.

Oversight hearing on Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel

    Summary.--On February 14, 2008 the Subcommittee held the 
first in a series of oversight hearings into the role of 
Administration lawyers in the development of the 
Administration's interrogation policies. At this first hearing, 
testimony was received from: Steven G. Bradbury, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 
U.S. Department of Justice.
    Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 
Administration embarked on a aggressive and highly 
controversial program of harsh or ``enhanced'' interrogation of 
detainees suspected of connection to terrorism. This program 
was given legal approval by the Department of Justice in a 
series of secret opinions authored by the Department's Office 
of Legal Counsel. These OLC opinions authorized and justified 
severe treatment of detainees by, among other things, 
concluding that U.S. and International prohibitions on torture 
and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment did not prohibit 
``waterboarding,'' limiting ``torture'' to conduct causing 
``severe organ failure or death,'' denying detainees the 
baseline guarantee of ``humane'' treatment contained in the 
Geneva Conventions, and proclaiming that the President could 
authorize torture in his role as commander-in-chief. The 
opinions that have been made public have been criticized as 
poorly reasoned, result-oriented, and politically motivated. 
Ultimately, a number of these opinions were formally withdrawn 
by the Department.
    Press reports indicated that Administration lawyers in the 
White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of 
Justice all played in significant roles in developing and 
approving these interrogation methods.\220\ Over the course of 
2008, the Subcommittee held an extensive series of hearings to 
explore the role played by these lawyers and assess whether any 
U.S. or International laws may have been violated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \220\ Sands, The Green Light, Vanity Fair, May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first in this series, the Subcommittee's February 14, 
2008, hearing provided an opportunity to explore the substance 
and process of the OLC with the current head of that office, 
Steven Bradbury, who reportedly authored several controversial 
memoranda regarding interrogation of detained terror suspects. 
Mr. Bradbury testified that, since 9/11, the Central 
Intelligence Agency has operated a program of detention and 
interrogation of ``high value al Qaeda terrorists'' and that 
the CIA has used ``alternative'' or ``enhanced'' interrogation 
methods that go beyond what is permitted by the Army Field 
Manual. Mr. Bradbury acknowledged that certain detainees had 
been subject to ``waterboarding,'' but testified that this 
practice had not been used since 2003. Mr. Bradbury testified 
that the OLC reviewed the CIA program ``from the very 
beginning,'' and approved it. In explaining the OLC's analysis 
under the U.S. anti-torture statute, Mr. Bradbury testified 
that ``severe'' physical pain or suffering must take into 
account both the intensity and duration of the suffering so 
that something that doesn't last very long ``may not constitute 
severe physical suffering. To constitute severe mental pain or 
suffering, Mr. Bradbury testified that the interrogator would 
have to intend to cause prolonged mental harm to be unlawful. 
Mr. Bradbury further testified that interrogation techniques 
used by the CIA had been adapted from the SERE (Survival, 
Escape, Resistance, and Evasion) program, which is used by the 
U.S. to train its service members for how they may be treated 
by enemy nations who do not observe the laws of war.

From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration 
        Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part I

    Summary.--On May 6, 2008, the Subcommittee held its second 
hearing into the role of Administration lawyers in the 
development of the Administration's interrogation policies. 
Testimony was received from: David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, 
Baker Hostetler, LLP; David J. Luban, Professor of Law, 
Georgetown University Law Center; Marjorie Cohn, Professor of 
Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Philippe Sands, Professor 
of Law, University College London.
    At this hearing, Professor Phillipe Sands presented the 
findings of his investigation into the development and legal 
approval of the Administration's interrogation programs:

          [T]he Administration has spun a narrative that is 
        false, claiming that the impetus for the new 
        interrogation techniques came from the bottom-up. That 
        is not true: the abuse was a result of pressures and 
        actions driven from the highest levels of government. 
        The Administration claims that it simply followed the 
        law. My investigation indicated that--driven by 
        ideology--the Administration consciously sought legal 
        advice to set aside international constraints on 
        detainee interrogations. The Administration relied on a 
        small number of political appointees, lawyers with no 
        real background in military law, with extreme views on 
        executive power, and with an abiding contempt for 
        international rules like the Geneva Conventions.

    Professor Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers 
Guild, testified that ``top U.S. officials are liable for war 
crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act and torture under the 
Torture Statute.'' Georgetown law professor and legal ethics 
expert David Luban questioned whether an appropriate process 
had been followed in drafting these opinions and criticized 
their substance, testifying that ``the torture memos take 
enormous liberties with the law and reach eccentric 
conclusions.'' David Rifkin of the law firm Baker Hostetler, 
testifying for the minority, denounced what he described as a 
``witch hunt'' against the Administration lawyers who 
participated in drafting and approving interrogation policies.

Joint oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
        Inspector General Report OIG-08-18, The Removal of a Canadian 
        Citizen to Syria

    Summary.--On June 5, 2008, the Subcommittee held a second 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on International 
Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs on the rendition of Maher Arar to 
torture in Syria. Testimony was received from: Richard L. 
Skinner, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security; Clark Kent Ervin, Director, Homeland 
Security Program, The Aspen Institute; Scott Horton, 
Distinguished Visiting Professor, Hofstra Law School.
    This second joint hearing on rendition to torture focused 
on the DHS' Office of Inspector General investigation report 
regarding Mr. Arar's case. That report was the result of a 
four-year-long investigation, which initially had been 
requested by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., then the Ranking Member of 
the House Judiciary Committee in December 2003, just two months 
after Mr. Arar had been released by Syria. The publicly-
released report of that investigation reveals troubling facts 
regarding possible criminal misconduct. For example, the DHS 
OIG concluded that, after finding that it was ``more likely 
than not'' that Mr. Arar would be tortured if sent to Syria, 
INS officials still concluded that the United States could send 
Mr. Arar to Syria based on ``ambiguous'' assurances whose 
validity was not examined. This decision was made by former INS 
Commissioner James W. Ziglar, with attorneys from the Office of 
the Deputy Attorney General making key decisions and consulting 
with INS officials at various stages in the removal process.
    During the June 5, 2008 hearing, current DHS Inspector 
General Richard L. Skinner and former DHS Inspector General 
Clark Ervin testified that they believe that the removal of Mr. 
Arar to Syria may have violated criminal laws, including the 
Convention Against Torture and Federal Torture Statute. Mr. 
Ervin testified that the DHS OIG report led him to conclude 
that United States officials intended to render Mr. Arar to 
Syria, as opposed to Canada, because of the likelihood that he 
would be tortured in Syria and the certainty that he would not 
be tortured in Canada. Mr. Skinner and Mr. Horton agreed that a 
prima facie case of criminal misconduct could be made based on 
facts showing that high-ranking U.S. officials intentionally 
deprived Mr. Arar of the means to challenge his detention and 
transfer with the knowledge that he would be tortured upon 
transfer to Syria.

From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration 
        Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part II

    Summary.--On June 18, 2008, the Subcommittee held its third 
hearing into the role of Administration lawyers in the 
development of the Administration's interrogation policies. 
Testimony was received from: Daniel Levin, White & Case, LLP; 
David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler; Lawrence 
Wilkerson, Professor, College of William and Mary.
    Daniel Levin, former Acting Assistant Attorney General in 
charge of the Office of Legal Counsel described his experiences 
in seeking to draft a new legal opinion on the federal torture 
statute to replace the earlier John Yoo opinions that had been 
withdrawn. Like David Luban, who testified at the 
Subcommittee's May 6th hearing, he questioned the secretive 
process used to draft the earlier opinions. He also 
acknowledged under questioning that he had not voluntarily left 
the office and was removed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales 
at a time when he was trying to complete more restrictive 
opinions on interrogation. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former 
Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, testified that he had 
investigated this issue for Secretary Powell and had concluded 
that the flawed legal opinions developed to approve CIA 
interrogations had been co-opted by senior Administration 
officials such as David Addington and Defense Department Chief 
Counsel Jim Haynes for military use. Col. Wilkerson also 
described hearing from Secretary Powell that the Secretary 
believed that President Bush himself was complicit in these 
decisions. David Rivkin, appearing again for the minority at 
this hearing, again defended the conduct and ethics of 
Administration lawyers involved with interrogation issues.
    Douglas Feith, former Undersecretary of Defense for policy, 
was scheduled to appear at this hearing but withdrew his 
agreement to appear the day before the hearing because he was 
not willing to testify alongside Col. Wilkerson.

From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration 
        Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III

    Summary.--On June 26, 2008, the Subcommittee held its 
fourth hearing into the role of Administration lawyers in the 
development of the Administration's interrogation policies. 
Testimony was received from: David Addington, Chief of Staff, 
Vice President of the United States; Christopher Schroeder, 
Charles S. Murphy Professor of law and Public Policy Studies, 
Duke University; John Yoo, Professor, Boalt Hall School of Law, 
University of California at Berkeley.
    Mr. Addington and Professor Yoo defended their roles in 
developing and approving the Administration's interrogation 
program, while Professor Schroeder noted numerous criticisms of 
both the process and substance of their work. Both Mr. 
Addington and Mr. Yoo also minimized their responsibility for 
Administration actions in this area, with Mr. Addington 
testifying under questioning from Subcommittee Chairman Nadler 
that he was not morally or legally responsible for any wrongs 
that may have been committed in the Administration's 
interrogation program. Under questioning from Chairman Conyers, 
Professor Yoo was unwilling to identify any method of 
interrogation that the President could not lawfully order, and 
would not even say whether the President had legal authority to 
order a suspect buried alive. Mr. Addington also distanced 
himself from the controversial ``unitary executive'' theory of 
Presidential theory, claiming ``I don't know what it is.''

From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration 
        Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part IV

    Summary.--On July 15, 2008, the Subcommittee held its fifth 
hearing into the role of Administration lawyers in the 
development of the Administration's interrogation policies. 
Testimony was received from: Douglas Feith, Georgetown 
University (testifying pursuant to subpoena); Philippe Sands, 
Professor of law, University College London; Deborah 
Pearlstein, Visiting Scholar, Princeton University.
    This hearing explored Mr. Feith's role in approving harsh 
interrogations for use by the U.S. military and, under 
questioning by Subcommittee Chairman Nadler, Mr. Feith asserted 
that many extremely harsh interrogation techniques such as 20 
hour interrogation sessions, stress positions, isolation, 
nudity, and exploitation of phobias could be employed 
consistent with the Geneva Conventions. Professors Pearlstein 
and Sands sharply disputed that assertion, and much of the 
hearing consisted of an extended between Mr. Feith and 
Professor Sands--who had interviewed Mr. Feith for his book 
regarding the Administration's development of interrogation 
policy--regarding the honesty and accuracy of various prior 
statements by both.
    Professor Pearlstein testified that, based on her study of 
the issues, she believed that ``senior civilian legal and 
policy guidance was one of the key factors that led to the 
record of abuse [of U.S. detainees]'' and that ``the pattern of 
abuse [of U.S. detainees] followed a series of broad legal 
decisions (as other witnesses have addressed) to change what 
had been for decades settled U.S. law.''

From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration 
        Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part V

    Summary.--On July 17, 2008, the Full Committee held the 
sixth and final hearing regarding the role of Administration 
lawyers in the development of the Administration's 
interrogation policies. Testimony was received from: Hon. John 
Ashcroft, former Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Benjamin Wittes, Fellow and Research Director in Public Law, 
Brookings Institution; Walter Dellinger, Former Assistant 
Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of 
Justice.
    Attorney General Ashcroft defended the Administration's 
interrogation program and asserted that it had been lawful and 
had kept the nation safe. Mr. Ashcroft's testimony, however, 
acknowledged that the Department's legal guidance on 
interrogation came in early August 2002, and that he was not 
aware of any legal approval being given for interrogation 
activities that had been undertaken before that time, including 
the extremely harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydeh, who the CIA 
has acknowledged waterboarding. Mr. Ashcroft also described his 
decision not to accept John Yoo as head of the Office of Legal 
Counsel and the concerns that underlay that decision.
    Former Assistant Attorney General Dellinger testified that 
``It is indisputable that something went badly wrong with the 
Office of Legal Counsel'' during the early part of the Bush 
Administration. Mr. Dellinger further explained the core 
failure of the office as follows: ``[T]he drafters of the 
`torture memos' deviated from their duty to offer neutral legal 
advice, instead reaching a pre-determined and unsupportable 
legal conclusion.'' Mr. Wittes offered forward-looking 
testimony that asserted Congress had largely resolved the 
problem of detainee abuse through the Detainee Treatment Act 
and called for additional legislation to clarify standards for 
CIA interrogations. In addition, Mr. Wittes called for 
legislation authorizing the President to immunize interrogators 
who violate the law on Presidential orders so that 
accountability for such misconduct can be clearly focused on 
the President him or herself.

Oversight Hearing on Habeas Corpus and Detentions at Guantanamo Bay 
        (June 26, 2007)

    Summary.--This hearing focused on the Administration's 
Guantanamo detention policies and an exploration of the need to 
restore habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees in light 
of the inadequate substitutes in place for the detainees to 
challenge their detention. Witnesses at this hearing were: 
William Taft, IV, Of Counsel Resident at Fried, Frank; former 
legal adviser at the State Department under President George W. 
Bush; Lt. Commander Charles Swift, JAG Corps U.S. Navy; 
Jonathan Hafetz, Litigation Director of the Liberty and 
National Security Project at the Brennan Center for Justice; 
Gregory Katsas, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General of 
the United States; and Brad Berenson, Partner, Sidley Austin, 
LLP.

        HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
        Response to Air Quality Issues Arising from the Terrorist 
        Attacks of September 11, 2001: Were There Substantive Due 
        Process Violations? Serial 110-54

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on June 25, 2007, 
to investigate whether the EPA's response to the attacks on the 
World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 violated the rights of 
first responders, workers, students, and residents in the area 
by misrepresenting the health risks associated with the 
destruction of the buildings.
    The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, Whitman Strategy 
Group, and former EPA Administrator; John L. Henshaw, Henshaw & 
Associates, Inc., and former Administrator of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration; Samuel Thernstrom, American 
Enterprise Institute, and former Associate Director of the 
Council on Environmental Quality; Tina Kreisher, Communications 
Director U.S. Department of the Interior, and former Associate 
Administrator for Communications at EPA; David Newman, New York 
Committee of Occupational Safety and Health; Eileen McGinnis, 
Senior Vice President Whitman Strategy Group, and former Chief 
of Staff to then-Administrator Whitman at EPA; Marianne L. 
Horinko, Executive Vice President Global Environment & 
Technology Foundation, and formerly with EPA; and Suzanne Y. 
Mattei, Former New York City Executive of the Sierra Club.
    Ms. Mattei and Mr. Newman discussed the health impact of 
the destruction of the World Trade Center, and critiqued the 
manner in which the government had represented the ensuing 
health risks to first responders and the general public.
    Ms. Whitman, Mr. Henshaw, Mr. Thernstrom, Ms. Kreisher, Ms. 
McGinnis, and Ms. Horinko explained their perspectives on the 
manner in which the government managed the crisis from an 
environmental and health perspective.

Oversight Hearing on ``Paying with their Lives: The Status of 
        Compensation for 9/11 Health Effects''

    Summary.--This hearing was held jointly with the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 
Security, and International Law on April 1, 2008. The hearing 
examined the status of compensation for victims of the 
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center of September 11, 
2001. Specifically the hearing focused on the Captive Insurance 
Fund set up with a $1 billion appropriation to provide relief 
for individuals who had developed health problems as a result 
of exposure to toxins released as a result of the attacks.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \221\ Pub. L. No. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11, 517-518 (2nd Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Testifying at the hearing were: Kenneth R. Feinberg, Esq., 
Former Special Master Victim Compensation Fund; Michael 
Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, City of New York; Anne-Marie 
Lasowski, Acting Director, Education Workforce and Income 
Security, Government Accountability Office; Michael A. 
Valentin, Former NYPD Detective; Theodore H. Frank, Resident 
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, 
Research Director, AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest; 
James Melius, MD, Ph.D, Administrator, New York State Laborers' 
Health and Safety Trust Fund.
    Mr. Feinberg discussed ways to provide appropriate funding 
and administration to ensure that uncompensated victims 
received assistance. Ms. Lasowski provided background on the 
track record of four earlier federal programs designed to 
assist individuals who had experienced serious health effects 
as a result of exposure to dangerous materials. While Mr. Frank 
expressed support for the Victims Compensation Fund 
administered by Mr. Feinberg in the wake of the attacks, he 
expressed the concern that proposals to provide compensation 
for individuals suffering serious health effects was overbroad 
in its application, and too narrow in its protection of 
contractors facing litigation. Dr. Melius discussed the health 
effects being experienced by the affected individuals. 
Detective Valentin gave a personal account of those health 
effects and their impact on him and thousands of other first 
responders.

              LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Oversight Hearing on Law Enforcement Confidential Informant Practices

    Summary.--On July 19, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a joint 
Oversight Hearing on Law Enforcement Confidential Informant 
Practices. Witnesses at the hearing included: Wayne M. Murphy, 
Assistant District, Director of Intelligence, FBI; Professor 
Alexandra Natapoff, Loyola Law School; Commander Pat O'Burke, 
Deputy Commander, Narcotics Service, Texas Department of Public 
Safety; Dorothy Johnson Speight, Founder, Mothers In Charge; 
Ronald E. Brook, President, National Narcotic Officers' 
Association Coalition and Reverend Markel Hutchins, Minister 
and Civil Rights Leader.
    This oversight hearing was the first in a series that 
explored law enforcement practices and their impact on civil 
and constitutional rights. The witnesses testified about the 
use of confidential informants, particularly in drug 
enforcement, and why their use persisted despite controversy. 
The witnesses also testified about how the use of confidential 
informants has influenced the practice of plea bargaining, 
increased the potential for abuse due to the inherent secrecy 
of the practice, and has affected poor and minority 
communities. Assistant District Murphy testified about existing 
federal guidelines and suggested policies designed to curb the 
potential for abuse.

Oversight Hearing on Jena 6 and the Role of Federal Intervention in 
        Hate Crimes and Race-Related Violence in Public Schools

    Summary.--On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, the Committee on 
the Judiciary convened an oversight hearing on Jena 6 and the 
Role of Federal Intervention in Hate Crimes and Race-Related 
Violence in Public Schools. The hearing witnesses were Mr. 
Donald Washington, U.S. Attorney, Western District of 
Louisiana; Mr. Richard Cohen, President and CEO, Southern 
Poverty Law Center; Reverend Al Sharpton, President, National 
Action Network; Professor Charles Ogletree, Director, Charles 
Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, Harvard Law 
School; Reverend Brian Moran, Pastor, Jena Antioch Baptist 
Church, President, NAACP Jena Chapter; and Minority Witness: 
Ms. Lisa Krigsten, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Civil Rights Division.
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the role of the 
federal government as it pertains to hate crimes, race-related 
school violence, and disparities within the juvenile criminal 
justice system in the context of Jena. While the high profile, 
controversial case of the Jena 6 warrants federal oversight, 
the hearing was meant to shed light on other inequities on the 
basis of race within the nation's school discipline and legal 
systems. The Jena 6 matter was not an isolated incident, but 
rather part of a nationwide issue, that could be used as a 
vehicle for a larger discussion of concerns about the 
inequitable application of rules and laws, particularly with 
respect to African American males. This hearing also discussed 
the federal remedies available for those students and juveniles 
who have been subjected to discriminatory and biased treatment 
by school administrators, prosecutors, judges, and law 
enforcement, for example.

New York Forum on Law Enforcement Accountability

    Summary.--On May 9, 2008, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties sponsored a forum 
on Law Enforcement Accountability in New York City in the wake 
of the highly publicized shooting of an unarmed man on the 
night before his wedding by officers of the New York Police 
Department. Witnesses at the forum included: Rachel Harmon, 
Professor, University of Virginia School of Law (former federal 
prosecutor with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, 
Criminal Section); Dr. Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman of 
the United States Commission on Civil Rights and Endowed Chair 
at the University of Pennsylvania; Chris Stone, Professor, 
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Deborah 
Ramirez, Professor, Northeastern University; Hazel Dukes, New 
York NAACP; Revered Al Sharpton, National Action Network; Kamau 
Franklin, Racial Justice Fellow, Center for Constitutional 
Rights and Michael Hardy, Esq., Counsel for the Sean Bell 
family.
    The forum was intended to inform the community of the 
federal role in overseeing the operations of state and local 
law enforcement agencies, similar to fora that the Judiciary 
Committee held in Los Angeles and Miami following high profile 
allegations of police misconduct. The forum also served as the 
Committee's initial inquiry into law enforcement accountability 
issues and potential legislative solutions as they pertained to 
the shooting of Sean Bell. The academic expert witnesses 
testified about existing federal authority to oversee the 
activities of state and local law enforcement and suggested 
possible amendment to existing authority that would improve law 
enforcement reform practices. The local expert witness provided 
context for the discussion regarding the ways in which police 
and community relations can be enhanced in light of often 
deteriorating community confidence in the police.

                        CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

Hearing on ``Changing Tides: Exploring the Current State of Civil 
        Rights Enforcement Within the Department of Justice,'' Serial 
        No. 110-44

    Summary.--On Thursday, March 22, 2007, the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties conducted 
an oversight hearing to examine the enforcement record of the 
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and to 
evaluate the Division's progress in accomplishing its mission 
to end discrimination. The following witnesses testified before 
the Subcommittee: Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division; William Taylor, 
Chair, Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights; Joseph Rich, 
Director of the Fair Housing Community Development Project, 
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Roger Clegg, 
President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity; 
and Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on 
Civil Rights.
    Mr. Kim testified that while much has been achieved under 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws, the 
Civil Rights Division's daily work demonstrates that 
discrimination still exists. He then highlighted several civil 
rights cases filed by the Department. Mr. Taylor testified that 
as the Civil Rights Division approached its 50th anniversary, 
it is in deep trouble because the Bush Administration has used 
it as a vessel for its own political objectives, often 
disregarding the law and sullying the group's reputation for 
professionalism and integrity. Mr. Rich testified that during 
the Bush Administration, a dramatic change had taken place; 
there appeared to be a conscious effort to remake the 
Division's career staff. He said that political appointees 
often assumed an attitude of hostility toward career staff, 
exhibited a general distrust for recommendations made by them, 
and were very reluctant to meet with them to discuss their 
recommendations. Mr. Clegg testified that since Congress 
appropriates money for the Civil Rights Division and wants it 
to enforce the laws it has passed, it makes sense for the 
members to keep an eye on what sort of job the Division is 
doing--so long, of course, as the oversight process does not 
become so onerous that it actually prevents the Division from 
doing its job. Mr. Henderson testified that over the last six 
years, politics have trumped substance and altered the 
prosecution of our nation's civil rights laws in many parts of 
the Civil Rights Division. He explained that while the Division 
is charged with enforcing federal civil rights statutes aimed 
at eliminating discrimination and ensuring equal treatment and 
equal justice under law, recent decisions made within the 
Division have reversed long-standing civil rights policies and 
have impeded civil rights progress.

Oversight Hearing on Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights 
        Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Serial No. 110-91

    Summary.--On Tuesday, September 25, 2007, the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties 
conducted an oversight hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the Employment Litigation Section in enforcing federal statutes 
designed to prevent employment discrimination. The following 
witnesses testified before the Subcommittee: Asheesh Agarwal, 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division; Richard Ugelow, Practitioner In 
Residence, American University Washington College of Law; Janet 
Caldero, Beechhurst, NY; Eric S. Dreiband, Partner, Akin Gump 
Strauss Hauer & Feld; and Jocelyn Frye, General Counsel, 
Workplace Fairness Program, National Partnership for Women and 
Families.
    Asheesh Agarwal testified that the Civil Rights Division 
remains diligent in combating employment discrimination and 
highlighted a few of the Employment Litigation Section's cases. 
Mr. Ugelow testified that eliminating discrimination against 
African-Americans was at the heart of the creation of the Civil 
Rights Division. He then explained that the Employment 
Litigation mandate was conscientiously fulfilled in an even-
handed and judicious fashion by both Republican and Democratic 
Administrations, until the George W. Bush administration. He 
said the Bush Administration sought to significantly limit 
enforcement in the area of discrimination targeted to African 
Americans and Latinos. Ms. Caldero testified about one of 
several cases where the Department changed positions, the U.S. 
v. The New York City Board. She said that DOJ switched from 
defending the civil rights of women and minority plaintiffs to 
being their opponent. She said she trusted the Justice 
Department, and then it betrayed and abandoned her and many 
others. Mr. Dreiband testified that it is important to remember 
that the folly and disgrace of unlawful discrimination 
continues to plague our nation. He said that enforcement of the 
civil rights laws vests the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division 
with sacred responsibilities that speak to the very essence of 
who we are as a people, and who we aspire to be. Ms. Frye 
testified that the past six and one-half years under the Bush 
Administration have prompted serious, troubling questions about 
the strength and scope of the Employment Section's Title VII 
enforcement efforts. Among the concerns, she pointed out: the 
decline in the Employment Section's overall enforcement and 
litigation numbers; perceptions of decreased emphasis on cases 
that traditionally have been a high priority, such as race 
discrimination cases involving African Americans; fewer pattern 
or practice cases and disparate impact cases that could be used 
to uncover systemic practices that affect large numbers of 
employees; reversals of legal positions in key cases, resulting 
in less protection for discrimination victims and making it 
much harder for discrimination victims to vindicate their 
rights; and allegations of improper political influence 
affecting attorney hiring and case decisions.

Oversight Hearing on Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights 
        Division, Serial No. 110-156

    Summary.--On Tuesday, October 30, 2007, the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties conducted 
an oversight hearing to review the Voting Section's progress in 
accomplishing its mission to end discrimination in voting and 
to enhance voting opportunities. In addition the hearing 
examined the allocation of Department of Justice resources 
devoted toward eradicating obstacles to the franchise. The 
following witnesses testified before the Subcommittee: John 
Tanner, Chief, Voting Section, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division (CRT); Laughlin McDonald, Director--ACLU 
Voting Rights Project; Toby Moore, former Geographer/Social 
Science Analyst of the Voting Section, U.S. Department of 
Justice, CRT; Bob Driscoll, Partner Alston & Bird, LLP; and 
Julie Fernandes, Senior Policy Analyst and Special Counsel--
Leadership Conference for Civil Rights
    Mr. Tanner testified that the Voting Section remains 
committed to the continued enforcement of the Nation's voting 
rights laws and highlighted several cases from the Voting 
Section case docket. Mr. McDonald testified that the 
revelations of partisan bias in the Civil Rights Division 
Voting Section's decision making create a lack of confidence 
and trust in the section. He explained that partisan bias 
undermines the section's effectiveness and calls into question 
the section's decisions about what to investigate and what kind 
of cases to bring. He pointed out that the section's recent 
actions are a clear signal that partisanship can trump racial 
fairness, and thus increases the likelihood that minorities 
will be manipulated to advance partisan goals. Mr. Moore 
testified that broad generalizations, deliberate misuse of 
statistics, and casual supposition, were preferred over the 
analytical rigor, impartiality and scrupulous attention to 
detail after Tanner became the chief of the Voting Section in 
2005. Mr. Driscoll testified about the need for the Civil 
Rights Division to balance voters' access to the polls with 
ensuring ballot integrity. Ms. Fernandes testified that in 
recent years the Voting Section has turned away from its 
historic mandate. She explained that instead of promoting 
access to the polls, the Voting Section has used its 
enforcement authority to deny access and promote barriers to 
block legitimate voters from participating in the political 
process. As examples, she cited the decline in voting 
discrimination cases filed on behalf of African Americans, the 
decrease in the National Voter Registration Act enforcement 
cases; a change in the Department's position on significant 
legal questions such as the impact of photo identification 
requirements; and the increased emphasis in voter fraud which 
often has a chilling effect on the participation of minority 
voters, particularly in jurisdictions where there is a history 
of disfranchisement efforts targeting racial and ethnic 
minorities.

Oversight Hearing on Voter Suppression, Serial No. 110-100

    Summary.--On Tuesday, February 26, 2008, the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties 
conducted an oversight hearing on vote suppression to examine 
whether the enforcement actions of the Department of Justice 
were protecting voting rights or instead promoting barriers to 
the franchise. The following witnesses testified before the 
Subcommittee: Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division; J. 
Gerald Hebert, Executive Director and Director of Litigation, 
The Campaign Legal Center; Hilary O. Shelton, Director, 
Washington Bureau of the NAACP; Rep. Tom Emmer, Deputy Minority 
Leader, Minnesota State House of Representatives; and Lorriane 
C. Minnite, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 
Barnard College, Columbia University.
    Mr. Agarwal testified that the Bush Administration is 
committed to vigorously enforcing the Voting Rights Act, 
recently reauthorized in 2006. He assured members that the 
Department would vigorously defend the statute's 
constitutionality in federal court. Mr. Hebert testified that 
vote suppression and racially targeted vote caging schemes 
threaten the integrity of our elections and undermine our 
democracy. He outlined the steps that should be taken by the 
U.S. Department of Justice now to prevent caging and other 
efforts to use law enforcement machinery to advance partisan 
goals. Mr. Shelton testified that the number of voter 
suppression cases brought by the current Department of Justice 
does not reflect the number of complaints of people across the 
Nation who feel their rights have been violated. Shelton said 
that the NAACP, as well as representatives from almost every 
other civil and voting rights organization, all report an 
increase in the number of Americans--primarily racial and 
ethnic minority Americans--who say that they have been denied 
their Constitutional right to register and vote. Mr. Emmer 
explained that it is imperative to maintain the integrity of 
the electoral process and thus the public confidence in that 
process. Mr. Minnite testified that voter fraud is rare, and 
the cure is worse than the disease. She questioned the purpose 
of the Department of Justice's Ballot Access and Voting 
Integrity Initiative, pointing out that the program has turned 
up very little individual voter fraud.

Oversight Hearing on the Enforcement of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 
        Serial No. 110-183

    Summary.--On Thursday, June 12, 2008 the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held an 
oversight hearing on the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act by 
the Housing Section of the Civil Rights Division (CRT) of the 
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Fair Housing 
and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD). This hearing coincided with the 40th 
Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act. The following witnesses 
testified before the Subcommittee: Jessie Liu, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General, DOJ, CRT; Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary, 
HUD, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD; James 
Carr, Chief Operating Officer, National Community Reinvestment 
Coalition (NCR); Shanna L. Smith, President & CEO, National 
Fair Housing Alliance; Suzanne Sangree, Chief Solicitor, City 
of Baltimore Law Department; Stan Liebowitz, Ashbel Smith 
Professor of Economics Director, Center for the Analysis of 
Property Rights and Innovation School of Management, University 
of Texas at Dallas; and Audrey Wiggins, Director, Fair Housing 
Environmental Justice, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
Under Law.
    Mr. Liu testified that the Housing Section is strongly 
committed to enforcing the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the 
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Ms. Kendrick testified that 
housing discrimination persists. She explained that HUD studies 
show that African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and 
Native Americans receive consistently unfavorable treatment at 
least 20 percent of the time when they seek to purchase or rent 
a home. Mr. Carr testified that our federal fair housing 
enforcement efforts are failing to protect the interests of 
America's working families and minority homebuyers. Ms. Smith 
testified that the lack of enforcement of federal fair housing 
laws by the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development is the main cause of the mismatch between 
the high incidence of housing discrimination and the low 
incidence of complaints of housing discrimination. She 
explained that landlords, real estate agents, lenders, 
insurance agents and others have limited fear of getting caught 
in the act of discriminating simply because neither the 
federal, state nor local governments have made fair housing 
enforcement a priority. Even those who are prosecuted often pay 
such a small penalty that discrimination becomes just another 
cost of doing business. As a result, housing providers continue 
to discriminate and our country remains highly segregated. Ms. 
Sangree testified that Baltimore is a case study of the damage 
that has befallen cities in the absence of aggressive federal 
enforcement of this nation's civil rights laws, especially the 
Fair Housing Act of 1968. She explained that lax enforcement of 
the Fair Housing Act, combined with federal relaxation of 
federal banking regulations and federal preemption of states' 
ability to regulate lenders, created an environment in which 
racially discriminatory predatory lending flourished. Mr. 
Liebowitz testified that the disarray of the current mortgage 
market is the result of claims that minorities were being 
denied mortgages because of racial discrimination. Ms. Wiggins 
testified about the failures of the U.S. Department of Justice 
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
enforce the Fair Housing Act. She explained that Communities 
have been obligated to act as principal prosecutors of the Fair 
Housing Act, as a result of DOJ's de-emphasis, if not refusal, 
on bringing disparate impact cases based on race, failures in 
the complaint process of HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity, and a cut in funding to private and local 
government fair housing agencies, have burdened communities to 
act as principal enforcers of the Fair Housing Act.

Hearings of Lessons Learned From the 2004 Presidential Election, Serial 
        No. 110-199

    Summary.--On Thursday, July 24, 2008, the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held an 
oversight hearing to examine the range of voting problems 
encountered during the 2004 presidential election in order to 
glean key lessons that can be applied to recurring voting 
problems before the 2008 general election. The Committee also 
examined the proactive measures that could be taken by the 
Department of Justice, Election Assistance Commission, and 
local and state election officials to effectively address 
potential voting problems. The following witnesses testified 
before the Subcommittee: J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ronald Reagan 
Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy--Buckeye Institute; Dan 
Tokaji, Associate Professor of Law, Associate Director, 
Election Law--Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law; 
Cleta Mitchell, Partner--Foley & Lardner LLP; Gilda Daniels, 
Assistant Professor of Law--University of Baltimore School of 
Law; Hans Von Spakovsky, Visiting Scholar The Heritage 
Foundation; J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director & Director of 
Litigation--The Campaign Legal Center.
    Witnesses testified about election administration problems 
that arose in the course of Ohio's 2004 presidential election. 
Witnesses also discussed broader lessons that could be learned 
from Ohio's experience in 2004 as a means to guide preparatory 
efforts for the 2008 general election.

Joint Hearing on Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Prepare for the 
        2008 Election--Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 
        and Civil Liberties, Committee on the Judiciary, Joint with 
        Subcommittee on Elections Committee on House Administration

    Summary.--On Wednesday, September 24, 2008, the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties and the Subcommittee on Elections held a joint 
oversight hearing to examine federal, state, and local efforts 
to prepare for the 2008 election. The following witnesses 
testified before the Subcommittees: David M. Farrell, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of State and Director of Elections--Office 
of the Ohio Secretary of State; Pedro Cortes, Secretary of the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Rokey W. Suleman, General 
Registrar, Fairfax County Office of Elections; Doug Lewis, 
Director, National Association of Election Officials; Grace 
Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division; Paul F. Hancock, 
Partner, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP; 
Karen K. Narasaki, Executive Director, Asian American Justice 
Center; Bryan P. O'Leary, Public Policy Consultant, Crowell 
Moring; James Terry, Chief Public Advocate--Consumers Rights 
League; Jocelyn Benson, Assistant Professor--Wayne State 
University Law School; Kristen Clarke Avery, Co-Director, 
Political Participation Group--NAACP Legal Defense Fund
    Witnesses acknowledged the significant increase in the 
number of voters--more than 3.5 million new voters, up 64% from 
the same period 4 years ago. The witnesses discussed the 
proactive and preemptive steps that will and should be taken by 
federal, state, and local officials to address election 
administration and voting rights issues likely to arise during 
the 2008 Presidential election in order to ensure a fair 
election.
  SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 26, 
2007, and February 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, 
             Chairman

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
TOM FEENEY, Florida                  RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WisconsinELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   Georgia
RIC KELLER, Florida                  BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
                                     ZOE LOFGREN, California
                                     BETTY SUTTON, Ohio

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Public:
    Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.....................    87
    Legislation on which hearings were held......................     4
    Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.........     4
    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.................     1
    Legislation pending before the full Committee................     2
    Legislation reported to the House............................     2
    Legislation discharged from the Committee....................     2
    Legislation pending in the House.............................     0
    Legislation passed by the House..............................     3
    Legislation pending in the Senate............................     3
    Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).........     0
    Legislation enacted into Public Law..........................     0
    Legislation enacted into Public Law as part of other 
      legislation................................................     1
    Days of legislative hearings.................................     4
    Days of oversight hearings...................................    11

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property has jurisdiction over the following subject matters: 
copyright, patent and trademark law, information technology, 
administration of U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of Evidence and 
Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, other matters referred by 
the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

                         Legislative Activities


                                 COURTS

H.R. 1955, the ``Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism 
        Prevention Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Jane Harman, H.R. 
1955 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new 
section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization and 
homegrown terrorism. The bill 1) establishes within the 
legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of 
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, 2) directs the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a 
university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent 
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism that will assist 
officials through training, and 3) prohibits Department of 
Homeland Security from violating the civil rights of U.S. 
citizens or lawful permanent residents in its efforts to 
prevent homegrown terrorism.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1955 was introduced April 19, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on June 25, 2007. The bill was discharged from the 
Committee on the Judiciary October 16, 2007 upon reporting of 
the bill by the Committee on Homeland Security, as amended. On 
October 23, 2007, under suspension of the rules the House 
passed the bill, as amended, by a roll call of 404-6. The 
following day H.R. 1955 was read twice and referred to the 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

H.R. 1979, the ``Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Robert B. Aderholt, 
H.R. 1979 requires each federal and state court to recognize 
any lawful notarization occurring in or affecting interstate 
commerce which is made by a notary public licensed or 
commissioned under the laws of a state other than the state 
where the court is located.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1979 was introduced on April 20, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on May 4, 2007. On July 
10, 2007, under suspension of the rules the House passed H.R. 
1979 without amendment by voice vote. The following day H.R. 
1979 was received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 2128, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Steve Chabot, H.R. 
2128 authorizes the presiding judge of a U.S. appellate 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 except when such 
action would constitute a violation of the due process rights 
of any party. At the request of any witness in a trial 
proceeding other than a party, a judge may order the face and 
voice of the witness to be disguised to render the witness 
unrecognizable to the broadcast audience. The bill also 
authorizes the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
promulgate advisory guidelines regarding the management and 
administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or 
televising of court proceedings.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2128 was introduced on May 3, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on June 4, 2007. The bill 
was discharged from the Subcommittee on September 20, 2007. On 
October 24, 2007 the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
session mark-up and ordered favorably reported H.R. 2128, as 
amended, by a roll call of 17-11.

H.R. 3086, to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide, in the 
        case of certain widows and widowers whose judicial survivors' 
        annuities are terminated on account of remarriage, for the 
        restoration of benefits upon the dissolution of the remarriage

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Vic Snyder, H.R. 
3086, amends the federal judicial code with respect to certain 
widows and widowers whose judicial survivors' annuities are 
terminated on account of remarriage before age 55. The bill 
would require restoration of such benefits, at the same rate, 
upon the dissolution of the remarriage by death, divorce, or 
annulment, if specified requirements are met.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3086 was introduced on July 18, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on August 10, 2007. While 
no action was taken on H.R. 3086 directly, similar language 
passed the House on September 27, 2008 as part of H.R. 7082, a 
bill dealing with the disclosure of inmate tax returns. This 
legislation became Pub. Law 110-428 on October 15, 2008.

H.R. 3174, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Susan Davis, H.R. 
3174 amends the federal judicial code to allow for review by 
writ of certiorari of certain cases denied relief or review by 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3174 was introduced on July 2, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on September 10, 2007. On 
September 27, 2008, under suspension of the rules the House 
passed H.R. 3174 by voice vote. The bill was received by the 
Senate on September 29, 2008. On October 2, 2008, H.R. 3174 was 
read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary.

H.R. 3753, the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 3753 authorizes salaries of the following categories of 
federal judicial officers to be increased: judges of the United 
States district courts appointed under section 133(a) of title 
28, United States Code, judges of the United States courts of 
appeals appointed under section 44(a) of title 28, United 
States Code, associate justices of the United States Supreme 
Court provided for in section 1 of title 28, United States 
Code, and the Chief Justice of the United States provided for 
in section 1 of title 28, United States Code.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3753 was introduced on October 
4, 2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
December 12, 2007, the Committee on the Judiciary met in an 
open session mark-up and ordered H.R. 3753 reported as amended 
by a roll call of 28-5. No further action was taken on the 
bill.

H.R. 3921, to provide nationwide subpoena authority for actions brought 
        under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Timothy Bishop, H.R. 
3921 amends the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 
to allow a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a 
trial or hearing conducted under such Act to be served at any 
place in the United States.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3921 was introduced on October 
22, 2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
October 24, 2007, the Committee ordered the bill reported 
without amendment by voice vote. On October 29, 2007 the bill 
was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. (H. Rep. 110-
413). No further action was taken on this bill, however its 
contents were included in S. 2106, a bill to provide nationwide 
subpoena authority for actions brought under the September 11 
Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, which was signed into law as 
Pub. Law 110-113.

H.R. 4854, the False Claims Corrections Act of 2007

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Howard L. Berman, 
H.R. 4854 amends the False Claims Act to revise requirements 
and procedures governing civil actions for false claims (qui 
tam actions) brought by private persons. The bill repeals the 
requirement that a false or fraudulent claim for payment must 
be presented directly to a federal employee or member of the 
Armed Forces (thus tying liability for such claims directly to 
federal money and property, regardless to whom the claim is 
presented).
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4854 was introduced on December 
17, 2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
February 25, 2008, H.R. 4854 was referred to both the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property. On June 19, 2008, the Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property and the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law held a joint legislative 
hearing on H.R. 4854. Witnesses at the hearing included Albert 
Campbell, a qui tam relator from Winter Springs, FL; Shelley 
Slade, Partner, Vogel, Slade & Goldstein, LLP, Washington, DC; 
Peter B. Hutt II, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 
Washington, DC, representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and 
James B. Helmer, Jr., President, Helmer, Martins, Rice & Popham 
Company, L.P.A., Cincinnati, OH. On July 16, 2008, the 
Committee ordered the bill reported, as amended, by voice vote. 
On the same day, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and 
Intellectual Property and the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law discharged the bill.

H.R. 6146, to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit 
        recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Steve Cohen, H.R. 
6156 amends the federal judicial code to prohibit a domestic 
court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for 
defamation that is based upon a publication concerning a public 
figure or a matter of public concern, unless the domestic court 
determines that the judgment is consistent with the First 
Amendment of the Constitution.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6146 was introduced on May 22, 
2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
September 27, 2008, under suspension of the rules the House 
passed H.R. 6146 as amended by voice vote. On September 29, 
2008, the Senate received H.R. 6146.

H.R. 6610, to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver 
        of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, 
H.R. 6610 amends the Federal Rules of Evidence to specify under 
what circumstances a disclosure of a communication or 
information covered by the attorney-client privilege and work 
product protection may be waived for purposes of other federal 
and state proceedings.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6610 was introduced on July 24, 
2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No 
further action was taken on H.R. 6610, although similar 
legislation, S. 2450, became Pub. Law 110-402. See S. 2450 for 
further action.

H.R. 6855, to extend the authority for the United States Supreme Court 
        Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court 
        grounds, and for other purposes

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Lamar Smith, H.R. 
6855 extends through calendar year 2013 the authority of the 
United States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials 
off the Supreme Court grounds and changes the title of the 
Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice to Counselor to 
the Chief Justice.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6855 was introduced on September 
10, 2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
September 17, 2008, under suspension of the rules, the House 
passed H.R. 6855 by voice vote. On September 22, 2008 the bill 
was received in the Senate. The text of H.R. 6855 was 
incorporated in S. 3296, to extend the authority of the United 
States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the 
Supreme Court Grounds and change the title of the 
Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, which became 
Public Law 110-402. See S. 3296 for further action.

H.R. 7321, the ``Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), 
H.R. 7321 provides for emergency bridge loans to automobile 
manufacturers. Section 19 of the bill authorized a cost of 
living adjustment for FY2009 for justices and judges of the 
United States.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 7321 was introduced on December 
10, 2008 and was referred to several House committees including 
the Committee on the Judiciary. On December 11, 2008, the House 
passed H.R. 7321 without amendment by a recorded vote of 237-
170, and 1 present. The bill was received by the Senate on 
December 12, 2008.

S. 2106, a bill to provide nationwide subpoena authority for actions 
        brought under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Joseph Biden, S. 2106 
amends the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 to 
allow a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a 
trial or hearing conducted under such Act to be served at any 
place in the United States.
    Legislative History.--S. 2106 was introduced September 27, 
2007 and was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 
On October 3, 2007, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
discharged the bill by unanimous consent. On the same day, the 
Senate passed S. 2106 by unanimous consent. On October 4, 2007, 
the bill was received by the House and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On October 30, 2007, under 
suspension of the rules, the House passed S. 2106 without 
amendment by voice vote. On November 8, 2007, S. 2106 was 
signed by the President and became Public Law 110-113.

S. 2450, to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver 
        of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, S. 2450 
amends the Federal Rules of Evidence to specify under what 
circumstances a disclosure of a communication or information 
covered by the attorney-client privilege and work product 
protection may be waived for purposes of other federal and 
state proceedings.
    Legislative History.--S. 2450 was introduced December 11, 
2007 and was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 
On January 31, 2008, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
ordered the bill reported favorably, without amendment. The 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill on February 
25, 2008. (S. Rpt. 110-264). On February 27, 2008, the Senate 
passed S. 2450 without amendment by unanimous consent. The bill 
was received by the House and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary on February 28, 2008. On September 8, 2008, under 
suspension of the rules, the House passed S. 2450 by voice 
vote. On September 19, 2008, the bill was signed by the 
President and became Public Law 110-322.

S. 3296, a bill to extend the authority of the United States Supreme 
        Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court 
        Grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to 
        the Chief Justice

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, S. 3296 
extends through calendar year 2013 the authority of the United 
States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the 
Supreme Court grounds, changes the title of the Administrative 
Assistant to the Chief Justice to Counselor to the Chief 
Justice, and prohibits a judicial officer from accepting a gift 
of an honorary club membership with a value of more than $50 in 
any calendar year.
    Legislative History.--S. 3296 was introduced on July 21, 
2008 and was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 
On September 11, 2008, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
ordered the bill reported favorably, without amendment and 
without written report. On September 25, 2008, the Senate 
passed S. 3296, with an amendment, by unanimous consent. The 
bill was received by the House the same day. On September 29, 
2008, under suspension of the rules, the House passed the bill 
by voice vote. On October 13, 2008, S. 3296 was signed by the 
President and became Public Law 110-402.

S. 3569, the Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 
        2008

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Charles Schumer, S. 3569 
makes a number of changes related to federal court and jury 
management.
    Legislative History.--S. 3569 was introduced on September 
24, 2008 and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On 
September 27, 2008, the bill was discharged by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and was passed by the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent. On the same day the House 
received and passed the bill under suspension of the rules by 
voice vote. On October 13, 2008, the bill was signed by the 
President and became Public Law 110-406.

H. Res. 263, Recognizing National Foster Care Month as an opportunity 
        for Congress to improve the foster care system throughout the 
        United States

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Dennis Cardoza, H. 
Res. 263 provided that, in recognition of National Foster Care 
Month, and in order to improve the foster care system 
throughout the United States, it is the sense of the House of 
Representatives that Congress should ensure that improving the 
foster care system remains a top priority for both Congress and 
the Nation.
    Legislative History.--H. Res. 263 was introduced March 23, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on April 20, 2007. On May 
15, 2007, under suspension of the rules the House passed H. 
Res. 263 by voice vote.

                               COPYRIGHT

H.R. 2060, the ``Internet Radio Equality Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Jay Inslee, H.R. 
2060 nullifies the March 2, 2007, Determination of Rates and 
Terms of the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board regarding rates and 
terms for the digital performance of sound recordings and 
ephemeral recordings, the April 17, 2007 modification of that 
determination, and any subsequent modifications by the 
Copyright Royalty Judges published in the Federal Register. The 
bill goes on to revise the standards for determining reasonable 
rates and terms of royalty payments for public performances of 
sound recordings by means of eligible nonsubscription 
transmission services and new subscription services. The bill 
also requires the Federal Communications Commission to report, 
upon commencement of proceedings of the Copyright Royalty 
Judges to determine the aforementioned rates and terms, on the 
effect of such proposals on localism, diversity, and 
competition in the Internet radio marketplace.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2060 was introduced on April 26, 
2007 and was referred to both the Committee on the Judiciary 
and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred 
to the Subcommittee on May 4, 2007. No further action was taken 
on the bill. A related measure, H.R. 7084, the Webcaster 
Settlement Act of 2008, which extends the period in which 
copyright owners and webcasters can negotiate terms different 
from those set by the Copyright Royalty Board, became Public 
Law 110-435. See H.R. 7084 for further action.

H.R. 3015, to delay the applicability to webcasters of rates and terms 
        determined by the Copyright Royalty Judges for certain 
        statutory licenses under title 17, United States Code

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Steve Chabot, H.R. 
3015 delays the effective date of the rates and terms 
determined by the Copyright Royalty Judges for statutory 
licenses for the transmission of sound recordings by 60 days 
beginning on July 15, 2007.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3015 was introduced on July 12, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet 
and Intellectual Property, and to the Subcommittee on 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on August 10, 
2007. No further action was taken on the bill. A related 
measure, H.R. 7084, the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008, which 
extends the period in which copyright owners and webcasters can 
negotiate terms different from those set by the Copyright 
Royalty Board, became Public Law 110-435. See H.R. 7084 for 
further action.

H.R. 3155, the ``Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement 
        Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Steve Chabot, H.R. 
3155 strengthens civil and criminal intellectual property 
enforcement laws and penalties, makes unauthorized importation 
or exportation of copies or phonorecords an infringement of the 
exclusive right to distribute, provides for forfeiture of any 
property consisting of or derived from proceeds of civil 
copyright infringement, and directs the Attorney General to 
dedicate additional resources to intellectual property 
enforcement, including the creation of an operational unit in 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist in the 
investigation and coordination of intellectual property crimes.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3155 was introduced July 24, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet 
and Intellectual Property, and to the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism and Homeland Security on August 10, 2007. No further 
action was taken on the bill. A related measure, S. 3325, the 
Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual 
Property Act of 2008, became Public Law 110-403. See S. 3325 
for further action.

H.R. 3578, the ``Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Brad Sherman, H.R. 
3578 abolishes the National Intellectual Property Law 
Enforcement Coordination Council and establishes the 
Intellectual Property Enforcement Network (IPEN), consisting of 
specified representatives of various government agencies, to 
establish policies concerning international intellectual 
property protection and law enforcement and to coordinate 
implementation of such policies.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3578 was introduced on September 
18, 2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and 
Means. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on October 12, 
2007. No further action was taken on the bill. A related 
measure, S. 3325, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization 
for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, became Public Law 110-
403. See S. 3325 for further action.

H.R. 4279, the ``Prioritizing Resources and Organization for 
        Intellectual Property Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 4279 enhances remedies for violations of intellectual 
property laws, harmonizes forfeiture laws related to 
intellectual property offenses, improves U.S. government 
efforts to coordinate intellectual property enforcement 
efforts, and provides additional resources dedicated to 
intellectual property enforcement.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4279 was introduced on December 
5, 2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on December 7, 2007. On 
December 13, 2007, the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing 
on H.R. 4279. The following witnesses appeared and prepared a 
statement for the record: Rick Cotton, Chairman of the 
Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP), Washington, 
DC; Gigi Sohn, President and Co-Founder of Public Knowledge, 
Washington, DC; James Hoffa, General President of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Washington, DC; and 
Sigal P. Mandelker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal 
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. On March 
6, 2008, the Subcommittee met in open session mark-up and 
agreed to forward the bill as amended to full committee by 
voice vote. On April 30, 2008 the Committee on the Judiciary 
met in open session mark-up and ordered H.R. 4279 favorably 
reported as amended by voice vote. On May 5, 2008 the Committee 
on the Judiciary reported the bill. (H. Rpt. 110-617). On May 
8, 2008, under suspension of the rules the House passed H.R. 
4279 by a recorded vote of 410-11. On May 12, 2008 the bill was 
received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary. No further action was taken on this 
bill. A measure that incorporated much of H.R. 4279, S. 3325, 
the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual 
Property Act of 2008, was subsequently signed by the President 
and designated as Public Law 110-403. See S. 3325 for further 
action.

H.R. 4789, the ``Performance Rights Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Howard Berman, H.R. 
4789 amends federal copyright law to grant owners of sound 
recordings the right to compensation for the public performance 
of their sound recordings on terrestrial radio broadcasts.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4789 was introduced on December 
11, 2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on January 14, 2008. 
On June 11, 2008 the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on 
H.R. 4789. The following witnesses appeared and prepared a 
statement for the record: Nancy Sinatra, Recording Artist; 
Steven W. Newberry, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation, Glasgow, KY; Charles 
Warfield, President and Chief Operating Officer, ICBC Broadcast 
Holdings, Incorporated, New York, NY ; and Thomas F. Lee, 
President, American Federation of Musicians, New York, NY. On 
June 26, 2008 the Subcommittee met in open session mark-up of 
H.R. 4789, and forwarded the bill, with an amendment, to the 
full committee by voice vote.

H.R. 5889, the ``Orphan Works Act of 2008''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Howard Berman, H.R. 
5889, establishes limitations on the remedies available in a 
civil action for copyright infringement, provided the infringer 
meets procedural requirements that are intended to safeguard 
the legitimate interests of copyright owners. The bill also 
provides that if the user does not meet the procedural 
requirements set forth in the legislation, the owner of an 
infringed work may seek all the remedies that would otherwise 
be available to a copyright owner.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5889 was introduced on April 24, 
2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on April 28, 2008. On May 
7, 2008 the Subcommittee met in open session mark-up of H.R. 
4789, and forwarded the bill, with an amendment, to the full 
committee by voice vote.

H.R. 5893, to reauthorize the sound recording and film preservation 
        programs of the Library of Congress, and for other purposes

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Robert Brady, H.R. 
5893 authorizes appropriations for Library of Congress 
activities related to the preservation of sound recordings, 
including the Library's National Film Preservation Board and 
the National Film Preservation Foundation, through FY 2016.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5893 was introduced on April 24, 
2008 and was referred to the Committee on House Administration 
and the Committee on the Judiciary. On May 7, 2008, the 
Committee on House Administration reported the bill favorably 
reported with an amendment by voice vote. (H. Rept. 110-683). 
On June 4, 2008 the Committee on the Judiciary discharged the 
bill. The same day, under suspension of the rules the House 
passed H.R. 5893 as amended by voice vote. On June 5, 2008, the 
bill was received by the Senate, read twice, and referred to 
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. On September 
16, 2008, the Senate passed H.R. 5893 without amendment by 
unanimous consent. On October 2, 2008, H.R. 5893 was signed by 
the President and became Public Law 110-336.

H.R. 6531, the ``Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendment of 2008''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Howard Berman, H.R. 
6531 clarifies the definitions of a hull and a deck in the 
Vessel Hull Design Protection Act.
    Legislation History.--H.R. 6531 was introduced on July 17, 
2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
July 22, 2008, under suspension of the rules, the House passed 
H.R. 6531 without amendment by voice vote. The Senate received 
H.R. 6531 the next day, and passed it without amendment by 
unanimous consent on September 30, 2008. On October 16, 2008, 
the bill was signed by the President and became Public Law 110-
434.

H.R. 6845, the ``Fair Copyright in Research Works Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 6845 prohibits Federal agencies from requiring, as a part 
of a funding agreement, that researchers assign or license back 
to the agency their copyright in extrinsic works. The bill 
defines extrinsic works as any work where a third party either 
contributed funding for the research underlying the work or 
provided meaningful added value to the work.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6845 was introduced September 9, 
2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
September 11, 2008, pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 6845. The following witnesses 
appeared and submitted statements for the record: Dr. Elias A. 
Zerhouni, Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, 
MD; The Honorable Ralph Oman, Pavel Professorial Lecturer in 
Intellectual Property Law Fellow, Creative and Innovative 
Economy Center, The George Washington University Law School, 
Washington, DC; Heather Dalterio Joseph, Executive Director, 
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, 
Washington, DC; and Dr. Martin Frank, Executive Director, 
American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD.

H.R. 7084, the ``Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Jay Inslee, the bill 
makes a technical amendment to the Small Webcasting Settlement 
Act of 2002, which extends the period of time that webcasters 
and copyright owners have to negotiate royalty rates and terms.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 7084 was introduced on September 
25, 2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
September 27, 2008, under suspension of the rules, the House 
passed H.R. 7084 with an amendment by voice vote. The Senate 
received H.R. 7084 on September 29, 2008 and passed it without 
amendment by unanimous consent the following day. On October 
16, 2008, the bill was signed by the President and became 
Public Law 110-435.

S. 3325, the ``Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual 
        Property Act of 2008''

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, S. 3325 
enhances remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, 
harmonizes forfeiture laws related to intellectual property 
offenses, improves U.S. government efforts to coordinate 
intellectual property enforcement efforts, and provides 
additional resources dedicated to intellectual property 
enforcement.
    Legislative History.--S. 3325 was introduced on July 24, 
2008 and was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 
On September 11, 2008, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
ordered the bill, with amendments, reported favorably. On 
September 15, 2008, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
reported S. 3325 as amended without written report. On 
September 26, 2008 the committee amendments were withdrawn by 
unanimous consent and the Senate passed the bill with an 
amendment by unanimous consent. On the same day, the House 
received the bill. On September 28, 2008, under suspension of 
the rules the House passed S. 3325 without amendment by a 
recorded vote of 381-41. On October 13, 2008, S. 3324 was 
signed by the President and became Public Law 110-403.

H. Res. 314, Supporting the goals of World Intellectual Property Day, 
        and for other purposes

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Robert Wexler, H. 
Res. 314 supports the goals of World Intellectual Property Day.
    Legislative History.--Introduced April 17, 2007, H. Res. 
314 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary the same 
day. On April 25, 2007, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered 
the bill reported by voice vote.

H. Res. 1251, Saluting the life and music of the late Otha Ellas ``Bo 
        Diddley'' Bates, guitar virtuoso and rock and roll pioneer, 
        whose music continues to influence generations of musicians

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H. Res. 1251 salutes the life and music of the late Otha Ellas 
``Bo Diddley'' Bates.
    Legislative History.--Introduced June 9, 2008, H. Res. 1251 
was passed by the House under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote the same day.

H. Res. 1425, Honoring the life and music of the late Isaac Hayes, a 
        passionate humanitarian, whose music laid the foundation for 
        many musical styles, including R&B, disco, and rap

    Summary.--Introduced by Marsha Blackburn, H. Res. 1425 
honors the life and music of the late Isaac Hayes.
    Legislative History.--Introduced September 11, 2008, H. 
Res. 1425 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary the 
same day. On September 17, 2008, the House passed H. Res. 1425 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

                         PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS

H.R. 34, to establish a pilot program in certain United States district 
        courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases 
        among district judges

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Darrell Issa, H.R. 
34 establishes a pilot program in certain United States 
district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent 
and plant variety protection cases among district court judges.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 34 was introduced on January 4, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on February 2, 2007. On 
February 12, 2007, under suspension of the rules, the House 
passed H.R. 34, without amendment, by voice vote. On February 
13, 2007, the bill was received by the Senate, read twice, and 
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 1908, the ``Patent Reform Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Howard Berman, H.R. 
1908 updates the patent system by providing guidance on how to 
calculate damages, creates a new administrative procedure to 
challenge patents after they have been granted, improves venue 
rules to prevent forum shopping in patent infringement cases, 
establishes a first-inventor-to-file system in the United 
States, and gives the Patent Office authority to make rules 
intended to improve patent application requirements, among 
other changes.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1908 was introduced on April 18, 
2007 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 
1908 was referred to the Subcommittee on April 20, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1908 on April 
26, 2007. The following witnesses appeared and submitted a 
written statement for the record: Kevin Sharer, Chairman of the 
Board and Chief Executive Officer, Amgen Incorporated, Thousand 
Oaks, CA; Gary L. Griswold, President and Chief Counsel of 
Intellectual Property, 3M Innovative Properties, St. Paul, MN; 
John R. Thomas, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law 
Center, Washington, DC; William T. Tucker, Executive Director, 
Research and Administration and Technology Transfer, University 
of California, Oakland, CA; and Anthony Peterman, Director, 
Patent Counsel, Dell Incorporated, Round Rock, TX. On May 16, 
2007, the Subcommittee met in open session mark-up of H.R. 1908 
and forwarded the bill to the full committee by voice vote. On 
July 18, 2007, the Committee on the Judiciary met in a open 
session and ordered the bill reported, with an amendment, by 
voice vote. On September 6, 2007, the Committee on the 
Judiciary reported H.R. 1908. (H. Rept. 110-314). The same day 
the Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 636 was reported to the 
House and provided that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary be 
considered as an original bill. On September 7, 2007, the House 
passed H.R. 1908 by a recorded vote of 220-175. (Roll No. 863). 
The bill was received by the Senate on September 10, 2007.

H.R. 6344, the ``Responsive Government Act of 2008''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative William Delahunt, 
H.R. 6344 amends the federal judicial code to authorize the 
chief judge of a district court or court of appeals to delay, 
toll, or otherwise grant relief from time deadlines applicable 
to pending civil and criminal cases in the event of a natural 
disaster or other emergency situation requiring the closure of 
courts or rendering it impracticable to comply with such 
deadlines. The bill also grants the Director of the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office authority to waive various 
statutory deadlines related to patent and trademark application 
filings in cases of unintentional delay. The bill also 
prescribes filing fees for patent extensions, including $65 
million for an anticoagulant drug intended for use in humans.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6344 was introduced on June 23, 
2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On the 
same day, under suspension of the rules, the House passed H.R. 
6344 by voice vote. On June 24, 2008, the bill was received in 
the Senate, read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on 
the Judiciary.

H.R. 6362, to amend title 35, United States Code, and the Trademark Act 
        of 1946 to provide that the Secretary of Commerce, in 
        consultation with the Director of the United States Patent and 
        Trademark Office, shall appoint administrative patent judges 
        and administrative trademark judges, and for other purposes

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Howard Berman, H.R. 
6362 corrects a potential constitutional defect in the 
appointment of administrative patent and trademark judges at 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office and addresses how 
previous decisions made by potentially unconstitutionally 
appointed patent and trademark administrative judges are to be 
treated.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6362 was introduced on June 25, 
2008 and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No 
further action was taken on H.R. 6362, although its contents 
were included in S. 3295, a bill to amend title 35, United 
States Code, and the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide that the 
Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office, shall appoint 
administrative patent judges and administrative trademark 
judges, and for other purposes, which became Public Law 110-
313. See S. 3295 for further action.

S. 3295, A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, and the 
        Trademark Act of 1946 to provide that the Secretary of 
        Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the United 
        States Patent and Trademark Office, shall appoint 
        administrative patent judges and administrative trademark 
        judges, and for other purposes

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, S. 3295 
corrects a potential constitutional defect in the appointment 
of administrative patent and trademark judges at the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office and addresses how previous 
decisions made by potentially unconstitutionally appointed 
patent and trademark administrative judges are to be treated.
    Legislative History.--S. 3295 was introduced on July 21, 
2008 and was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 
The following day the Senate Judiciary Committee discharged the 
bill and the Senate passed S. 3295 without amendment by 
unanimous consent. The bill was received by the House and 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary July 23, 2008. On 
July 29, 2008, under suspension of the rules, the House passed 
S. 3295 without amendment by voice vote. On August 12, 2008, 
the bill was signed by the President and became Public Law 110-
313.

                          Oversight Activities


The Federal Judicial System

    The Subcommittee has responsibility for oversight of the 
Judicial Conference of the United States; the Administrative 
Office of the U.S. Courts; the Federal Rules Enabling Act and 
the Advisory Committees on Civil Rules, Appellate Rules and 
Rules of Evidence, as well as judicial ethics and discipline.
    In the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee also examined how 
the salaries of federal judges have impacted the ability to 
maintain a qualified and experienced federal bench. On April 
19, 2007, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Federal 
judicial compensation. The witnesses were Supreme Court 
Presiding Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito. Both 
witnesses testified to the threatened impact and outcomes of 
the decline in real pay of Federal judges. In response to this 
hearing, Chairman Conyers introduced H.R. 3753, the Federal 
Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007, on October 4, 2007.

The U.S. Copyright System

    The Subcommittee devoted substantial time to addressing 
issues related to copyright (and trademark) enforcement. Early 
in the Congress, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on 
copyright piracy occurring on college campuses through peer-to-
peer and other online networks. Later, the Subcommittee held an 
oversight hearing on efforts to combat international 
intellectual property piracy, with a special focus on China and 
Russia. During this hearing, particular attention was given to 
a series of Government Accountability Office reports that 
called for more permanency in federal intellectual property 
enforcement coordination efforts.
    Following these hearings, H.R. 4279 was introduced which 
provided for stronger intellectual property laws, dedicated 
additional resources to combat domestic and international 
intellectual property theft, and a mechanism to better 
coordinate government enforcement efforts. Ultimately S. 3325, 
which substantially incorporated the provisions of H.R. 4279, 
was signed into law. Additionally, the Subcommittee worked 
closely with the Committee on Education and Labor to place 
additional burdens on universities receiving federal funding to 
address copyright piracy on their computer networks.
    The Subcommittee also dedicated substantial time to 
investigate whether further modernization of the copyright law 
is necessary for the digital environment. Through oversight 
hearings, the Subcommittee focused its attention on the Section 
115 statutory license and on parity across analog and digital 
music platforms. The latter led to H.R. 4789, which sought to 
establish public performance rights for sound recordings that 
are broadcast on terrestrial radio, similar to those already 
provided sound recording owners whose works are digitally 
broadcast (i.e., webcasts). Related to this, there was 
substantial controversy concerning a June 2007 Copyright Office 
Royalty Board decision setting the rates for Section 114 
statutory licenses. Ultimately, H.R. 7084 was passed which 
provided additional time for sound recording owners and 
webcasters to negotiation rates different from those provided 
by the Copyright Office Royalty Board's decision.
    Another major focus of the Subcommittee has been developing 
appropriate legislation to address the problem of Orphan Works. 
Following a 2006 report by the Copyright Office on orphan 
works, Congress has worked on developing legislation to 
facilitate public use of orphan works in a manner that 
safeguards the interests of copyright owners.
    Lastly, the Chairman has engaged in an exchange of letters 
with the Register of Copyrights, inquiring specifically about 
the Copyright Office's efforts to transition operations into a 
digital environment, and a growing backlog of copyright 
registrations.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Systems

    The Subcommittee devoted considerable time to reform of the 
United States patent system. Patents provide an incentive to 
individuals and companies to innovate, by granting inventors 
exclusive rights to their inventions. In turn, inventors are 
required to provide society with the knowledge behind their 
inventions. This social bargain is enshrined in the 
Constitution, which directs Congress to ``promote the progress 
of . . . science and the useful arts . . . by securing for 
limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their . 
. . discoveries.'' However, over the course of the last several 
years, commentators, businesses and users of the patent system 
have voiced serious concerns about whether the system is doing 
an adequate job in fulfilling its role in encouraging 
innovation. Many have argued that inefficiencies in the 
examination of patent applications, as well as inappropriate 
rules in patent litigation, have led to substantial uncertainty 
in the value of patents.
    Many organizations have chosen to carry out extensive 
reviews of the current system and have developed useful and 
thoughtful recommendations. Some of the more important efforts 
include the Federal Trade Commission's study To Promote 
Innovation: the Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law 
and Policy, the National Academy of Science report A Patent 
System for the 21st Century, the U.S. Patent and Trademark 
Office's 21st Century Strategic Plan, and Adam Jaffe's and Josh 
Lerner's book, Innovation and its Discontents. Relying on the 
record of both an oversight and legislative hearing, related 
hearing records from previous Congresses, and informal meetings 
with a number of patent constituents, the Subcommittee was able 
to develop a compromise package in the form of H.R. 1908 that 
would effectively address many of the identified problems in 
the U.S. patent system.
    The Subcommittee also directed attention to the question of 
whether the protection mechanisms afforded industrial designs 
are appropriate. Specific attention was placed on industrial 
design rights as they pertain to fashion designs, exterior 
automobile parts, and vessel hull designs. The Subcommittee's 
inquiries in this area led to H.R. 6531, the Vessel Hull Design 
Protection Amendment of 2008, which provided a technical 
amendment to address a loophole in protection provided to 
vessel hull designs.
    In addition, the Subcommittee directed its attention, 
through an oversight hearing, to investigating some of the 
criticisms against gene patenting. Through this hearing, it was 
identified that in some cases gene patents may impede use and 
development of gene-based diagnostic testing. Following the 
hearing, the Chairman of the Subcommittee engaged in an 
exchange of letters with the National Institutes of Health 
which explored the impact of gene patents on gene-based 
diagnostic testing. Particular attention was placed on 
exploring the use of the Bayh-Dole Act's march-in provisions as 
a means to address the problems identified. In further support 
of this investigation, the Chairman of the Subcommittee 
requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate 
federal agency policies pertaining to march-in rights. A report 
on their findings is expected sometime in the first half of 
2009.
    The Chairman of the Subcommittee also engaged in an 
exchange of letters with the United States Patent and Trademark 
Office and the Federal Drug Administration to clarify how they 
determine patent term extension in light of a recent decision 
by the Federal Circuit in Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude.
    Finally, in exercising its oversight responsibility over 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Subcommittee 
held an oversight hearing on the agency's operations. Some 
attention was placed on merits of recent internal 
reorganizations within the agency, however much of the focus 
was on the agency's efforts to address a growing patent 
application backlog problem. Showcased at the hearing was a 
Government Accountability Office report, Hiring Efforts Are Not 
Sufficient to Reduce the Patent Application Backlog. Following 
the hearing, the Subcommittee continued to engage with the 
agency concerning its efforts to address the backlog, as well 
as other issues related to agency operations.

List of oversight hearings

    American Innovation at Risk: The Case for Patent Reform, 
February 15, 2007 (Serial No. 110-8)
    An Update--Piracy on University Networks, March 8, 2007 
(Serial No. 110-29)
    Reforming Section 115 of the Copyright Act for the Digital 
Age, March 22, 2007 (Serial No. 110-33)
    Federal Judicial Compensation, April 19, 2007 (Serial No. 
110-48)
    Patent Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 1908, April 26, 2007 
(Serial No. 110-65)
    Ensuring Artist Fair Compensation: Updating the Performance 
Right and Platform Parity for the 21st Century, July 31, 2007 
(Serial No. 110-49)
    International Piracy: The Challenges of Protecting 
Intellectual Property in the 21st Century, October 18, 2007 
(Serial No. 110-67)
    Stifling or Stimulating--The Role of Gene Patents in 
Research and Genetic Testing, October 30, 2007 (Serial No. 110-
60)
    Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual 
Property Act of 2007, H.R. 4279, December 13, 2007 (Serial No. 
110-76)
    Design Law--Are Special Provisions Needed to Protect Unique 
Industries?, February 14, 2008 (Serial No. 110-107)
    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, (USPTO), February 27, 
2008 (Serial No. 110-115)
    Promoting the use of Orphan Works: ``Balancing the 
Interests of Copyright Owners and Users'' on March 13, 2008 
(Serial No. 110-131)
    Performance Rights Act, H.R. 4789, June 11, 2008 (Serial 
No. 110-141)
    False Claims Act Correction Act of 2007, H.R. 4854, June 
19, 2008 (Serial No. 110-137)
    Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, H.R. 6845, September 
11, 2008 (Serial No. 110-204)

American Innovation at Risk: The Case for Patent Reform, Serial No. 
        110-8

    This hearing was held to examine whether comprehensive 
patent reform was required to address perceived inadequacies in 
the current patent system which hamper innovation and hurt the 
American economy. The New York Times has noted that 
``[something] has gone very wrong with the United States patent 
system, and the Financial Times has opined that ``[i]t is time 
to restore the balance of power in U.S. patent law. A number of 
studies released in recent years, include one by the National 
Academies of Science and another by the Federal Trade 
Commission, have highlighted several problems with the patent 
system such as decreased patent quality, prevalence of 
subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and the 
lack of meaningful alternatives to the patent litigation 
process. The Constitution mandates that Congress ``promote the 
progress of . . . science and the useful arts . . . by securing 
for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to 
their . . . discoveries.'' Flaws in the patent system must be 
addressed in order to fulfill this Constitutional mandate.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Adam B. Jaffe, Professor of Economics 
and Dean of Arts and Sciences, Brandeis University, Whaltham, 
MA; Suzanne Michel, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel and 
Deputy Assistant Director for Policy Coordination, Federal 
Trade Commission, Washington, DC; Mark Myers, Co-Chair of the 
National Academy of Sciences Report Patent System for 21st 
Century, Unionville, PA; and Daniel B. Ravicher, Executive 
Director, Public Patent Foundation, New York, NY.

An Update--Piracy on University Networks, Serial No. 110-29

    The hearing was held to follow-up the October 2004 
Subcommittee hearing that focused on implementation of policies 
and programs to educate college students about online piracy of 
digital works and development of programs to thwart the 
practice. The Internet has changed the way that the public 
enjoys entertainment products, including music, movies, and 
software. One of the advantages of digital formats such as CDs 
and DVDs is that they offer extremely high audio and video 
reproduction quality. Digital formats, however, make works very 
susceptible to piracy since every digital copy offers a perfect 
reproduction, and people can easily copy and distribute them on 
a global basis over the Internet. In this hearing, the 
Subcommittee explored and evaluated efforts made by colleges to 
stop illegal downloading and file-sharing, and determine 
whether their efforts have gone far enough.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Cary H. Sherman, President, Recording 
Industry Association of America, Washington, DC; John C. 
Vaughn, Executive Vice President, Association of American 
Universities, Washington, DC; Gregory J. Marchwinski, President 
and Chief Executive Officer, Red Lambda, Longwood, FL; and Jim 
Davis, Associate Vice Chancellor for Information Technology, 
University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Reforming Section 115 of the Copyright Act for the Digital Age, Serial 
        No. 110-33

    The purpose of this hearing was to explore whether the 
Section 115 compulsory license still has relevance in the age 
of digital music downloading. Section 115 of the Copyright Act 
creates a compulsory license for making and distributing non-
dramatic musical works (e.g., songs that a copyright holder 
would otherwise have the exclusive right to control. While 
compulsory licenses allow others to make phonorecords without 
the consent of the copyright holder, the compulsory license 
system does not allow others to make actual copies of released 
``sound recordings;'' thus, while a person can sell a ``cover'' 
version of a song released by another artist as long as he or 
she pays a royalty, that person can not sell exact copies of 
another's record without permission.
    The following witness appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Marybeth Peters, Register of 
Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office, Washington, DC.

Federal Judicial Compensation, Serial No. 110-48

    This hearing explored the issue of judicial compensation 
and whether the decline in real wages of federal judges is 
impacting the continuity, quality, and experience on the 
federal bench. Article III, section 1, of the Constitution 
guarantees that federal judges shall ``receive for their 
services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during 
their continuance in office.'' While the dollar figure on wages 
has not been decreased, the real wages of federal judges have 
decreased. As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his 2006 Year-End 
Report on the Federal Judiciary, Federal judges now earn less 
per year than many large law firms' first-year associates who 
are fresh out of law school and may still be awaiting bar exam 
results. Since 1987, district judges' salaries have been 
adjusted at the same rate as those of Members of Congress. In 
2007 they earned $165,200. Since 1969, average U.S. worker's 
wages, once adjusted for inflation, have risen 17.8 percent in 
buying power. Real pay for judges has declined 23.9 percent 
during the same time, creating a 41.7% gap. The witnesses at 
this hearing reiterated Chief Justice Roberts' assertion that 
the departures of 38 judges who have left the federal bench in 
the past six years, including 17 in the last two years, are 
largely the result of that pay gap and that departing judges 
often cite financial pressures as their reason for leaving. The 
Chief Justice argued in his year-end report from 2006 that 
``[t]he dramatic erosion of judicial compensation will 
inevitably result in a decline in the quality of persons 
willing to accept a lifetime appointment as a federal judge.'' 
Following this oversight hearing, Chairman Conyers and 
Subcommittee Chairman Berman introduced H.R. 3753, bipartisan 
legislation sponsored by both the Majority and Minority Leaders 
to provide a 29% across the board increase in base salary for 
federal judges. The bill was ordered reported by the Committee 
by voice vote with an amendment offered by Reps. Berman and 
Smith. This amendment provided a 29% pay raise for federal 
judges and made changes to the judicial pension system. Article 
III judges are eligible to receive a 100% annuity upon 
retirement if they meet certain age and service requirements. 
The substitute adopted by the Committee lengthened service 
requirements for federal judges who wish to receive the full 
benefit of the pay raise as an annuity upon retirement. The 
substitute also increased the workload of senior judges and 
reduced the annuity for those judges who retire and earn 
salaries in excess of the amount of their annuity. The text of 
H.R. 3753 as ordered reported was adopted as an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute by the Senate Judiciary committee 
and further amended before being ordered reported. No further 
action was taken on the legislation in either body.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: The Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, 
Presiding Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, DC and the 
Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Presiding Justice, U.S. Supreme 
Court, Washington, DC.

Ensuring Artist Fair Compensation: Updating the Performance Right and 
        Platform Parity for the 21st Century, Serial No. 110-49

    The purpose of this hearing was to explore the benefits and 
drawbacks of repealing the broadcaster exemption from paying 
public performance royalties to owners of sound recordings. 
Currently, owners of ``musical works'' receive royalties for 
public performances of their works on terrestrial radio 
broadcasts, whereas copyright owners of sound recordings do 
not. In the digital environment, however, owners of musical 
works and owners of sound recordings both have the right to 
receive public performance royalties. This has created an 
imbalance in the marketplace between traditional radio 
broadcasters and webcasters.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: The Honorable Paul W. Hodes, Member 
of Congress, 2nd District of New Hampshire; Marybeth Peters, 
U.S. Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office, Washington, 
DC; Judy Collins, Recording Artist; Charles A. Warfield, Jr., 
President & Chief Operating Officer, ICBC Broadcast Holding, 
Incorporated, New York, NY; and Sam Moore, Recording Artist.

International Piracy: The Challenges of Protecting Intellectual 
        Property in the 21st Century, Serial No. 110-67

    The purpose of this hearing on international piracy was to 
discuss the challenges that face intellectual property owners 
who seek to protect their works under international law and the 
functioning of various legal regimes and enforcement mechanisms 
available in other countries. The emphasis will be on the 
evolution of intellectual property laws, the willingness and 
ability of governments and law enforcement entities to 
adequately enforce intellectual property laws, and the 
political and social dynamics that impact intellectual property 
enforcement in other nations. Special attention was placed on 
Russian efforts to fulfill its commitments under its 2006 
bilateral agreement with the United States and the recent World 
Trade Organization (WTO) enforcement actions the United States 
has brought against China that relate to enforcement of 
intellectual property rights.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Victoria A. Espinel, Assistant U.S. 
Representative for Intellectual Property & Innovation, Office 
of the U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC; Eric H. 
Smith, President, International Intellectual Property Alliance, 
Washington, DC; Loren Yager, Director of International Affairs 
and Trade, U.S. General Accountability Office, Washington, DC; 
and Mark MacCarthy, Senior Vice President for Global Public 
Policy, Visa Incorporated, Washington, DC.

Stifling or Stimulating--The Role of Gene Patents in Research and 
        Genetic Testing, Serial No. 110-60

    The purpose of this hearing was to explore the role of gene 
patents on further genetic research and gene-based diagnostic 
testing. Recent developments in human genome research has paved 
the way for further research and development efforts that offer 
promising new ways of diagnosing and treating disease. While 
the possibilities of advancing medical knowledge abound, some 
are concerned that the ability to patent genes will hinder the 
development and rollout of gene-based technologies to combat 
and diagnose illness. Others are fearful that without patent 
protection, there will be little incentive for companies to 
make the investments needed to bring new gene-based 
technologies to market. This hearing looked into these and 
other issues related to gene patents, including the legal basis 
for genes as patentable subject matter, how these patents are 
being used and licensed by commercial and academic 
institutions, whether there is a distinction in the quality of 
gene patents compared to patents in other technologies, and in 
what ways can perceived negative effects of gene patents be 
mitigated.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Lawrence M. Sung, J.D., Ph. D., Law 
School Professor and Intellectual Property Law Program 
Director, University of Maryland, School of Law, Baltimore, MD; 
E. Jonathan Soderstrom, J.D., Ph.D., Managing Director, Office 
of Cooperative Research, Yale University, New Haven, CT; Dr. 
Marc M. Grodman, Chair of the Board and Chief Executive 
Officer, Bio-Reference Laboratories, Elmwood Park, NJ; and 
Jeffrey P. Kushan, Partner, Sidley Austin, LLP, on behalf of 
Biotechnology Industry Organization, Washington, DC.

Design Law--Are Special Provisions Needed to Protect Unique 
        Industries?, Serial No. 110-107

    The purpose of this hearing was to explore the scope of 
industrial design protection. The objective of industrial 
design protection is similar to other intellectual property 
protections: it promotes the creation of new, unique and 
appealing designs for products by granting exclusive economic 
rights for a limited time. Many countries have established 
industrial design laws directed specifically at protecting 
these types of work. The United States, however, provides 
protection for industrial designs through design patents, trade 
dress, copyright and vessel hull design protection. The purpose 
of this oversight hearing was to explore whether these current 
means of protecting designs are adequate for industries that 
make significant use of new designs to attract customers and 
whether the scope of vessel hull design protection should be 
expanded to include other subject matter like auto parts and 
apparel.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: The Honorable William D. Delahunt, 
Member of Congress, 10th District of Massachusetts; William T. 
Fryer, III, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore, School 
of Law, Baltimore, MD; Narciso Rodriguez, Designer, on behalf 
of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, New York, NY.; 
Steve Maiman, Proprietor, Stony Apparel, Los Angeles, CA; Carl 
L. Olsen, President, Ark Design, on behalf of the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC; and Jack Gillis, 
Director of Public Affairs, Consumer Federation of America, 
Washington, DC.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Serial No. 110-115

    The purpose of this hearing was to review the United States 
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) operations. The USPTO's 
work primarily consists of receiving and examining patent and 
trademark applications. The quality and timeliness of the 
USPTO's work has a direct impact on the willingness of United 
States companies to use these systems. Over the last several 
years, patent pendency--the time it takes to process patent 
applications--has steadily risen, prompting concern in the 
patent community. Several reasons have been cited for the rise 
in the pendency for patent applications, including increased 
demand for patent applications, a chronic lack of human and 
financial resources, poor technology planning, and various 
applicant practices that slow down or delay the application 
process. The growing patent pendency and associated backlog of 
patent applications awaiting review could put the United States 
innovation system in jeopardy, as companies move away from 
using the patent system and towards secrecy as a means to 
protect their inventions. This could have serious repercussions 
on the way research is conducted and is likely to harm American 
technological innovation.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: The Honorable Jon W. Dudas, 
Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, Director 
of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, DC; Robin M. Nazzaro, Director of 
National Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accountability 
Office, Washington, DC; Robert D. Budens, President, Patent 
Office Professional Association, (POPA), Alexandria, VA; and 
Alan J. Kasper, First Vice President, American Intellectual 
Property Law Association, Sughrue, Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC.

Promoting the use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests of Copyright 
        Owners and Users, Serial No. 110-131

    The purpose of this hearing was to review possible 
solutions that would address the frustrations and problems 
associated with orphan works under U.S. Copyright Law. Issues 
surrounding orphan works were discussed in the Report on Orphan 
Works published by the Register of Copyrights on January 31, 
2006, the ensuing congressional hearing on the Report on Orphan 
Works. The term ``orphan works'' refers to copyrighted works 
whose owners cannot be located. Efforts to use orphan works are 
stymied because the owner cannot be found to grant permission. 
Given the possibility of large damage awards for use of 
copyrighted works without permission, a large number of 
copyrighted works are effectively off limits to reuse until 
they enter the public domain, and thus run the risk of being 
lost forever from the public consciousness.
    The following witnesses appeared and prepared a statement 
for the record: Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, U.S. 
Copyright Office, Washington, DC; Allan Robert Adler, Vice 
President of Legal and Governmental Affairs, Association of 
American Publishers, Incorporated, Washington, DC; Corinne P. 
Kevorkian, President and General Manager, Schumacher, A 
Division of F. Schumacher & Company, New York, NY; Karen C. 
Coe, Associate Legal Counsel, United States Holocaust Memorial 
Museum, Washington, DC; Victor S. Perlman, General Counsel and 
Managing Director, American Society of Media Photographers, 
Incorporated, Philadelphia, PA; and Maya Gura, Director of 
Marketing and Sales, PicScout, San Francisco, CA.
      SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 27, 
2007, and February 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
        Virginia, Chairman

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin    JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr. 
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   Georgia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
                                     SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
                                     ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
                                     TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
                                     BETTY STUTTON, Ohio

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.........................   380
Legislation on which hearings were held..........................    41
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.............    30
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.....................     2
Legislation pending before the full Committee....................     0
Legislation reported to the House................................    32
Legislation discharged from the Committee........................     1
Legislation pending in the House.................................     2
Legislation passed by the House..................................    30
Legislation pending in the Senate................................    22
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).............     0
Legislation enacted into Public Law..............................     8
Legislation enacted into Public Law as part of other legislation.    --
Days of legislative hearings.....................................    24
Days of oversight hearings.......................................    28

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
has jurisdiction over the Federal Criminal Code, drug 
enforcement, sentencing, parole and pardons, internal and 
homeland security, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 
prisons, criminal law enforcement, and other appropriate 
matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

                         Legislative Activities


H.R. 79, the ``Powder-Crack Cocaine Penalty Equalization Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 79 addresses the unfair disparity between 
crack and powder cocaine sentencing laws. It amends the 
Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import 
and Export Act by substantially increasing penalties for powder 
cocaine and eliminating a separate penalty for crack cocaine. 
The bill also expands the current mandatory minimum sentence of 
five years for possession of crack cocaine to possession of any 
mixture of cocaine.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 79 was introduced on January 4, 
2007 and referred to the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and 
Commerce Committee. On February 26, 2008, the Judiciary 
Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security held one day of hearings on four bills relating to 
crack cocaine laws, including H.R. 79. Testimony was received 
from Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), sponsor of H.R. 460, Rep. 
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), sponsor of H.R. 4545, Judge Reggie 
Walton, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia; 
Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa, Chairman of the United States 
Sentencing Commission and U.S. District Court Judge for the 
Southern District of Texas; Gretchen Shappert, U.S. Attorney 
for the Western District of North Carolina; Joe Cassilly, 
State's Attorney for Harford County, Maryland; Michael Short, 
convicted of federal drug offense and commuted by President 
Bush; and Michael Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender for the 
Eastern District of Virginia.

H.R. 137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 137 increases existing criminal penalties 
for animal fighting violations from misdemeanor to felony 
status with a maximum sentence of three years. The bill also 
makes it unlawful to knowingly sell, buy, transport or deliver 
a knife, gaff, or other sharp instrument designed to be 
attached to the leg of a bird for use in animal fighting.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 137 was introduced by Rep. Elton 
Gallegly on January 4, 2007, and referred to the Judiciary 
Committee and Agriculture Committee. On February 6, 2007, the 
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held one day of hearings on the bill, and 
testimony was received by Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO, The 
Humane Society of the United States and from Jerry Leber, 
President, United Gamefowl Breeders Association. The 
Subcommittee met in open session on February 6, 2007, and 
ordered the bill favorably reported by a voice vote. The Full 
Committee met in open session on February 7, 2008 and ordered 
the bill favorably reported, with amendment, by voice vote. On 
March 1, 2007, the Agriculture Committee was discharged. On 
March 26, 2007, the House suspended the rules and passed the 
bill, as amended, by vote, 389 to 39. On April 10, 2007, the 
Senate passed the bill by Unanimous Consent. On May 3, 2007, 
the bill became law, Public Law No. 110-22.

H.R. 261, the Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 
        2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 261, the ``Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent 
Offender Relief Act of 2007'' would amend the federal criminal 
code to create a good time policy, which would release a 
prisoner who has served one half or more of his or her term of 
imprisonment if that prisoner: (1) has attained age 45; (2) has 
never been convicted of a crime of violence; and (3) has not 
engaged in any violation involving violent conduct, including 
institutional disciplinary regulations.
    Legislative History.--Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-
TX) introduced H.R. 261 on January 5, 2007. The Subcommittee 
held one day of hearings on H.R. 261 simultaneously with 
hearings on H.R. 4283, the ``Literacy Education and 
Rehabilitation Act of 2007''; H.R. 4300, the ``Juvenile Justice 
Accountability and Improvement Act of 2007''; and H.R. 4063, 
the Restitution for the Exonerated Act of 2007''. On December 
6, 2007, testimony was received by Professor Jennifer Woolard, 
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Georgetown 
University. Ms. Deborah LaBelle, Director of the Juvenile Life 
Without Parole Initiative, Ann Arbor, MI; Professor Jonathan 
Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public 
Interest Law at George Washington Law School; Pastor Fred 
Mosley, Cleveland, Ohio; Mr. Ray Krone, exonerated from death 
row in Arizona after his innocence was conclusively 
established; The Honorable Drew Wrigley, United States Attorney 
for the District of North Dakota; and Mr. Lance Ogiste, Counsel 
to the Brooklyn District Attorney and member of National 
District Attorney's Association. There was no further action on 
H.R. 261.

H.R. 400, ``The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 400 strengthens the tools available to 
Federal law enforcement to combat contracting fraud during 
times of war, military action, or relief or reconstruction 
activities. The bill creates a new criminal fraud offense in 
title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit fraudulent acts 
involving the provision of goods or services in connection with 
a mission of the United States Government overseas. It also 
makes this new offense a predicate crime for criminal 
forfeiture, as well as for Federal money laundering and 
racketeering offenses.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Neil Abercrombie introduced on 
January 11, 2007, H.R. 400 was referred to the Subcommittee on 
February 2, 2007. The Subcommittee held 1 day of hearings on 
H.R. 400 on June 19, 2007. Testimony was received from the 
Honorable Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector General for 
Iraq Reconstruction; Thomas F. Gimble, Principal Deputy 
Inspector General, United States Department of Defense; Barry 
M. Sabin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States 
Department of Justice; and Alan Grayson, Grayson & Kubli, P.C. 
On July 24, 2007, the Subcommittee ordered the bill, H.R. 400, 
favorably reported, by voice vote. On August 1, 2007, the Full 
Committee ordered the bill, favorably reported with an 
amendment, by voice vote. On October 9, 2007, the bill passed 
the House, under suspension of the rules, by a recorded vote of 
375-3.

H.R. 423, the ``Kristen's Act Reauthorization of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 423 reauthorizes Kristen's Act (P.L. 106-
468), and authorizes grants to States, public agencies and 
nonprofit organizations for the purpose of finding missing 
adults. Grants are to be used to maintain a national resource 
center and information clearinghouse; maintain a national 
database for the purpose of tracking missing adults; coordinate 
public and private programs that locate missing adults and 
reunite them with their families; provide assistance and 
training to law enforcement agencies, State and local 
governments, nonprofit organizations and other individuals 
involved in the criminal justice system in matters related to 
missing adults; provide assistance to families in locating 
missing adults; and assist in public notification of missing 
adults and victim advocacy.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 423 was introduced by Rep. Sue 
Wilkins Myrick on January 11, 2007 and referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. On July 15, 2008, the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held one day of 
hearings on H.R. 423, and related bills H.R. 6064, the 
``National Silver Alert Act,'' and H.R. 5898, the ``Silver 
Alert Grant Program Act of 2008.'' Testimony was received from 
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), sponsor of H.R. 6064; Rep. Gus 
Bilirakis (R-FL), sponsor of H.R. 5898; and Rep. Sue Wilkins 
Myrick (R-NC), sponsor of H.R. 423. On July 30, 2008, the Full 
Committee met in open session on related bill H.R. 6064, and 
ordered the bill favorably reported with an amendment that 
incorporated most of H.R. 423. On September 17, 2008, the House 
voted to suspend the rules and passed H.R. 6064, as amended, by 
voice vote.

H.R. 460, the ``Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 460, the ``Crack-Cocaine Equitable 
Sentencing Act of 2007,'' addresses the unfair disparity 
between crack and powder cocaine sentencing laws. It amends the 
Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import 
and Export Act by eliminating separate penalties for crack 
cocaine. It also eliminates the mandatory minimum penalties for 
simple possession of crack cocaine.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 460 was introduced on January 
12, 2007 and referred to the Judiciary Committee and the Energy 
and Commerce Committee. On February 26, 2008, the Subcommittee 
held one day of hearings on this bill and three others relating 
to crack cocaine laws. Testimony was received from Rep. Charles 
B. Rangel (D-NY), sponsor of H.R. 460, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee 
(D-TX), sponsor of H.R. 4545, Judge Reggie Walton, U.S. 
District Court Judge for the District of Columbia; Judge 
Ricardo H. Hinojosa, Chairman of the United States Sentencing 
Commission and U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern 
District of Texas; Gretchen Shappert, U.S. Attorney for the 
Western District of North Carolina; Joe Cassilly, State's 
Attorney for Harford County, Maryland; Michael Short, convicted 
of federal drug offense, whose sentence was commuted by 
President Bush; and Michael Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender 
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

H.R. 545, the ``Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and 
        Treatment Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 545 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include or reaffirm territories and 
Indian tribes as eligible grant recipients under programs to: 
(1) curtail the manufacture, sale, and use of methamphetamine; 
(2) aid children in homes in which methamphetamine or other 
drugs are unlawfully manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or 
used; and (3) reduce methamphetamine use by pregnant and 
parenting women.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Tom Udall introduced on January 
17, 2007, H.R. 545 was referred to the Subcommittee on February 
2, 2007. The subcommittee held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 545 on 
February 6, 2007. Testimony was received from two witnesses: 
Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico, and Ben Shelly, Vice 
President of the Navajo Nation. On February 6, 2007, the 
Subcommittee ordered the bill to be favorably reported without 
amendment, by voice vote. On February 7, 2007, the Committee 
met in open session and ordered H.R. 545 to be favorably 
reported without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present. On March 22, 2007, the bill passed the House, under 
suspension of the rules, by a recorded vote of 423-0.

H.R. 660, the ``Court Security Improvement Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 660 was introduced by Chairman John Conyers, 
Jr. on January 24, 2007. This legislation requires the Director 
of the U.S. Marshals Service to consult with the Judicial 
Conference regarding security requirements for the U.S. 
judicial branch and to redact certain personal information of 
judges from financial disclosure reports. In addition, the bill 
makes it a federal offense to file (or attempt or conspire to 
file) in any public record any false lien or encumbrance 
against the real or personal property of any U.S. officer or 
employee based on performance of their official duties. Public 
disclosure of restricted personal information about a federal 
officer or employee, witness, or juror (or immediate family 
members) with the intent to threaten or cause harm to such 
individuals is prohibited under the bill. The legislation also 
prohibits the possession of dangerous weapons in federal court 
facilities.
    Legislative History.--The subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism 
and Homeland Security held a hearing on H.R. 660 on May 3, 
2007. Testimony was received from Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge, 
Maryland Court of Appeals; John F. Clark, United States Marshal 
for the Eastern District of Virginia, United States Department 
of Justice; and David Bryan Sentelle, Judge, United States 
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, and 
Chair, Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Security. On 
June 7, 2007, the subcommittee met and ordered the bill to be 
favorably reported without an amendment by voice vote. On June 
13, 2007, the Committee met and ordered the bill to be 
favorably reported with an amendment, by voice vote.

H.R. 740, the ``Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number 
        Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007''

    Summary.--The purpose of H.R. 740 is to prevent and 
mitigate identity theft and to ensure privacy by establishing 
criminal penalties for caller ID ``spoofing.'' The bill targets 
spoofing by prohibiting the use of caller ID information to 
commit fraud or other abusive acts. The bill provides for 
felony penalties of up to five years in prison for violations 
committed for commercial gain. Abusive use of another person's 
caller ID information without commercial motives is classified 
as a misdemeanor under the bill.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Bobby Scott introduced on 
January 31, 2007, H.R. 740 was referred to the Subcommittee on 
February 2, 2007. The Subcommittee held one day of hearings on 
H.R. 740 on February 6, 2007. Testimony was received from two 
witnesses: Congressman Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, and Barry M. 
Sabin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, 
United States Department of Justice. On February 6, 2007, the 
Subcommittee ordered the bill to be favorably reported by a 
voice vote, without an amendment. On February 7, 2007, the Full 
Committee met in open session and ordered the bill to be 
favorably reported without an amendment, by a voice vote. On 
March 21, 2007, the bill passed the House, under suspension of 
the rules, by a recorded vote of 413-1.

H.R. 916, The ``John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act 
        of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 916 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to add a program for student loan 
repayment for prosecutors and public defenders. Representative 
David Scott (D-GA) introduced the bill on February 8, 2007. On 
Tuesday, April 24, 2007, the Subcommittee held a legislative 
hearing on H.R. 916,; H.R. 1700, the ``COPS Improvement Act of 
2007''; and H.R. 933, the ``Witness Security and Protection Act 
of 2007.''
    Legislative History.--Committee heard testimony from six 
witnesses: Ms. Laurie Robinson, Director, Master of Science 
Program, Department of Criminology University of Pennsylvania; 
The Honorable Douglas H. Palmer, Mayor of Trenton, New Jersey 
and President of the United States Conference of Mayors; Mr. 
Edmund H. Mosca, Chief of Police, Old Saybrook Department of 
Police Services, Old Saybrook, CT; The Honorable Kamala D. 
Harris, District Attorney, City of San Francisco, CA; Mr. Mark 
Epley, Senior Counsel, Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Mr. 
John Monaghan, Consultant, New York City Law Department, NY.
    On April 26, 2007, the Subcommittee ordered the bill to be 
favorably reported without amendment by voice vote and on May 
2, 2007, the full Committee ordered the bill to be reported 
favorably as amended by voice vote. On May 15, 2007, on motion 
to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 916 the House of 
Representatives agreed to the bill by yeas and nays 341-73. On 
May 16, 2007 H.R. 916 was received in the Senate and referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary. There was no further action 
on the bill.

H.R. 923, the ``Emmet Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 923, the ``Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights 
Crime Act'' establishes an Unsolved Crimes Section in the Civil 
Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and an 
Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office in the Civil 
Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The 
legislation makes the Chief of the Section and the Chief 
Investigator of the Office responsible for investigating 
violations of criminal civil rights statutes in which the 
alleged violation occurred before January 1, 1970 and resulted 
in death.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Lewis (D-GA) 
introduced H.R. 923 on February 8, 2007. The Committee's 
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism and Homeland Security jointly held one day of 
hearings on H.R. 923. Testimony was received from Ms. Myrlie 
Evers-Williams, activist, community leader and widow of slain 
civil rights activist Medgar Evers; Richard Cohen, Esq., 
President and CEO, Southern Poverty Law Center; G. Douglas 
Jones, Esq., former United States Attorney (N.D. Ala); Rita 
Schwerner-Bender, attorney, activist and widow of slain civil 
rights activist Michael Schwerner; Alvin Sykes, President of 
the Emmett Till Justice Campaign, Inc.; and Grace Chung-Becker, 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Section of 
the Department of Justice.
    On June 12, 2007, the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security met 
jointly and ordered the bill H.R. 923 favorably reported, as 
amended, by voice vote. On June 13, 2007, the full Committee 
favorably reported H.R. 923, as amended, by a voice vote. On 
June 20, 2007, on motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill, H.R. 923 was agreed to by the House of Representatives by 
a recorded vote of 422-2. On June 21, 2007 H.R. 923 was 
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. On September 24, 2008, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee discharged H.R. 923 by unanimous consent and passed 
the Senate by unanimous consent without amendment on the same 
date. On November 7, 2008, H.R. 923 was signed by President 
Bush and became Public Law 110-344.

H.R. 933, the ``Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 933 would amend the federal judicial code to 
establish in the U.S. Marshals Service, a Short Term State 
Witness Protection Section to provide protection for witnesses 
in state and local trials involving homicide or a serious 
violent felony or serious drug offense, pursuant to cooperative 
agreements with state and local district attorneys and the U.S. 
attorney for the District of Columbia.
    Legislative History.--Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD) 
introduced H.R. 933 on February 8, 2007. On April 24, 2007, the 
Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 933; ``H.R. 
1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007''; and ``H.R. 916, the 
John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 
2007.'' The subcommittee heard testimony from six witnesses: 
Ms. Laurie Robinson, Director, Master of Science Program, 
Department of Criminology University of Pennsylvania; The 
Honorable Douglas H. Palmer, Mayor of Trenton, New Jersey and 
President of the United States Conference of Mayors; Mr. Edmund 
H. Mosca, Chief of Police, Old Saybrook Department of Police 
Services, Old Saybrook, CT; The Honorable Kamala D. Harris, 
District Attorney, City of San Francisco, CA; Mr. Mark Epley, 
Senior Counsel, Office of the Deputy Attorney General United 
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Mr. John 
Monaghan, Consultant, New York City Law Department, NY. There 
was no further action on the bill.

H.R. 1199, the ``Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1199, the ``Drug Endangered Children Act of 
2007,'' extends the Drug Endangered Children grant program for 
an additional 2 years. Congress first authorized this grant 
program in section 755 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
Reauthorization Act of 2005, which authorized $20 million for 
each of the fiscal years 2006 and 2007. H.R. 1199 extends the 
program, at its current authorization level, for fiscal years 
2008 and 2009.
    Legislative History.--Representative Dennis Cardoza 
introduced H.R. 1199 on February 27, 2007. H.R. 1199 was 
referred to the Subcommittee on April 20, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 1199 on May 22, 
2007. The Subcommittee received testimony from Representative 
Dennis Cardoza, the sponsor of the legislation. On July 24, 
2007, the Subcommittee ordered the bill H.R. 1199 favorably 
reported, by voice vote. On July 25, 2007, the Full Committee 
ordered the bill H.R. 1199 favorably reported, without 
amendment, by voice vote. On September 24, 2007, the bill 
passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a recorded 
vote of 389-4. On September 24, 2008, the Senate passed the 
bill by Unanimous Consent. On October 7, 2008, the bill was 
signed by the President and became Public Law No. 110-345.

H.R. 1525, the ``Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1525 clarifies and enhances existing fraud 
and computer crime law, targeting abuses perpetrated on 
Internet users by persons who maliciously employ various covert 
software applications, programs, applets, or computer code 
commonly known as spyware. H.R. 1525 also provides resources 
and guidance to the Department of Justice for the prosecution 
of these offenses as well as fraudulent online identity theft.
    Legislative History.--Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) 
introduced on March 14, 2007, H.R. 1525 which was referred to 
the Subcommittee on March 30, 2007. The Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held one day of hearings on 
H.R. 1525 on May 1, 2007. Testimony was received from 
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Representative Bob 
Goodlatte (R-VA). On May 1, 2007, the Subcommittee ordered the 
bill to be to favorably report to H.R. 1525 without amendment, 
by voice vote. On May 2, 2007, the full Committee met in open 
session and ordered the bill, H.R. 1525, favorably reported 
with an amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present. On 
May 22, 2007, the legislation passed the House, under 
suspension of the rules, by voice vote.

H.R. 1592--the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 
        2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1592 provides assistance to state and local 
law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of hate 
crimes, and would amend chapter 13 of title 18, United States 
Code, to make violent crimes against a person motivated by bias 
against characteristics for which there is a history of such 
bias-motivated violence a felony. It would also amend the Hate 
Crime Statistics Act to require the collection of data on 
violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim's perceived 
gender or gender identity, as well as data on crimes committed 
by and directed against juveniles.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1592, the ``Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007,'' was 
introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, 
Jr., on March 20, 2007. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security held hearings on H.R. 1592 on April 17, 
2007. Testimony was received from Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney 
General of the State of Utah; Timothy Lynch, Director, Project 
on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute; Frederick M. Lawrence, 
Dean, the George Washington University Law School; David 
Ritcheson, Harris County, Texas; Brad W. Dacus, President, 
Pacific Justice Institute and Jack McDevitt, Associate Dean, 
Northeastern University. On April 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1592 favorably reported by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On April 25, 2007, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered the bill H.R. 1592 favorably reported, 
with amendments, by a roll call vote of 20 to 14, a quorum 
being present. (H. Rept. No. 110-113.) On June 3, 2007, H.R. 
1592 was passed by the House by a recorded vote of 237 to 180.

H.R. 1593--the ``Second Chance Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1593 is designed to reduce recidivism, 
increase public safety, and help State and local governments 
better address the growing population of ex-offenders returning 
to their communities by increasing federal support of offender-
based programming. The bill focuses on four areas: development 
and support of programs that provide alternatives to 
incarceration, expansion of the availability of substance abuse 
treatment, strengthening families of ex-offenders, and the 
expansion of comprehensive re-entry services.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1593, the ``Second Chance Act 
2007,'' was introduced by Representative Danny K. Davis on 
March 20, 2007. The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held hearings on H.R. 1593 on 
March 20, 2007. Testimony was received from five witnesses: 
Stefan LoBuglio, Chief, Pre-Release and Re-entry Services, 
Montgomery County, MD, Department of Correction and 
Rehabilitation; Steve Lufburrow, President and CEO, Goodwill 
Industries of Houston, TX; George McDonald, President, Doe 
Fund, Inc.; Dr. Roger H. Peters, Ph.D, Chairman and Professor, 
Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South 
Florida; and Jack G. Cowley, National Director, Alpha USA--
Prisons & Re-Entry. On March 27, 2007, the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1593 favorably reported, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On March 28, 2007, the Full Committee met 
in open session and ordered the bill favorably reported without 
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present. (H. Rept. No. 
110-140). On November 13, 2007, H.R. 1593 was passed by the 
House by a recorded vote of 347 to 62. On March 11, 2008, H.R. 
1593 was passed by the Senate, without amendment, by unanimous 
consent. The President signed H.R. 1593 on April 9, 2008, which 
became Public Law No. 110-199.

H.R. 1615, the ``Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 
        2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1615 addresses the growing problem of 
individuals intentionally aiming lasers at the cockpits of 
aircraft, particularly at the critical stages of take-off and 
landing. This practice constitutes a threat to aviation 
security and passenger safety. H.R. 1615 adds a section 
following 18 USC Sec. 38 to impose criminal penalties upon any 
individual who knowingly aims a laser pointer at an aircraft 
within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. 
The criminal penalties include fines of up to $250,000 and 
imprisonment of up to five years.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Rick Keller introduced on March 
21, 2007. H.R. 1615 was referred to the Subcommittee on March 
30, 2007. The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 1615 on May 1, 
2007. Testimony was received from Representative Ric Keller (R-
FL), the bill's principal sponsor. On May 1, 2007, the 
Subcommittee ordered the bill to be favorably reported H.R. 
1615 without amendment, by voice vote. On May 2, 2007, the Full 
Committee met in open session and ordered H.R. 1615 favorably 
reported with an amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present. On May 22, 2007, the legislation passed the House, 
under suspension of the rules, by voice vote.

H.R. 1700, the ``COPS Improvement Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1700 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand the authority of the 
Attorney General to make grants for public safety and community 
policing programs (COPS ON THE BEAT grant program).
    Legislative History.--Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 
introduced H.R. 1700 on March 26, 2007. On Tuesday, April 24, 
2007, the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1700; 
H.R. 916, the ``John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders 
Incentive Act of 2007''; and H.R. 933, the ``Witness Security 
and Protection Act of 2007.''
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from six witnesses: Ms. 
Laurie Robinson, Director, Master of Science Program, 
Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania; The 
Honorable Douglas H. Palmer, Mayor of Trenton, New Jersey and 
President of the United States Conference of Mayors; Mr. Edmund 
H. Mosca, Chief of Police, Old Saybrook Department of Police 
Services, Old Saybrook, CT; The Honorable Kamala D. Harris, 
District Attorney, City of San Francisco, CA; Mr. Mark Epley, 
Senior Counsel, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, United 
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Mr. John 
Monaghan, Consultant, New York City Law Department, NY.
    On April 26, 2007, the Subcommittee ordered reported the 
bill favorably reported without amendment by voice vote and on 
May 2, 2007, the full Committee ordered the bill to be reported 
favorably with amendment by voice vote. On May 15, 2007, on 
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1700 the House of 
Representatives agreed to the bill by yeas and nays 381-34. On 
May 16, 2007, H.R. 1700 was received in the Senate and referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary. There was no further action 
on the bill.

H.R. 1759, the ``Match Act of 2007''

    Summary.--The Managing Arson Through Criminal History 
(MATCH) Act of 2007 would require jurisdictions to establish 
and maintain jurisdiction-wide arsonist registries and make 
such registries available on the Internet to other law 
enforcement agencies. The act requires criminal arsonists to 
register in each jurisdiction in which such arsonists reside, 
are employed, or are students. The act would require the 
Attorney General to maintain a national database, incorporating 
the various jurisdiction databases, at the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to be known as the National 
Arsonist Registry.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1759 was introduced by 
Representative Mary Bono-Mack (R-CA) on March 29, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held one day of hearings on November 6, 2007, 
receiving testimony from Representative Bono-Mack; 
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA); Fire Chief Tracy Pansini, of 
the Burbank, California Fire Department; and Fire Chief William 
Soqui of the Cathedral City Fire Department, Cathedral City, 
California.
    On November 6, 2007, the Subcommittee met and ordered the 
bill H.R. 1759 favorably reported by voice vote without 
amendment. On November 7, 2007, the full Committee ordered the 
bill favorably reported with an amendment by voice vote. On 
December 5, 2007, on motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill, H.R. 1759 was passed by the House of Representatives by 
voice vote. On December 6, 2007, H.R. 1759 was received by the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. There 
was no further action on the bill.

H.R. 1783, the ``Elder Justice Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 1783 addresses the growing national problem 
of elder abuse. The bill amends Title XX of the Social Security 
Act and sets forth a comprehensive plan for preventing and 
combating elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, including the 
development of the Elder Justice Coordinating Council within 
the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It 
authorizes funding for numerous programs to promote elder 
justice, including State and local adult protective services, 
and requires the Department of Justice to develop policies and 
plans that support federal prosecution of elder abuse. It 
requires the Attorney General to research and report on State 
laws and practices relating to elder abuse and to develop a 
long-term plan and objectives. It requires the Comptroller 
General to make recommendations regarding Federal law. It 
authorizes the Attorney General to award grants for training 
and assistance to local and State prosecutors, courts, police 
and other first responders in elder justice matters, and to 
facilitate and coordinate programs for victims of elder abuse.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1783 was introduced by Rep. Rahm 
Emanuel on March 29, 2007 and referred to the Ways and Means 
Committee, Judiciary Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, 
and Education and Labor Committee. The subcommittee held one 
day of hearings on April 17, 2008. Testimony was received from 
Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), sponsor of H.R. 1783; Rep. 
Joe Sestak (D-PA), sponsor of H.R. 5352; Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL), 
sponsor of H.R. 5464; Robert Blancato, Elder Justice Coalition; 
Sherry Friedlander, A Child is Missing Alert and Recovery 
Center; and Vernon Keenan, Georgia Bureau of Investigation. On 
May 13, 2008, the Subcommittee met in open session and ordered 
the bill favorably reported, without amendment, by voice vote. 
On June 11, 2008, the Committee met in open session and ordered 
the bill favorably reported with an amendment, by voice vote.

H.R. 1889, the ``Private Prison Information Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1889 requires prisons and other correctional 
facilities holding federal prisoners under a contract with the 
federal government to make the same information available to 
the public that federal prisons and correctional facilities are 
required to release under the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA).
    Legislative History.--Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA) introduced 
H.R. 1889, the Private Prison Information Act of 2007 on April 
17, 2007. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland 
Security held a hearing on the bill in conjunction with a 
hearing on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) on November 
8, 2007. During the November 2007 hearing the Honorable Tim 
Holden, was the only witness to testify in reference to H.R. 
1889. The Subcommittee held a second hearing addressing the 
legislation on June 26, 2008. Testimony was received and heard 
from Alex Friedmann, Vice President, the Private Corrections 
Institute, Inc; Tom Jawetz, Immigration Detention Staff 
Attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union's National 
Prison Project; and Mike Flynn, Director of Government 
Relations for the Reason Foundation.

H.R. 1943, the ``Stop AIDS in Prison Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 1943, would direct the Bureau of Prisons to 
develop a comprehensive policy to provide HIV testing, 
treatment, and prevention for inmates in federal prisons and 
upon reentry into the community. The bill would require initial 
testing and counseling of inmates upon entry into the prison 
system and then ongoing testing available up to once a year 
upon the request of the inmate, or sooner if an inmate is 
exposed to the HIV/AIDS virus or becomes pregnant.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1943 was introduced by 
Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) on April 19, 2007; the 
Subcommittee held one day of hearings on May 22, 2007. 
Witnesses were: Mr. Devon Brown, Director of the Department of 
Corrections for the District of Columbia; Mr. Vincent Jones, 
Executive Director of the Center for Health Justice in West 
Hollywood, California; Mr. Philip Fornaci, Director of the D.C. 
Prisoner's Project for the Washington Lawyer's Committee for 
Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; RADM Newton E. Kendig, M.D., 
the Assistant Director of the Health Services Division for the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons; and Mr. Willie Mitchell, Chairman of 
the Board for San Antonio Fighting Back.
    On July 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security ordered the bill H.R. 1943 favorably 
reported, by voice vote. On July 25, 2007, the full Committee 
ordered the bill favorably reported without amendment, by voice 
vote. On September 25, 2007, H.R. 1943 was agreed to by voice 
vote in the House of Representatives on motion to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill and on September 26, 2007, was received 
by the Senate and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
On September 25, 2008 H.R. 1943 was favorably reported by the 
Senate Judiciary Committee without amendment and placed on 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General orders (Calendar 
1085) and no further action taken on the bill.

H.R. 2286 the ``Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 2286 would amend the Federal criminal code 
to prohibit a judicial officer from declaring forfeited a bail 
bond for violation of specified collateral release conditions, 
other than failing to appear in court, by amending Rule 46(f) 
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Historically, the 
sole purpose of affording bail to a defendant has been to 
ensure a defendant's appearance in court. Currently however, 
Federal judicial officers have merged the purposes of bail and 
other conditions of release, ordering bonds forfeited in cases 
in which the defendant appears as ordered but he fails to 
comply with some collateral condition of release. Consequently, 
the risks to the bondsmen being too great, no bonds are written 
in the Federal system.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2286 was introduced by 
Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) on May 10, 2007, and the 
Subcommittee held one day of hearings on H.R. 2286 on June 7, 
2007. Testimony was received and heard from Rep. Wexler; the 
Honorable Ric Keller (R-FL); Ms. Linda Braswell, President, 
Professional Bail Agents of the United States; and the 
Honorable Tommy E. Miller, United States Magistrate-Judge, 
United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia; Mr. 
Edward Gallagher, General Counsel for The Surety and Fidelity 
Association of America; and Richard A. Hertling, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of 
Justice.
    On June 7, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security ordered the bill H.R. 2286 favorably 
reported, by voice vote. On June 12, 2007, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered the bill H.R. 2286 favorably reported 
without amendment, by voice vote. On June 25, 2007, on motion 
to suspend the rules and agree to the bill by voice vote, H.R. 
2286 was agreed to by the House of Representatives and referred 
to the Senate on June 26, 2007. There was no further action on 
H.R. 2286.

H.R. 2352, the ``School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 2352 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 by re-authorizing and modifying the 
school security grant program and creating an interagency Task 
Force to develop and promulgate a set of advisory school safety 
guidelines. It amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 by 
requiring participating institutions to conduct annual campus 
safety assessments and develop and implement a campus emergency 
response plan.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2352 was introduced on May 16, 
2007 and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held one day of 
hearings on April 17, 2008. Testimony was received from Rep. 
Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ), the sponsor of the bill. On May 13, 
2008, the Subcommittee met in open session and ordered the bill 
favorably reported, with an amendment, by voice vote. On May 
14, 2008, the Committee met in open session and ordered the 
bill favorably reported with an amendment, by voice vote. The 
bill also was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, 
which discharged its referral on September 12, 2008. On 
September 27, 2008, the House suspended the rules and passed 
the bill, as amended, by voice vote.

H.R. 2489, the ``Genocide Accountability Act of 2007''

    Summary.--On May 24, 2007, Representative Howard Berman 
introduced H.R. 2489, the ``Genocide Accountability Act of 
2007.'' H.R. 2489 strengthens the ability of the United States 
to prosecute perpetrators of genocide by amending title 18 of 
the United States Code to establish Federal criminal 
jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, wherever the crime is 
committed. The Act would close a procedural loophole in current 
law that does not permit the United States Department of 
Justice to prosecute non-Americans in United States courts for 
genocide committed abroad.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on May 24, 2007, H.R. 2489 
was referred to the Subcommittee on June 25, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2489 on October 23, 2007. 
Testimony was received from Eli Rosenbaum, Director, Office of 
Special Investigations, Criminal Division, United States 
Department of Justice; Diane F. Orentlicher, Professor, 
Washington College of Law, American University; Jerry Fowler, 
Director, Committee on Conscience, United States Holocaust 
Memorial Museum; and Gayle Smith, Senior Fellow, Center for 
American Progress. On November 1, 2007, the Subcommittee 
ordered the bill, H.R. 2489, favorably reported by voice vote. 
On November 7, 2007, the Committee ordered the bill, H.R. 2489, 
favorably reported by voice vote. For further action, see S. 
888, which became Public Law 110-151 on December 21, 2007.

H.R. 2740, the ``MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative David Price, H.R. 
2740 would make contractors and contract personnel under 
Federal contracts criminally liable for crimes committed 
overseas. It would amend the Military Extraterritorial 
Jurisdiction Act (`MEJA'), which criminalizes offenses 
committed outside the United States by members of the Armed 
Forces and certain Defense Department contractors, but does not 
cover all contractors providing services in an overseas 
military operation. In addition to closing this gap in current 
law, H.R. 2740 would designate the Justice Department to be the 
lead agency responsible for investigating allegations of 
contractor criminal misconduct.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on June 15, 2007, H.R. 
2740 was referred to the Subcommittee on July 16, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 2740, on June 19, 
2007. Testimony was received from Erica Razook, Legal Advisor 
to the Business and Human Rights Program, Amnesty 
International; and Scott Horton, Adjunct Professor of Law, 
Columbia University School of Law. On July 24, 2007, the 
Subcommittee ordered the bill favorably reported, by voice 
vote. On August 2, 2007, the Committee ordered the bill 
favorably reported with an amendment, by voice vote. On October 
4, 2007, the bill passed the House, considered under a rule, by 
a recorded vote of 389-30.

H.R. 2878, the ``Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement 
        Treatment Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 2878 would increase the retirement benefits 
of Assistant U.S. Attorneys to the level of federal law 
enforcement officers, which is intended to strengthen the 
Department of Justice's ability to win critical cases by 
ensuring the retention of skilled, experienced federal 
prosecutors. The bill brings the retirement benefits of AUSAs 
into line with the retirement benefits of federal law 
enforcement officers.
    Legislative History.--The bill was introduced by 
Representative Artur Davis (AL 7) on June 27, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held one day of hearings on H.R. 2878 on November 
1, 2007. Testimony was received from: The Honorable Brian A. 
Benczkowski, Principal, Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
Office of Legislative Affairs United States Department of 
Justice; Ms. Amy Baron-Evans, Sentencing Resource Counsel, 
Federal Public and Community Defenders, Federal Defender 
Office; Steve Cook, Esq., Vice-President National Association 
of Assistant United States Attorneys; and Larry D. Thompson, 
Esq., Senior Vice President Government Affairs Pepsico, Inc. 
There was no further action on H.R. 2878.

H.R. 3013, ``Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 3013 was introduced on July 12, 2007 by Rep. 
Robert ``Bobby'' C. Scott and would restore judicial oversight 
to the important protections of attorney-client privilege and 
attorney work product doctrine, while preserving prosecutorial 
discretion necessary to fight corporate crime. Under the bill, 
an agent or attorney of the United States may base cooperation 
credit on the facts that are disclosed, but is prohibited from 
basing cooperation credit upon whether an organization 
disclosed materials that are protected by attorney-client 
privilege or attorney work product. This legislation would 
prohibit a U.S. agent or attorney from conditioning a charging 
decision or a cooperation agreement on any of the following (1) 
any valid assertion of the attorney-client privilege or 
privilege for attorney work product; (2) the provision of 
counsel to, or contribution to the legal defense fees or 
expenses of, an employee of the organization; (3) entry into a 
joint-defense, information-sharing, or common-interest 
agreement with an employee of the organization if there is a 
common interest in defending against an investigation or 
enforcement matter; (4) the sharing of relevant information 
with an employee; or (5) a failure to terminate an employee's 
employment, or otherwise sanction an employee, because of the 
employee's exercised his or her constitutional rights or other 
legal protections. H.R. 3013 would not affect any other federal 
statute that may authorize, in the course of an examination or 
inspection, a U.S. agent or attorney to require or compel the 
production of attorney-client privileged material or attorney 
work product. The bill also clarifies that the prohibition 
against conditioning a charging decision does not apply to 
charging an organization (or affiliated person) for certain 
conduct under a federal law which makes that conduct in itself 
an offense.
    Legislative History.--The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security held a hearing on the issue of Attorney 
Client Privilege in the context of corporate investigations on 
March 8, 2007. Testimony was received and heard from Barry M. 
Sabin, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Andrew Weissman, Partner, Jenner and Block; Richard White, 
Senior Vice President, Secretary, and General Counsel, The Auto 
Club Group; William Sullivan, Jr., Partner, Winston & Strawn; 
and Karen J. Mathis, President, American Bar Association. On 
July 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security met and ordered the bill H.R. 3013 favorably 
reported by voice vote. On August 1, 2007, the Committee met 
and ordered the bill favorably reported without amendment by 
voice vote. On November 13, 2007 the House passed H.R. 3013 by 
voice vote on a motion to suspend the rules.

H.R. 3480, the ``Let Our Veterans Rest in Peace Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 3480 directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
to review and, if appropriate, amend its sentencing guidelines 
and policy statements to provide adequate sentencing 
enhancements for any offense involving the desecration, theft, 
or trafficking in a grave marker, headstone, monument, or other 
object intended to permanently mark a veteran's grave. Requires 
the Commission to ensure that the sentences, guidelines, and 
policy statements for these crimes are appropriately severe and 
reasonably consistent with other relevant directives, 
sentencing guidelines, and policies.
    Legislative History.--Representative Christopher Carney (D-
PA) introduced H.R. 3480 on September 6, 2007. There were no 
hearings on this legislation. On May 13, 2008, the Subcommittee 
ordered the bill, H.R. 3480, favorably reported by voice vote 
without amendment and on May 14, 2008, the full Committee 
ordered the bill, H.R. 3480, favorably reported with an 
amendment by voice vote. On May 21, 2008, on motion to suspend 
the rules and pass H.R. 3480, the House of Representatives 
passed the bill by voice vote and referred the bill to the 
Senate. On October 2, 2008 the Senate passed H.R. 3480 without 
amendment by Unanimous Consent. On October 10, 2008, President 
Bush signed H.R. 3480, which became Public Law 110-384.

H.R. 3546/S. 231, to Reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
        Assistant Grant Program at Fiscal Year 2006 Levels through 2012

    Summary.--H.R. 3546 and S. 231 each amend the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize 
appropriations for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 
Grant Program in the amount of $1,095,000,000 per fiscal year 
through FY 2012. Presently, appropriation authority for the 
program expires at the end of FY 2009. The Edward Byrne 
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne-JAG) allows 
states and local governments to support a broad range of 
activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the 
criminal justice system, which states and local governments 
have come to rely on to ensure public safety.
    Legislative History.--Representative Hank Johnson (GA-4) 
introduced H.R. 3546 on September 17, 2007. The Subcommittee 
held one day of hearings on H.R. 3546, on May 20, 2008. 
Testimony was received from the Honorable Domingo Herraiz, 
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, United States 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC; the Honorable Dustin 
McDaniel, National Association of Attorneys General, 
Washington, DC; Mr. James Fox, President, National District 
Attorneys' Association, Alexandria, VA; Sheriff Craig Webre, 
President, National Sheriff's Organization, Alexandria, VA; 
Director Ronald C. Rueker, President, International Association 
of Chiefs of Police Alexandria, VA; and Mr. Ronald Brooks, 
President, National Narcotic Officers' Association Coalition, 
San Francisco, CA. On June 10, 2008, the Subcommittee ordered 
the bill favorably reported, without amendment, by voice vote 
and on June 18, 2008, the full Committee ordered the bill 
favorably reported without amendment, by voice vote. On June 
25, 2008 on motion to suspend the rules, and pass H.R. 3546, 
the bill passed the House of Representatives by yeas and nays 
406-11 and referred the bill to the Senate. On July 14, 2008, 
on motion to suspend the rules, and pass S. 231, the House 
passed the bill by voice vote. On July 30, 2008, President Bush 
signed S. 231, which became Public Law 110-294.

H.R. 3971, the ``Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2008'' (was H.R. 
        2908 at the hearing, later amended to H.R. 3971)

    Summary.--H.R. 3971, the ``Deaths in Custody Reporting Act 
of 2007,'' promotes greater safety for prison and jail inmates 
by lowering prisoner morality rates. To this end, the bill 
requires States that receive certain criminal justice 
assistance grants to report on a quarterly basis to the 
Attorney General certain information regarding the death of any 
person who is under arrest, in the process of being arrested, 
en route to incarceration after arrest, or incarcerated in 
State or local facilities. H.R. 3971 also requires the Attorney 
General to study and report to Congress on deaths of persons in 
custody. The report must identify best practices for optimizing 
prisoner safety and lowering prisoner mortality rates.
    Legislative History.--Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) 
introduced H.R. 2908 on June 28, 2007. The Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held one day of 
hearings on July 24, 2007. Testimony was received from Charles 
Sullivan, Director of National CURE; Jeffrey Sedgwick, Director 
of the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics; 
Jenni Gainsborough, Director of the Washington Office of Penal 
Reform International; and Mary Scott, surviving mother of 
Jonathan Magbie, who died while in the custody of the District 
of Columbia Jail on September 20, 2004.
    On November 1, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered the bill 
H.R. 3971 (an amended H.R. 2908) favorably reported. On 
November 7, 2007, the full Committee ordered H.R. 3971 
favorably reported with an amendment by voice vote. On January 
23, 2008, on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, 
H.R. 3971 was agreed to by the House of Representatives. On 
January 24, 2008 H.R. 3971 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On September 25, 
2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee ordered the bill reported 
favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and 
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
There was no further action on H.R. 3971.

H.R. 3992, the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction 
        Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' 
Scott, H.R. 3992, is a reauthorization of the ``Mentally Ill 
Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004'' (Public 
Law 108-414). The law increases public safety by enabling 
coordination between the criminal justice and mental health 
care systems to increase treatment among this segment of the 
population.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on October 30, 2007, H.R. 
3992 was referred to the Subcommittee on November 1, 2007. On 
November 1, 2007, the Subcommittee ordered to favorably report 
H.R. 3992 by voice vote. On November 7, 2007, the full 
Committee met in open session and ordered the bill, H.R. 3992, 
favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum being present. On 
January 23, 2008, the legislation passed the House, under 
suspension of the rules, by voice vote. For further action, see 
S. 2304, which became Public Law 110-416 on October 14, 2008.

H.R. 4056/S. 2565, the ``Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of 
        Bravery Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 4056, authorizes the Attorney General to 
award a Congressional Badge of Bravery to federal law 
enforcement officers and state and local officers who sustain a 
physical injury in the line of duty. Sets forth requirements 
for agencies in nominating a law enforcement officer for a 
badge. This measure establishes a formal process by which 
Congress will be able to recognize acts of bravery by all of 
our Nation's law enforcement officers who become injured in the 
course of their duties.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4056 was introduced by 
Representative Brad Ellsworth (IN 8) on November 1, 2007. On 
April 15, 2008, on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 
4056, the House of Representatives passed the bill and referred 
it to the Senate, where it was referred to the Judiciary 
Committee. On June 26, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2565 
encompassing the elements of H.R. 4056 with amendments and 
referred it to the House. On July 22, 2008, on motion to 
suspend the rules and pass S. 2565, the House passed the bill 
by voice vote. On July 31, 2008, President Bush signed S. 2565, 
which became Public Law 110-298.

H.R. 4063, the ``Restitution for the Exonerated Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 4063, the ``Restitution for the Exonerated 
Act of 2007,'' would authorize a grant program to fund programs 
to assist people who were wrongfully convicted and spent at 
least six months in federal or state prison.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4063 was introduced by 
Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ) on November 1, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held one day of hearings on H.R. 4063 
simultaneously with hearings on H.R. 261, the ``Federal Prison 
Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2007''; H.R. 4283, the 
``Literacy Education and Rehabilitation Act of 2007''; and H.R. 
4300, the ``Juvenile Justice Improvement and Accountability 
Act.''
    On December 6, 2007, testimony was received by Professor 
Jennifer Woolard, Assistant Professor, Department of 
Psychology, Georgetown University. Ms. Deborah LaBelle, 
Director of the Juvenile Life Without Parole Initiative, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan; Professor Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and 
Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George 
Washington Law School; Pastor Fred Mosley, Cleveland, Ohio; Mr. 
Ray Krone, exonerated from death row in Arizona after his 
innocence was conclusively established; The Honorable Drew 
Wrigley, United States Attorney for the District of North 
Dakota; and Mr. Lance Ogiste, Counsel to the Brooklyn District 
Attorney and member of National District Attorney's 
Association. There was no further action on H.R. 4063.

H.R. 4081, the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Weiner, H.R. 4081 
aims to prevent tobacco smuggling and to ensure the collection 
of tobacco taxes. This legislation will combat unlawful 
cigarette trafficking by updating existing anti-trafficking 
laws and introducing new tools to combat illegal remote sales, 
such as those conducted over the Internet.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on November 5, 2007, H.R. 
4081 was referred to the Subcommittee on December 3, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 4081 on May 1, 
2008. Testimony was received from Representative Anthony Weiner 
(D-NY); Representative Dale E. Kildee (D-MI); Arian Melendez, 
Chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony; Matthew L. Myers, 
President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; Steve Rosenthal, New 
York State Association of Wholesale Marketers; John Colledge, 
Independent Consultant; and David Lapp, Chief Counsel, Tobacco 
Enforcement Unit, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland. 
On July 16, 2008, the Committee ordered the bill, H.R. 4081, 
favorably reported with an amendment, by voice vote. On 
September 10, 2008, the bill passed the House, under suspension 
of the rules, by a recorded vote of 379-12.

H.R. 4109, the ``Prison Remedies Abuse Act of 2007 (PLRA)''

    Summary.--Congress passed the PLRA in 1996 as part of an 
emergency appropriations bill. Although the PLRA made major 
changes in the law, it was the subject of only one 
congressional hearing and extremely limited debate. Provisions 
of the PLRA have been the subject of six Supreme Court 
decisions interpreting competing interpretations by Federal 
Courts of Appeals. At the time the bill passed, Congress stated 
two main reasons for the Act: (1) to reduce frivolous lawsuits 
by prisoners and to decrease the amount of intrusive consent 
decrees governing prison conditions. The purpose of H.R. 4109 
was introduced to correct some of the unintended problems that 
have resulted from passage of the 1996 ``Prison Litigation 
Reform Act'' (PLRA). The PLRA Act has successfully blocked 
prisoner access to the federal courts in ``frivolous'' 
lawsuits, it has also prevented many legitimate cases from 
being filed. H.R. 4109 modifies 42 U.S.C. 1997e by eliminating 
the physical injury claim required to sue under the PLRA. This 
legislation would preserve the PLRA's goal of promoting 
administrative resolution of disputes, while preventing the 
dismissal of meritorious claims purely for failure to exhaust. 
Section 3 of the bill provides that before filing suit, a 
prisoner must present it his or her claim to prison officials. 
If a prisoner files a claim without first presenting to prison 
officials (and the court does not dismiss the claim as 
frivolous or malicious), the court must stay the case for up to 
90 days and direct prison officials to consider the claim 
through administrative processes. Cases that are not resolved 
administratively during the 90-day period will then proceed in 
court, unless the court is notified by the parties that the 
case is resolved.
    In addition, H.R. 4109 would exempt people under the age of 
18 from the PLRA. Current federal law permits prisoners to file 
suit in forma pauperis, or without prepayment of filing fees, 
provided that the prisoner pays those fees over time. Also, the 
PLRA permanently bans prisoners who file three suits that were 
dismissed as ``frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a 
claim upon which relief may be granted.'' This bill would 
modify the life-time ban so that a prisoner would be prohibited 
from bringing a suit if he or she has had three dismissals 
within the preceding 5 years. In addition, the bill would allow 
indigent prisoners to file claims in forma pauperis, unless the 
action is dismissed at the initial screening, in which case, 
the prisoner would have to pay the filing fee over time.
    H.R. 4109 would amend language in 18 U.S.C. 3626 that 
restricts the power of federal courts to fashion and implement 
injunctive orders remedying prison conditions that violate the 
law. Finally, this legislation would also eliminate the 
provision in the PLRA that prohibits granting attorneys' fees 
in prison cases as well as make a technical amendment to who 
the PLRA applies to.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott 
introduced H.R. 4109, ``The Prison Remedies Act of 2007'' on 
November 7, 2007. The Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism and 
Homeland Security held a hearing on November 8, 2007, titled 
``Review of the Prison Litigation Reform Act: A Decade of 
Reform or an Increase in Prison and Abuses?'' That hearing 
examined the many unintended consequences of the PLRA that have 
surfaced since its enactment. The Subcommittee heard and 
received testimony from: Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law, 
Washington University on behalf of the American Bar 
Association; David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative 
Union; Pat Nolan, Vice President, Prison Fellowship Ministries; 
Garrett Cunningham, former prisoner in the Texas Department of 
Criminal Justice Luther Unit; and Ryan Bounds, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Office of Legal Policy; 
United States Department of Justice.
    On April 22, 2008, the Subcommittee held a second hearing 
(Part II) on the legislation H.R. 4109. The Subcommittee heard 
and received testimony from Stephen B. Bright, Southern Center 
for Human Rights; John J. Gibbons, Newark, NJ; Ernest D. 
Preate, Jr., JD; Sarah V. Hart, Assistant District Attorney, 
Philadelphia District Attorney's Office; and Jeanne S. 
Woodford, former Warden of San Quentin State Prison, 1997, and 
the Chief Adult Probation Officer, City and County of San 
Francisco, CA.

H.R. 4175, the ``Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Chairman John Conyers, Jr. introduced H.R. 4175, 
the ``Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act of 2007.'' The 
legislation provides new tools to federal prosecutors to combat 
identity theft and other computer crimes. The bill also 
provides victims of identity theft with the ability to seek 
restitution in federal court for the loss of time and money 
spent restoring their credit and remedying the harms of 
identity theft. In addition, the bill strengthens consumer 
privacy by requiring companies to give rapid notice of breaches 
to law enforcement.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on November 14, 2007, H.R. 
4175 was referred to the Subcommittee on December 14, 2007. The 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 4175 on December 18, 2007. 
Testimony was received from Andrew Lourie, Acting Principal 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff to the 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Craig Magaw, 
Special Agent, Criminal Investigative Division, U.S. Secret 
Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Joel Winston, 
Associate Director, Division of Privacy and Identity 
Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 
Commission; Jaimee Napp, Executive Director, Identity Theft 
Action Council of Nebraska; Robert W. Holleyman, II, President 
and CEO, Business Software Alliance, and Lillie Coney, 
Associate Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center. No 
further action was taken on the bill.

H.R. 4283 the ``Literacy, Education and Rehabilitation Act of 2007''

    Summary.--The ``Literacy, Education, and Rehabilitation Act 
of 2007'' or LERA, would award credit toward the service of a 
sentence to prisoners who participate in designated 
educational, vocational, treatment, assigned work, or other 
developmental programs. Legislative History--The Subcommittee 
held one day of hearings on the bill (prior to its 
introduction) simultaneously with hearings on H.R. 261, the 
``Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 
2007''; H.R. 4300, the ``Juvenile Justice Accountability and 
Improvement Act of 2007''; and H.R. 4063, the Restitution for 
the Exonerated Act of 2007.''
    Legislative History.--On December 6, 2007, testimony was 
received by Professor Jennifer Woolard, Assistant Professor, 
Department of Psychology, Georgetown University. Deborah 
LaBelle, Director of the Juvenile Life Without Parole 
Initiative, Ann Arbor, MI; Professor Jonathan Turley, the J.B. 
and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at 
George Washington Law School; Pastor Fred Mosley, Cleveland, 
Ohio; Mr. Ray Krone, exonerated from death row in Arizona after 
his innocence was conclusively established; The Honorable Drew 
Wrigley, United States Attorney for the District of North 
Dakota; and Mr. Lance Ogiste, Counsel to the Brooklyn District 
Attorney and member of National District Attorney's 
Association. LERA was introduced by Representative Bobby Scott 
(D-VA) on December 15, 2007. There was no further action on 
H.R. 4283.

H.R. 4300, the ``Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 
        2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 4300 would afford every youthful offender 
sentenced to life imprisonment a meaningful opportunity to have 
their case reviewed every 15 years. The United States is the 
only nation that sentences juveniles to life in prison with no 
hope of parole. Under H.R. 4300, States would be mandated to 
offer parole opportunities or risk losing 10% of certain 
funding that they would otherwise receive through the Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 and a parallel requirement would exist in 
the federal system. Further, grants would be awarded to the 
states for improving the quality of legal representation of 
child defendants, which would include expenses for lawyers, 
investigation, expert witnesses and expenses for appeals up to 
and including before the United States Supreme Court.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4300 was introduced by 
Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Representative John 
Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) on December 6, 2007. The Subcommittee held 
one day of hearings on H.R. 4300 simultaneously with hearings 
on H.R. 261, the Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender 
Relief Act of 2007''; H.R. 4283, the ``Literacy Education and 
Rehabilitation Act of 2007''; and H.R. 4063, the Restitution 
for the Exonerated Act of 2007'' on December 6, 2007. The 
subcommittee held an additional hearing on September 11, 2008, 
and testimony was received by Bryan Stevenson, Executive 
Director of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery; Richard 
G. Dudley, Jr., M.D.; Raphael Johnson, Reformed Juvenile 
Offender; and Elizabeth Calvin, Children Rights Advocate, Human 
Rights Watch.
    Testimony was received by Professor Jennifer Woolard, 
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Georgetown 
University. Ms. Deborah LaBelle, Director of the Juvenile Life 
Without Parole Initiative, Ann Arbor, MI; Professor Jonathan 
Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public 
Interest Law at George Washington Law School; Pastor Fred 
Mosley, Cleveland, Ohio; Mr. Ray Krone, exonerated from death 
row in Arizona after his innocence was conclusively 
established; The Honorable Drew Wrigley, United States Attorney 
for the District of North Dakota; and Mr. Lance Ogiste, Counsel 
to the Brooklyn District Attorney and member of National 
District Attorney's Association. There was no further action on 
H.R. 4300.

H.R. 4545, the ``Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking 
        Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 4545, the ``Drug Sentencing Reform and 
Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007'' addresses the problem 
of disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine 
sentencing laws. It amends the Controlled Substances Act and 
the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by increasing 
the amounts of crack cocaine that would trigger the imposition 
of various mandatory minimum prison terms and by increasing 
potential fines. The bill eliminates the five-year mandatory 
minimum prison term for first time possession of crack cocaine. 
The bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and 
amend, if appropriate, penalties for drug trafficking offenses. 
The bill authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to 
States, units of local government, territories and Indian 
tribes to improve drug treatment programs for offenders in 
prisons, jails and juvenile facilities and to strengthen 
rehabilitation efforts through support services. The bill 
authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to eligible 
partnerships to reduce the use of alcohol and other drugs by 
defendants during incarceration, parole and court supervision.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4545 was introduced by Ms. 
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) on December 13, 2007 and referred to 
the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. 
On February 26, 2008, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held one day of 
hearings on this bill and three others relating to crack 
cocaine laws. Testimony was received from Rep. Sheila Jackson-
Lee (D-TX), sponsor of H.R. 4545, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-
NY), sponsor of H.R. 460, Judge Reggie Walton, U.S. District 
Court Judge for the District of Columbia; Judge Ricardo H. 
Hinojosa, Chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission 
and U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of 
Texas; Gretchen Shappert, U.S. Attorney for the Western 
District of North Carolina; Joe Cassilly, State's Attorney for 
Harford County, Maryland; Michael Short, convicted of federal 
drug offense and commuted by President Bush; and Michael 
Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of 
Virginia.

H.R. 5035, the ``Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5035, the ``Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing 
Act of 2008,'' addresses the unfair disparity between crack and 
powder cocaine sentencing laws. It amends the Controlled 
Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export 
Act by eliminating separate penalties for crack cocaine. It 
eliminates the mandatory minimum penalties for simple 
possession of crack cocaine, thereby allowing judges to impose 
a just punishment based on the circumstances of each case. It 
eliminates previous law that prohibited courts from granting 
probation or vacating a sentence involving the manufacture, 
distribution, dispensing or possession to manufacture, 
distribute or dispense cocaine. Finally, the bill acknowledges 
the strong rehabilitative value of substance abuse treatment 
and authorizes money to establish State and federal pretrial 
diversion and post-conviction drug court programs.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5035 was introduced by Rep. 
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott on January 17, 2008 and referred to 
the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. 
On February 26, 2008, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held one day of 
hearings on this bill and three others relating to crack 
cocaine laws. Testimony was received from Rep. Charles B. 
Rangel (D-NY), sponsor of H.R. 460, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-
TX), sponsor of H.R. 4545, Judge Reggie Walton, U.S. District 
Court Judge for the District of Columbia; Judge Ricardo H. 
Hinojosa, Chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission 
and U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of 
Texas; Gretchen Shappert, U.S. Attorney for the Western 
District of North Carolina; Joe Cassilly, State's Attorney for 
Harford County, Maryland; Michael Short, convicted of federal 
drug offense and commuted by President Bush; and Michael 
Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of 
Virginia.

H.R. 5057, the ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2008'' 
        (reauthorizing Title II of PL 108-405)

    Summary.--H.R. 5057 reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA 
Backlog Grant Program to help reduce the backlog of untested 
DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs. The Debbie Smith DNA 
Backlog Grant Program, which began in 2000, expires at the end 
of FY 2009. H.R. 5057, the ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization 
Act,'' would renew the law and authorize $151 million for each 
fiscal year 2009-2014.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) 
introduced H.R. 5057 on January 17, 2008. The Subcommittee held 
one day of hearings on H.R. 5057, on April 10, 2008. Testimony 
was received from Representative Maloney; Dr. David W. Hagy, 
Director, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; Peter Marone, Director, 
State of Virginia Crime Labs; Peter Neufeld, Esq., Co-founder 
and Co-Director of the Innocence Project; and Allen Newton, who 
was exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing, with 
additional material submitted by Human Rights Watch and the 
American Civil Liberties Union.
    On May 13, 2008, the Subcommittee ordered the bill H.R. 
5057 favorably reported, without amendment, by voice vote and 
on June 11, 2008, the full Committee met and ordered the bill 
favorably reported with an amendment, by voice vote. On July 
14, 2008, on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5057, 
the House of Representatives passed the bill by voice vote and 
referred the bill to the Senate. On September 25, 2008, the 
Senate passed H.R. 5057 as an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute by Unanimous Consent and referred the bill back to 
the House. On September 27, 2008, on motion to suspend the 
rules and pass H.R. 5057, the House passed the bill and on 
October 8, 2008, President Bush signed H.R. 5057, which became 
Public Law 110-360.

H.R. 5352, the ``Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5352 addresses the growing problem of elders 
victimized by criminal conduct. It requires the Attorney 
General to research and report on State laws and practices 
relating to elder abuse and to develop a long-term plan and 
objectives. It requires the Comptroller General to make 
recommendations regarding Federal law. It authorizes the 
Attorney General to award grants for training and assistance to 
local and State prosecutors, courts, police and other first 
responders in elder justice matters, and to facilitate and 
coordinate programs for victims of elder abuse.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5352 was introduced on February 
12, 2008 and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held 
one day of hearings on April 17, 2008. Testimony was received 
from Representative Rahm Emanuel (IL-5), sponsor of H.R. 1783; 
Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-7), sponsor of H.R. 5352; Rep. Ron Klein 
(FL-22), sponsor of H.R. 5464; Robert Blancato, Elder Justice 
Coalition; Sherry Friedlander, A Child is Missing Alert and 
Recovery Center; and Vernon Keenan, Georgia Bureau of 
Investigation. On May 13, 2008, the Subcommittee met in open 
session and ordered the bill favorably reported, without 
amendment, by voice vote. On June 11, 2008, the Committee met 
in open session and ordered the bill favorably reported with an 
amendment, by voice vote.
    The bill also was referred to the House Ways and Means 
Committee. That referral was discharged on September 22, 2008. 
On September 23, 2008, the House suspended the rules and passed 
H.R. 5352, as amended, by voice vote: 387-28.

H.R. 5464, the ``A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 5464 addresses the need for a quick response 
by law enforcement when a child ``goes missing.'' The bill 
authorizes annual grants to the A Child Is Missing Alert and 
Recovery Center, a national non-profit organization, to operate 
and expand the program and technologies necessary to assist law 
enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing 
individuals.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5464 was introduced on February 
14, 2008 and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held 
one day of hearings on April 17, 2008. Testimony was received 
from Rep. Ron Klein, the sponsor of the bill; Sherry 
Friedlander-Olsen, founder and CEO of A Child is Missing Alert 
and Recovery Center; and Vernon Keenan, Director of Georgia 
Bureau of Investigation. On May 13, 2008, the Subcommittee met 
in open session and ordered the bill favorably reported without 
amendment, by voice vote. On May 14, 2008, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered the bill favorably reported without 
amendment, by a voice vote. On July 14, 2008, the House 
suspended the rules and passed the bill by voice vote.

H.R. 5689, the ``Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act of 2008''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Lloyd Doggett, H.R. 
5689 amends the Internal Revenue Code to require all packages 
of tobacco products for export to be clearly labeled for export 
to prevent illegal reentry into the U.S. The bill also 
prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers, raises the $1,000 
civil penalty for tobacco product violations to $10,000, and 
allows a State tobacco tax authority to bring a civil action in 
U.S. district court for collection of State cigarette taxes.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on April 3, 2008, H.R. 
5689 was referred to the Subcommittee on April 14, 2008. The 
Subcommittee held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 5689 on May 1, 
2008. Testimony was received from Representative Anthony Weiner 
(D-NY); Representative Dale E. Kildee (D-MI); Arian Melendez, 
Chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony; Matthew L. Myers, 
President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; Steve Rosenthal, New 
York State Association of Wholesale Marketers; John Colledge, 
Independent Consultant; and David Lapp, Chief Counsel, Tobacco 
Enforcement Unit, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland. 
No further action was taken on the bill.

H.R. 5898, the ``Silver Alert Grant Program Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5898 addresses the growing problem of 
elderly persons who ``go missing'' as a result of dementia or 
other illness. It authorizes a grant program for State-
administered notification systems to help locate missing 
persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other dementia 
related illnesses. The grants are to be used to establish and 
implement State Silver Alert systems or to make improvements to 
existing State Silver Alert programs.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5898 was introduced on April 24, 
2008 and referred to the Judiciary Committee. On July 15, 2008, 
the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
held one day of hearings on H.R. 5898, and related bills H.R. 
6064, the ``National Silver Alert Act,'' and H.R. 423, 
``Kristen's Act Reauthorization of 2007.'' Testimony was 
received from Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-25), sponsor of H.R. 6064; 
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-9), sponsor of H.R. 5898; and Rep. Sue 
Wilkins Myrick (NC-09), sponsor of H.R. 423. On July 30, 2008, 
the Committee met in open session on related bill H.R. 6064, 
and ordered that bill favorably reported with an amendment that 
incorporated much of H.R. 5898. On September 17, 2008, the 
House voted to suspend the rules and passed H.R. 6064, as 
amended, by voice vote.

H.R. 5938, the ``Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 5938, authorizes the United States Secret 
Service to protect the former Vice Presidents of the United 
States, their spouses, and their children under the age of 16, 
for not more than six months after the Vice President leaves 
office. The bill would also allow protection to continue should 
circumstances warrant the extension.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Conyers (D-MI) 
introduced H.R. 5938 on May 1, 2008. The Committee on the 
Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 5938. On May 13, 2008, the 
Subcommittee ordered the bill H.R. 5938 favorably reported, 
without amendment, by voice vote, and on May 14, 2008, the full 
Committee ordered the bill favorably reported without 
amendment. On June 9, 2008, on motion to suspend the rules and 
pass H.R. 5938, the House of Representatives passed the bill 
and referred it to the Senate. On July 30, 2008, H.R. 5938 
passed the Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent and was 
referred back to the House. On September 15, 2008 on motion to 
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5938, the House passed the 
bill. On September 26, 2008, President Bush signed the bill, 
which became Public Law 110-326.

H.R. 6083, To authorize funding to conduct a national training program 
        for State and local prosecutors.

    Summary.--H.R. 6083 will authorize the United States 
Attorney General to grant funding for providing State and local 
prosecutors with specialized training to prosecute difficult 
crimes such as child/elder abuse, identity theft, gang-related 
activities, and in complex evidentiary issues such as the use 
of DNA.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6083 was introduced by 
Representative John Spratt (SC 5) on May 19, 2008. The 
Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 6083. On 
July 16, 2008 the full Committee ordered H.R. 6083 favorably 
reported with an amendment, by voice vote. On July 31, 2008, on 
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6083, the House of 
Representatives passed the bill by voice vote and referred the 
bill to the Senate. On September 30, 2008, the Senate passed 
the bill by unanimous consent without amendment and on October 
15, 2008, President Bush signed the bill, which became Public 
Law 110-424.

H.R. 6295/S. 3598, Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008

    Summary.--H.R. 6295 makes the operation of a self-
propelled, stateless, semi-submersible or fully submersible 
vessel on an international voyage, a felony offense under title 
18 United States Code. Illicit self-propelled submersibles or 
SPSSes are a growing national security threat identified by the 
United States Coast Guard and require Congressional action.
    Legislative History.--Representative Dan Lungren (CA-3) 
introduced H.R. 6295 on June 18, 2008. The Committee held no 
hearings on this legislation and had no mark up. On July 27, 
2008, upon motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6295, the 
House of Representatives agreed to the bill by voice vote. On 
September 25, 2008, Senator Inouye (HI) introduced S. 3598, an 
amended form of H.R. 6295, which on the same date passed by 
Unanimous Consent without amendment and was referred to the 
House of Representatives. On September 29, 2008, on motion to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, the House passed S. 3598 
without amendment by voice vote. On October 3, 2008, President 
Bush signed the bill, which became Public Law 110-407.

H.R. 6064, the ``National Silver Alert Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 6064, Title I, the ``National Silver Alert 
Act,'' addresses the growing problem of older adults who ``go 
missing'' each year as a result of dementia, diminished 
capacity, foul play or other unusual circumstances. It 
establishes a national Silver Alert program, based on the 
successful Amber Alert program for children. The Act authorizes 
the Attorney General to provide grants to States for local 
Silver Alert plans and communications networks. The Act also 
authorizes the Attorney General to award grants under the Sammy 
Kirk Electronic Monitoring Program to States and local 
governments for programs providing voluntary electronic 
monitoring services to elderly individuals. Title II of H.R. 
6064, ``Kristen's Act Reauthorization of 2008,'' reauthorizes 
an existing grant program, and directs the Attorney General to 
make competitive grants to public agencies and nonprofit 
private organizations for maintenance of a national resource 
center and information clearinghouse, a national database for 
tracking missing adults, training, and other related 
activities.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6064 was introduced on May 15, 
2008 and referred to the Judiciary Committee. On July 15, 2008, 
the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
held one day of hearings on H.R. 6064, and related bills H.R. 
5898, the ``Silver Alert Grant Program Act of 2008,'' and H.R. 
423, ``Kristen's Act Reauthorization of 2007.'' Testimony was 
received from Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-25), sponsor of H.R. 6064; 
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-9), sponsor of H.R. 5898; and Rep. Sue 
Wilkins Myrick (NC-9), sponsor of H.R. 423. On July 30, 2008, 
the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill 
favorably reported, with an amendment, by voice vote. The 
amendments merged two other bills, H.R. 5898, the ``Silver 
Alert Grant Program Act'' and H.R. 423, the ``Kristen's Act 
Reauthorization of 2007,'' with the main bill, H.R. 6064. On 
September 17, 2008, the House voted to suspend the rules and 
passed H.R. 6064, as amended, by voice vote.

H.R. 6491, the ``Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 6491 addresses the serious problem of 
organized retail crime and its use of the internet to 
perpetuate crime. H.R. 6491 adds to existing federal laws that 
prohibit the transportation, sale or receipt of stolen goods by 
adding language indicating that such conduct is prohibited when 
committed through organized retail crime. The bill also adds 
the new crime of facilitation of organized retail crime. It 
makes it unlawful for online marketplace operators to 
facilitate organized retail crime by failing to conduct 
internal investigations and ``take-down'' suspected sites; by 
failing to maintain certain records; by failing to require high 
volume sellers to publicly disclose certain identifying 
information on the Internet; and by failing to provide certain 
contact information to businesses who have a reasonable 
suspicion that online products offered for sale were obtained 
by ORC. The bill provides for civil forfeiture and a civil 
cause of action for injunctive relief or damages against online 
marketplace operators. Finally, H.R. 6491 directs the United 
States Sentencing Commission to review and, if appropriate, 
amend the sentencing guidelines for organized retail crime.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6491 was introduced on July 15, 
2008, and referred to the Judiciary Committee. On September 11, 
2008, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security held one day of hearings on H.R. 6491 and related 
bills, and testimony was received by Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-
IN), sponsor of H.R. 6491; Frank Muscato, Organized Retail 
Crime Field Investigator, Walgreens; Sheriff Grady Judd, Polk 
County Sheriff's Office; Steve DelBianco, Executive Director, 
Net Choice; Edward Torpoco, Senior Regulatory Counsel, eBay 
Inc.; and Joseph J. LaRocca, Vice President, Loss Prevention, 
National Retail Federation. The Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security previously had held one day of 
hearings on the general problem of organized retail crime on 
October 25, 2007, and testimony was received by Brad Brekke, 
Vice-President of Assets Protection, Target Corporation; David 
Hill, Detective, Montgomery County Police Department; Karl F. 
Langhorst, Director of Loss Prevention, Randalls/Tom Thumb Food 
and Pharmacy; and Robert Chestnut, Senior Vice-President of 
Rules, Trust and Safety, eBay Inc.

H.R. 6503, the ``Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program 
        Reauthorization of 2008''

    Summary.--The Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert 
Program, administered by the Department of Justice, is the only 
federal program that currently provides grant funding to locate 
vulnerable elderly individuals who go missing. H.R. 6503 
reauthorizes and modifies this program. The bill authorizes the 
Attorney General to award competitive grants to nonprofit 
organizations for planning, designing, establishing, and 
operating locally based, proactive programs to protect and 
locate missing patients with Alzheimer's disease and related 
dementias, and other missing elderly individuals.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6503 was introduced on July 15, 
2008 and was referred to the Judiciary Committee. The 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security did not 
have a hearing specifically on this bill, but held one day of 
hearings, on July 15, 2008, on the problem of elders who go 
missing as a result of dementia and diminished capacity. 
Testimony was received from Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-25), sponsor 
of H.R. 6064; Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-9), sponsor of H.R. 5898; 
and Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick (NC-9), sponsor of H.R. 423. On 
July 30, 2008, the Committee met in open session and ordered 
H.R. 6503 favorably reported without amendment, by voice vote.

H.R. 6597, the ``Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 6597 recognizes the importance of data 
regarding animal cruelty crimes and directs the Attorney 
General to make appropriate changes to existing crime databases 
so that data on animal cruelty crimes will be collected and 
made available to the public.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6597 was introduced by Mr. John 
Conyers, Jr. on September 24, 2008, and referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held one day of hearings on July 31, 2008. 
Testimony was received from Liz Ross, Federal Policy Advisor, 
Animal Welfare Institute; the Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, 
Former Member of Congress and Senior Policy Advisor at Olsson 
Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz PC; Dr. John Boyd, Jr., President, 
National Black Farmers Association; Dr. Douglas G. Corey, DVM 
and Past President of the American Association of Equine 
Practitioners; Dr. Nicholas Dodman, DVM and Professor, Section 
Head and Program Director, Animal Behavior Department of 
Clinical Sciences, Tufts' Cummings School of Veterinary 
Medicine and founding member of Veterinarians for Equine 
Welfare; and Wayne Pacelle, President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the Humane Society of the United States.

H.R. 6598, the ``Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 6598 seeks to stop the slaughter of horses 
for human consumption that currently occurs across our borders 
in Mexico and Canada. The bill makes it illegal to possess, 
ship, transport, purchase, sell, deliver or receive any horse 
with the intent that it is to be slaughtered for human 
consumption. The bill also makes it illegal to engage in the 
above conduct with respect to horse flesh or carcass with the 
intent that it be used for human consumption. The crime is 
punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony depending on the 
circumstances of the offense.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6598 was introduced by Mr. John 
Conyers, Jr. (MI-14) on September 24, 2008, and referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held one day of hearings on July 31, 2008. 
Testimony was received from Liz Ross, Federal Policy Advisor, 
Animal Welfare Institute; the Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, 
Former Member of Congress and Senior Policy Advisor at Olsson 
Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz PC; Dr. John Boyd, Jr., President, 
National Black Farmers Association; Dr. Douglas G. Corey, DVM 
and Past President of the American Association of Equine 
Practitioners; Dr. Nicholas Dodman, DVM and Professor, Section 
Head and Program Director, Animal Behavior Department of 
Clinical Sciences, Tufts' Cummings School of Veterinary 
Medicine and founding member of Veterinarians for Equine 
Welfare; and Wayne Pacelle, President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the Humane Society of the United States. The 
Committee met in open session to consider H.R. 6598 on 
September 10, 2008, September 17, 2008 and September 23, 2008. 
On September 23, 2008, the Committee ordered the bill favorably 
reported with an amendment, by a voice vote.

H.R. 6713, the ``E-fencing Enforcement Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 6713 addresses the serious problem of 
organized retail crime and its use of the internet to 
perpetuate crime by imposing duties on online marketplace 
providers with respect to high volume online sellers. These 
duties include a duty to retain contact information about high 
volume sellers and to disclose that information to certain 
persons with standing when a report has been made by or to law 
enforcement regarding theft by that seller. It also imposes a 
duty to initiate an internal investigation, based on available 
or easily obtained information, and to take-down a site when 
there is good reason to believe the goods or items offered for 
sale were unlawfully acquired. It expressly acknowledges that 
existing law already criminalizes knowing participation by 
online marketplace providers in passing stolen property. The 
bill creates a civil cause of action for persons aggrieved by a 
provider's failure to comply with these duties.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 6713 was introduced by Rep. 
Bobby C. Scott (VA-03) on July 31, 2008, and referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. On September 11, 2008, the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held one day of 
hearings on H.R. 6713 and related bills, and testimony was 
received by Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), sponsor of H.R. 6491; 
Frank Muscato, Organized Retail Crime Field Investigator, 
Walgreens; Sheriff Grady Judd, Polk County Sheriff's Office; 
Steve DelBianco, Executive Director, Net Choice; Edward 
Torpoco, Senior Regulatory Counsel, eBay Inc.; and Joseph J. 
LaRocca, Vice President, Loss Prevention, National Retail 
Federation.
    The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
previously had held one day of hearings on the general problem 
of organized retail crime on October 25, 2007, and testimony 
was received by Brad Brekke, Vice-President of Assets 
Protection, Target Corporation; David Hill, Detective, 
Montgomery County Police Department; Karl F. Langhorst, 
Director of Loss Prevention, Randalls/Tom Thumb Food and 
Pharmacy; and Robert Chestnut, Senior Vice-President of Rules, 
Trust and Safety, eBay Inc.

H.R. 6838, the ``Campus Safety Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 6838 will help institutions of higher 
learning understand how to respond and even help prevent 
tragedies such as campus shootings. The bill creates a National 
Center of Campus Public Safety, which will be administered 
through Department of Justice. The Center will train campus 
public safety agencies, promote research into strengthening 
campus safety, and be a clearinghouse for disseminating safety 
information. The Director of the Center will have authority to 
award grants to institutions of higher learning to help them 
meet their enhanced public safety goals.
    Legislative History.--Representative Bobby Scott (VA-3) 
introduced H.R. 6838 on September 8, 2008. The Subcommittee 
held no hearings on the bill. On September 27, 2008, on motion 
to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6838, the House of 
Representatives passed the bill and referred it to the Senate. 
There was no further action on H.R. 6838.

S. 973, the ``Restitution for Victims of Crime Act of 2007,'' H.R. 
        4110, the ``Restitution for Victims of Crime Act of 2007,'' and 
        H.R. 845, the ``Criminal Restitution Improvement Act''

    Summary.--S. 973, H.R. 4110, and H.R. 845 each propose 
reforms to federal restitution laws to address the roughly 87% 
of uncollected restitution and fines. Each of the proposals 
also authorizes the government to seek a court order to freeze 
a defendant's assets in anticipation that the defendant will 
have to pay restitution to a crime victim.
    Legislative History.--Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota 
introduced S. 973 on March 22, 2007, Representative Carol Shea-
Porter (NH-1) introduced H.R. 4110 on November 7, 2007, and 
Representative Steve Chabot (OH-1) introduced H.R. 845 on 
February 6, 2007. On April 3, 2008 the Subcommittee held 
simultaneous hearings on S. 973, H.R. 4110, and H.R. 845. The 
subcommittee heard testimony from Senator Dorgan; Jonathan 
Turley, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law 
School; David B. Smith, Esq., English & Smith; Andrew Weissman, 
Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP; and, Judge Paul G. Cassell, 
Professor, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law. 
There was no further action on these legislative proposals.

S. 2135, the ``Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008''

    Summary.--On October 3, 2007, Senator Richard Durbin 
introduced S. 2135, the ``Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 
2008.'' S. 2135 makes it a federal crime to recruit or use 
child soldiers under the age of 15 and allows for the 
prosecution of individuals, regardless of whether or not the 
crime was committed in the U.S. The bill imposes penalties of 
up to 20 years to life in prison, and also allows the U.S. 
government to deport or deny entry to individuals who have 
recruited children as soldiers.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on October 3, 2007, S. 
2135 was referred to the Subcommittee on February 4, 2008. The 
Subcommittee held 1 day of hearings on S. 2135 on April 8, 
2008. Testimony was received from Grace Akallo, a former child 
soldier; Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director, Human 
Rights Watch. On May 6, 2008, the Subcommittee ordered the 
bill, S. 2135, favorably reported, by voice vote. On September 
8, 2008, the bill passed the House, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules, by a recorded vote of 371-0. On 
September 16, 2008, the Senate agreed to House amendment by 
Unanimous Consent. On October 3, 2008, the bill was signed by 
the President and became Public Law No. 110-340.

S. 3434, the ``Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008''

    Summary.--S. 3434 addresses the serious problem of 
organized retail crime and its use of the internet to 
perpetuate crime by expanding existing criminal code and 
imposing duties on online retail providers. It expands the 
reach of existing federal crimes on stolen goods by decreasing 
the value of goods that would trigger federal jurisdiction. It 
directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and, 
if appropriate, amend the federal sentencing guidelines as they 
apply to organized retail crime. The bill imposes duties on 
both online retail marketplace operators and operators of 
physical marketplaces to report suspicious activities to the 
Attorney General and in certain circumstances to terminate a 
vendor or user's sales activities. Online marketplace operators 
must maintain certain records for three years and must require 
sellers to display their contact information along with product 
information. The bill imposes civil penalties and grants a 
State Attorney General the authority to bring a civil action on 
behalf of citizens of its State for injunctive relief, damages, 
or civil penalties.
    Legislative History.--S. 3434 was introduced on August 1, 
2008. On September 11, 2008, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held one day of hearings on S. 
3434 and two related House bills, and testimony was received by 
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), sponsor of H.R. 6491; Frank 
Muscato, Organized Retail Crime Field Investigator, Walgreens; 
Sheriff Grady Judd, Polk County Sheriff's Office; Steve 
DelBianco, Executive Director, Net Choice; Edward Torpoco, 
Senior Regulatory Counsel, eBay Inc.; and Joseph J. LaRocca, 
Vice President, Loss Prevention, National Retail Federation. 
The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
previously had held one day of hearings on the general problem 
of organized retail crime on October 25, 2007, and testimony 
was received by Brad Brekke, Vice-President of Assets 
Protection, Target Corporation; David Hill, Detective, 
Montgomery County Police Department; Karl F. Langhorst, 
Director of Loss Prevention, Randalls/Tom Thumb Food and 
Pharmacy; and Robert Chestnut, Senior Vice-President of Rules, 
Trust and Safety, eBay Inc.

S. 3641, A bill to authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law 
        Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime 
        Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of 
        Crime Act of 1984

    Summary.--S. 3641 reauthorizes funding for the National 
Crime Victim Law Institute in support of crime victims legal 
assistance programs.
    Legislative History.--Senator Kyl (AZ) introduced S. 3641 
on September 27, 2008, and on the same date passed it by 
Unanimous Consent without amendment and referred it to the 
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. On October 
2, 2008, on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 
3641 passed the House by recorded vote 295-115. On October 15, 
2008, President Bush signed the bill, which became Public Law 
110-431.

                          Oversight Activities


Hearing on: ``Making Communities Safer: Youth Violence and Gang 
        Interventions that Work''

    Summary.--This hearing on February 15, 2007 examined 
several successful evidence based approaches that reduce youth 
violence and have kept young people out of gangs. Collaborative 
and comprehensive approaches to community violence that create 
working partnerships between law enforcement and prevention/
intervention groups are proven to work. Prevention and 
intervention programs keep children from getting into trouble 
and pull children out of trouble. These programs also save 
lives, and significantly reduce taxpayer costs. For every child 
diverted from a lifetime of crime, we save between $1.3 and 
$1.5 million--a conservative estimate, since potential benefits 
such as better salaries and reduced public service costs 
outside the justice system are difficult to measure. Testimony 
was received and heard from Professor Delbert (Del) Elliott, 
Director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of 
Violence, University of Colorado; Dr. Jeffrey Butts, Senior 
Researcher, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of 
Chicago; Dr. David Kennedy, Director, Center for Crime 
Prevention and Control, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; 
Mr. Teny Gross, Executive Director, Institute for the Study and 
Practice of Nonviolence, Providence, RI; Ms. Mai Fernandez, 
Legal and Strategy Director, Latin American Youth Center, 
Washington, DC; Chief James Corwin, Chief of Police, Kansas 
City, MO; Professor Lawrence W. Sherman, Director, Jerry Lee 
Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania; and Mr. Paul 
Logli, Chairman of the Board, National District Attorneys 
Association.

Hearing on Criminal Justice Responses to Offenders with Mental Illness

    Summary.--On March 27, 2007, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on Criminal Justice Responses to Offenders with Mental 
Illness. People with mental illness are overrepresented in all 
parts of the criminal justice system; in their contact with law 
enforcement, in the courts, in jails and prisons, and in parole 
and probation caseloads across the country. Current statistics 
reflect this disturbing trend. As a recent Department of 
Justice (DOJ) report on the problem revealed, more than half of 
all prison and jail inmates, including 56 percent of state 
prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners and 64 percent of 
local jail inmates, were found to have a mental health problem. 
The incidence of mental illness in America's prisons and jails 
is well above that of the general population; the mental 
illness incidence in the general population is approximately 5% 
compared to an average 16% (high of 28%) in jails and prisons. 
Moreover, individuals with mental illnesses are more likely to 
be incarcerated for non-violent crimes, are more likely to 
recidivate, and are more likely to serve a longer portion or 
the maximum amount of their sentence than the general prison 
population.
    This hearing explored causes and potential solutions to 
this problem and the Subcommittee heard testimony from: The 
Honorable Steven Leifman, Judge, Criminal Division of Miami-
Dade County Court, Florida's 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami, 
Florida; Lieutenant Richard Wall, Los Angeles Police Department 
(LAPD), Los Angeles, CA; Sheriff David G. Gutierrez, Lubbock, 
TX; Mr. Phillip Perry, Bonneville Mental Health Court, Idaho 
Supreme Court, Boise, Idaho; and Mr. Leon Evans, Executive 
Director, Jail Diversion Program, San Antonio, TX.

Hearing on the Katrina Impact on Crime and the Criminal Justice System 
        in New Orleans

    Summary.--After Hurricane Katrina, many reported that New 
Orleans was experiencing an extraordinary wave of crime, 
particularly violent crime. The Judiciary Committee's 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security decided 
to hold a hearing in New Orleans to gather information about 
the effects of Hurricane Katrina on crime and criminal justice 
in New Orleans, assess the continuing and unique challenges 
facing New Orleans and determine whether the federal government 
might further assist New Orleans.
    Legislative History.--The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security held a field hearing on April 10, 2007 at 
Dillard University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Testimony was 
received in four separate panels of witnesses by Mayor C. Ray 
Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans; Oliver Thomas, Jr., President of 
the New Orleans City Council; Rep. William J. Jefferson (LA-
02); Dr. Marvalene Hughes, President of Dillard University; 
Eddie Jordan, Orleans Parish District Attorney; Warren Riley, 
Chief of Police, New Orleans Police Department; Marlin N. 
Gusman, Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff; Jim Letten, United 
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana; James 
Bernazzani, FBI Special Agent In Charge, New Orleans; David 
Harper, ATF Special Agent In Charge, New Orleans; William James 
Renton, Jr., DEA Special Agent in Charge, New Orleans; Jacques 
Thibodeaux, Acting Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal, Eastern District 
of Louisiana; Judge Ernestine Gray, Orleans Parish Juvenile 
Court; Dr. Howard Osofsky, Chair, Louisiana State University 
Health Sciences Center, Department of Psychiatry; Reverend John 
Raphael, New Hope Baptist Church, New Orleans; Peter Scharf, 
Research Professor of Criminal Justice and Executive Director, 
Center for Society, Law and Justice at Texas State University.

Hearing on Employer Access to Criminal Background Checks and the 
        Accuracy and Reliability of Such Checks

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on April 26, 2007 
on employer access to criminal background checks and the 
accuracy and reliability of such checks. There is private 
sector interest in obtaining access to criminal history record 
information for the purpose of screening an individual's 
suitability for employment, licensing, or placement in 
positions of trust. Currently, FBI rap sheets are only shared 
with federal agencies, state law enforcement agencies, and for 
certain private employers while many more employers also want 
access to that information. On the other hand, individuals who 
do have a criminal record want reasonable assurances that the 
information is accurate and complete, that they have a 
meaningful opportunity to see the information and correct 
inaccuracies, and that the information is used fairly in the 
screening process and does not unfairly exclude them from 
employment opportunities.
    The hearing explored the balance between the growing desire 
of private industry to directly access criminal history 
background checks and the need to ensure reliability of 
background checks thereby reducing unfair barriers to 
employment of people with criminal records. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from: Floyd Clarke, Vice President, Corporate 
Compliance, Mac Andrews & Forbes Holdings; Barry LaCroix, 
Executive Office of Public Safety, Massachusetts Criminal 
History Record Systems Board; Maurice Emsellem, National 
Employment Law Project; Mr. Frank Campbell, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States 
Department of Justice; Mr. Ronald P. Hawley, Executive 
Director, SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice 
Information and Statistics; Mr. Robert Davis, International 
Vice President and National Legislative Director, 
Transportation Communications International Union; and Sharon 
Dietrich, Managing Attorney, Employment and Public Benefits, 
Community Legal Services.

Hearing on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws--The Issues

    Summary.--The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held a hearing on June 26, 2007 that explored 
mandatory minimum sentencing and the potential to reform 
federal law in this area. Witnesses discussed several high 
profile cases where mandatory minimum statutes have resulted in 
particularly unfair sentences. Testimony was received and heard 
from the Honorable Paul G. Cassell, Judge of the United States 
District Court for the District of Utah, representing the U.S. 
Judicial Conference; Mr. Richard B. Roper, III, United States 
Attorney, Northern District of Texas; The Honorable Ricardo H. 
Hinojosa, Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission; 
Marc Mauer, Executive Director, The Sentencing Project; Mr. 
T.J. Bonner, the National President of the National Border 
Patrol Council of the American Federation of Government 
Employees of the AFL-CIO; and Serena Nunn, recent graduate of 
University of Michigan School of Law and former federal 
offender who served more than a decade in prison for conspiracy 
to distribute cocaine as a result of her boyfriend's drug 
dealing.
    One of the cases examined during the hearing was the 
convictions of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose 
Compean. On March 8, 2006, a jury found U.S. Border Patrol 
Agents Ramos and Compean guilty of: (1) assault with a 
dangerous weapon (2) assault resulting in serious bodily 
injury, and aiding and abetting an assault resulting in serious 
bodily injury; (3) discharge of a firearm in relation to a 
crime of violence (4) tampering with an official proceeding and 
(5) deprivation of rights under color of law. The discharge of 
a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, required a 
mandatory 10-year sentence.
    United States District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone 
sentenced the two agents to 11 years and 1 day, and 12 years 
respectively. She stated that she considered the conduct of the 
victim and the risks to the agents in prison in sentencing them 
to lenient sentences, but she could not reduce the 10-year 
mandatory, consecutive sentence required under section 924.

The Drug Enforcement Administration's Regulation of Medicine

    Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing on July 12, 2007. 
The purpose of the hearing was to explore numerous DEA programs 
and policies, including the DEA's ``Oxycontin Action Plan,'' 
which targets for prosecution medical doctors who prescribe 
large amounts of pain medication to their patients and 
``Operation Meth Merchant,'' which targets suppliers and 
convenience store owners/clerks who sell ephedrine. The hearing 
also touched upon the DEA's policy of prosecuting medical 
marijuana users and their use of questionable tactics to arrest 
these users. The following witnesses appeared and submitted 
written statements for the record: Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, United 
States Drug Enforcement Administration, United States 
Department of Justice; David Murray, Director of Counter Drug 
Technology, ONDCP; Dr. Edward J. Heiden, Ph.D., Heiden 
Associates Inc.,; Valerie Corral, Founder of WAMM, Wo/Men's 
Alliance for Medical Marijuana; Siobhan Reynolds, President, 
Pain Relief Network; and John Flannery, Attorney, Campbell, 
Miller, Zimmerman, PC.

Hearing to Reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act

    Summary.--The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held a joint hearing with the Education and 
Labor Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities on the 
``Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1974'' on July 12, 2007. During the hearing 
the committees jointly reviewed the implementation of the 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 by the 
Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention during the past five years, and 
considered reauthorization of the Act.
    The following witnesses testified before the committees on 
this issue: Mr. Derrick Johnson, Vice-Chair, Arizona Juvenile 
Justice Commission, Phoenix, Arizona; Mr. David Freed, 
Cumberland County District Attorney, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; 
Mr. Paul Lawrence, Goffstown District Court, New Hampshire 
State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, Goffstown, New 
Hampshire; Mr. Robert Shepherd, Jr., Emeritius Professor of 
Law, University of Richmond School of Law, Richmond, Virginia; 
Mr. Shannon Jones, former participant in the Community 
Intensive Supervision Program, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and 
Ms. Jennifer Woolard, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Psychology, 
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Confidential Informants

    Summary.--The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a joint Oversight 
Hearing on Law Enforcement Confidential Informant Practices on 
July 19, 2007. This oversight hearing explored law enforcement 
practices and their impact on civil and constitutional rights. 
Certain practices relating to the use of confidential 
informants, particularly in drug enforcement, have been 
criticized. Despite its impact on the criminal justice system, 
the practice has been subject to scant federal oversight. This 
hearing explored the impact of the use of confidential 
informants on plea bargaining, its affect on poor and minority 
communities. The hearing also explored policies designed to 
curb the potential for abuse of the use of confidential 
informants. The following witnesses testifed: Wayne M. Murphy, 
Assistant District Director of Intelligence, FBI; Professor 
Alexandra Natapoff, Loyola Law School; Commander Pat O'Burke, 
Deputy Commander, Narcotics Service, Texas Department of Public 
Safety; Dorothy Johnson Speight, Founder, Mothers In Charge; 
Ronald E. Brook, President, National Narcotic Officers' 
Association Coalition; and Reverend Markel Hutchins, Minister 
and Civil Rights Leader.

Hearing on the Implementation of the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety 
        Act of 2004'' (Pub. L. No. 108-277) and additional legislative 
        efforts aimed at expanding the authority to carry concealed 
        firearms, including H.R. 2726, the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
        Safety Act of 2007''

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on September 6, 
2007 on the implementation of the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2004'' (Pub. L. No. 108-277) and additional 
legislative efforts aimed at expanding the authority to carry 
concealed firearms, including H.R. 2726, the ``Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act of 2007.''
    During the course of the hearing, the Subcommittee examined 
three major issues. First, how the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2004'' (Pub. L. No. 108-277) is being 
implemented. Second, the Subcommittee examined arguments in 
favor and against expanding the scope of H.R. 218. Finally, the 
Subcommittee considered legislative proposals that would allow 
Federal judges, prosecutors and other DOJ employees whose 
``duties include representing the U.S. government in a court of 
law'' to carry concealed weapons in Federal courthouses and 
other public and private places. Witnesses for the hearing 
were: Chief Scott Knight, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police; Sheriff Craig Webre, President, National 
Sheriff's Association, Alexandria, VA; and a representative of 
the Fraternal Order of Police.

Gang Crime Hearing

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on October 2, 
2008 on ``Gang Crime Prevention and the Need to Foster 
Innovative Solutions at the Federal Level.'' This hearing 
focused on determining an appropriate response to gang crime in 
the United States. Witnesses discussed several pending 
Congressional legislative proposals, alternative approaches to 
stemming violence, and the appropriateness of federal law 
enforcement in criminal activity traditionally addressed by the 
states. The legislative proposals examined were S. 456, 
sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), H.R. 3547, 
sponsored by Representative Adam Schiff (CA 29th), which is 
similar to S. 456 and H.R. 3846, the Youth Prison Reduction 
through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support and 
Education Act, sponsored by Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
    There were two panels of witnesses. Panel I consisted of 
Members of Congress including: the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, 
(D-CA); Honorable Joe Baca, (D-CA); the Honorable Elijah E. 
Cummings, (D-MD); the Honorable Jerry McNerney, (D-CA); and the 
Honorable Nick Lampson, (D-TX). Panel II consisted of juvenile 
justice experts including: the Honorable Jerrauld C. Jones, 
Judge, Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court; 
Dr. Peter Scharf, Executive Director, Center for Society, Law 
and Justice, Austin, Texas; and Brian W. Walsh, Senior Legal 
Research Fellow, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, the 
Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Hearing on ``Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of 
        Public Confidence in our Federal Justice System''

    Summary.--The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland 
Security and the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law held a joint hearing titled ``Allegations of Selective 
Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in our Federal 
Justice System'' on October 11, 2007. Witnesses at the hearing 
were Professor Donald C. Shields, former Attorney General 
Richard Thornburgh, and former Alabama U.S. Attorney Doug 
Jones.
    The Judiciary Committee's ongoing investigation into the 
firing of U.S. Attorneys revealed accusations of politicization 
within the Department of Justice and this hearing was an 
extension of that investigation. Questions whether political 
considerations have improperly influenced prosecutorial 
judgment have been raised in numerous cases around the country. 
The witnesses for this hearing testified about the proper role 
of the Department and its rightful independence from political 
influence in administering justice.

Hearing on Organized Retail Theft Prevention: Fostering a Comprehensive 
        Public-Private Response

    Summary.--On October 25, 2007, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on Organized Retail Theft Prevention: Fostering a 
Comprehensive Public-Private Response. The significant growth 
in retail theft and the need to foster comprehensive, 
innovative solutions to prevent such acts from occurring has 
been recently highlighted in several media publications. In 
fact, a recent CNNMoney.com article suggested that as many as 
79% of major retailers have been victims of organized retail 
theft within the past year. This hearing explored this issue 
and considered public as well private sector solutions that can 
be implemented to address this growing problem.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from four witnesses: Mr. 
Brad Brekke, Vice-President of Assets Protection, Target 
Corporation; Mr. David Hill, Detective, Montgomery County 
Police Department; Mr. Karl F. Langhorst, Director of Loss 
Prevention, Randalls/Tom Thumb Food and Pharmacy; and Mr. 
Robert Chestnut, Senior Vice-President of Rules, Trust and 
Safety, eBay Inc.

Oversight Hearing on State-Run Juvenile Boot Camps

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on December 13, 
2007 on State-run alternative juvenile correctional facilities, 
commonly referred to as ``boot camps.'' This hearing focused on 
the alleged abuses at state juvenile correctional facilities, 
commonly known as ``boot camps.''
    Boot camps are modeled after military training camps, and 
can be either public or private. In October 2007, the Committee 
on Education and Labor held a hearing on privately run boot 
camps in which the Government Accounting Office provided 
testimony detailing widespread allegations of abuse. In fact, 
the GAO report cites 1619 staff members being involved in 
allegations of abuse in 33 states in 2005 alone. The study 
found that ineffective management led to hiring untrained 
staff, lack of proper nourishment for participants, and 
reckless and abusive operating practices. The study concluded 
that these factors played significant roles in three deaths.
    Witnesses testified about the ineffectiveness of the `boot 
camp' concept, and poor oversight, which has led to serious 
abuses including deaths and included Adora Obi Nweze, President 
of the Florida NAACP; Professor Doris MacKenzie, University of 
Maryland; and Audrey Gibson, State Representative of Florida's 
15th State District (Jacksonville).

Hearing on Enforcement of Federal Criminal Law to Protect Americans 
        Working for U.S. Contractors in Iraq

    Summary.--On December 18, 2007, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on ``Enforcement of Federal Criminal Law to Protect 
Americans Working for U.S. Contractors in Iraq'' to probe 
charges concerning a lack of federal law enforcement protection 
for Americans who work as contract employees in Iraq, and 
concerning allegations of illegal conduct by some corporate 
contractors there. As a key example, the hearing will focus on 
charges that one of those Americans was raped and falsely 
imprisoned in violation of federal law but that no enforcement 
action has been taken.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a 
former employee of Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) in Iraq; 
Representative Ted Poe (D-TX); and Professor Scott Horton of 
Columbia University, an expert on the laws governing 
contractors.

Enforcement of Federal Espionage Laws

    Summary.--On January 29, 2008, the subcommittee held a 
hearing to examine federal efforts to enforce current espionage 
laws and successful prosecutions under these laws. The hearing 
also examined the coordination between law enforcement agencies 
in investigating and prosecuting espionage cases and whether 
additional resources or laws are needed to continue effectively 
combating espionage.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: The Honorable J. Patrick Rowan, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security 
Division, United States Department of Justice; David G. Major, 
President, The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security 
Studies, Alexandria, VA; Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D., Chairman, 
United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

DHS Oversight

    Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing of the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) Law Enforcement Operations on March 
11, 2008. The purpose of the hearing was to examine witnesses 
from the DHS law enforcement agencies who presented testimony 
and answered questions about their law enforcement activities, 
interagency responsibilities and activities, their mission 
accomplishments, how they balance meeting the mission 
challenges while respecting the liberty interest of Americans, 
and their expected needs to meet arising challenges.
    Witnesses for this hearing were: Dana A. Brown, Director, 
Federal Air Marshal Service and Assistant Director for Law 
Enforcement for Transportation Security Administration; Jeffrey 
Self, Southwest Border Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection; Ray Parmer, Deputy Director for 
Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Michael Stenger, Assistant Director for Investigations, U.S. 
Secret Service; and Rear Admiral Wayne Justice, Assistant 
Commandant for Capability and Director of Response Policy, U.S. 
Coast Guard.

The application history for grants authorized by the ``Innocence 
        Protection Act'' (Title IV of PL 108-405)

    Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing on April 10, 2008 
on H.R. 5057, the ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2008'' 
(reauthorizing Title II of PL 108-405) and on the application 
history for grants authorized by the ``Innocence Protection 
Act'' (Title IV of PL 108-405). The Innocence Protection Act 
authorizes the Attorney General to grant funding to states for 
post-conviction DNA testing of individuals to help ascertain 
whether individuals have been wrongly convicted. At the time of 
the hearing (and at the time of this writing) there had been 
215 post-conviction exonerations through DNA testing in the 
United States since 1989.\222\ The exonerations have been 
throughout the United States, spanning 32 states. Sixteen of 
the 215 exonorees were on death row, and the true suspects and/
or perpetrators have been identified in 82 of the DNA 
exoneration cases.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \222\ http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php
    \223\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The success of post-conviction DNA is evident by the 
exonerations it has yielded and it has the potential to 
exonerate hundreds more of the wrongfully convicted. 
Unfortunately, post-conviction DNA testing has not been 
utilized because although Congress funded a total of $7 million 
for Innocence Project Grants for fiscal years 2005 through 
2007, none of the funds were ever granted. According to the 
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the 
standards for authorizing the grants were set too high for any 
state to meet. There have been three grant applications 
(Virginia, Connecticut, and Arizona) and none have been able to 
meet the current requirements.
    In February 2008, OJP issued its solicitation for grants 
via the Innocence Protection Act using the updated language. 
The deadline for submissions was March 24, 2008 and there were 
five applications for grants (each of which was approved and 
the funding awarded during FY 2008). During this hearing 
members inquired as to how the new appropriations language 
affected the grant process, and how to further improve the 
program. Witnesses were: Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-14), 
sponsor of H.R. 5057; Debbie Smith, the namesake of H.R. 5057; 
David Hagy, Director, National Institute of Justice, Department 
of Justice Office of Justice Programs; Peter Marone, Director, 
State of Virginia Crime Labs; Peter Neufeld, Esq., Co-founder 
and Co-Director of the Innocence Project; and Allen Newton, who 
was exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing.

Hearing on Federal Prison Industries--Examining the Effects of Section 
        827 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008

    Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing on Federal Prison 
Industries (FPI) and the effects of sections 807 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 on May 6, 2008. FPI 
is a government corporation that employs offenders incarcerated 
in federal prisons and provides job training opportunities to 
prisoners by producing goods and services for federal agencies. 
Senator Carl Levin sponsored an amendment which eliminated the 
mandatory source requirement that mandated the federal 
government to purchase a product from FPI, if FPI produced the 
product and lowered FPI's maximum market share to 5%. This will 
require FPI to diversify its programs drastically and may make 
it impractical for FPI to continue as a profitable industry. 
The Bureau of Prisons and other organizations believe that this 
amendment will drastically reduce the number of jobs available 
for prisoners who work for FPI. The purpose of this hearing was 
to hear expert opinions on the likely effect of this change, 
and as to the value of keeping the program solvent and vibrant.
    Besides the loss of inmate jobs, the Levin Amendment could 
make it more difficult for officials to manage prison 
facilities. While earlier House Judiciary Committee-passed 
bills have made reductions in FPI operations, they were always 
tempered with vocational training and other work or work-
related alternatives, as well as emergency authorities for the 
Attorney General or other officials to assure that job losses 
resulting in drastic impacts could be avoided. None of these 
needed management tools are provided for in Section 827.
    In 2007, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) introduced section 827, 
an amendment to H.R. 1585, the ``National Defense Authorization 
Act of 2007.'' This amendment passed without going through the 
Judiciary Committee on either the House or Senate side. The 
bill passed on December 28, 2007, but President Bush vetoed it. 
It eventually became law on January 28, 2008 as part of H.R. 
4986, the ``National Defense Authorization Act of 2008.''
    The Crime Subcommittee held a hearing on May 6, 2008 to 
explore how the Section 827 amendment had affected FPI 
operations. Testimony was received and heard from Harley G. 
Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of 
Justice; with Paul Laird, Chief Operating Officer for Federal 
Prison Industries; John Gage, National President, American 
Federation of Government Employees; and Marc Morial, Director, 
National Urban League, New York, NY.

Oversight Hearing on FBI Whistleblowers

    On May 21, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing to provide 
an opportunity for the Members to hear testimony from two FBI 
whistleblowers, including allegations of retaliation by the 
Bureau, as well as Senator Grassley's testimony about the 
myriad instances of retaliation by the FBI which have been 
conveyed to him as a senior member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. This hearing also provided a record for future 
debate on extending federal whistleblower protections to FBI 
agents and personnel.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted written 
statements for the record: Hon. Charles ``Chuck'' Grassley, 
Member of the United States Senate (R-Iowa); Bassem Youssef, 
Supervisory Special Agent and Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation; Michael German, Policy Counsel, American Civil 
Liberties Union, Former Special Agent, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.

Hearing: Addressing Gangs: What's Effective? What's Not?

    Summary.--This June 10, 2008, hearing focused on 
determining appropriate responses to gang crime in the United 
States. Witnesses discussed alternative approaches to stemming 
violence, the effectiveness of various approaches and the 
appropriateness of federal law enforcement in criminal activity 
traditionally addressed by the states. During the hearing, 
there was an extensive discussion of the Charles Hamilton 
Houston Institute for Race and Justice (Harvard Law School) 
report, No More Children Left Behind Bars. This report assesses 
the most comprehensive and up to date studies on the issue of 
evidenced-based crime reduction strategies and applies the 
information to the major legislative efforts that were pending 
in the Congress to address the issue. Witnesses will also 
address law enforcement approaches to addressing crime, and the 
effectiveness of those approaches.
    Testimony was received and heard by Professor Charles 
Ogletree, Jr., Professor and Director of the Charles Hamilton 
Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School; 
Ely Flores, a former gang member turned community activist; Dr. 
Robert D. Macy, Ph.D., founded the Boston Children's 
Foundation; Dr. Frank Straub, Ph.D., Commissioner of Public 
Safety for the City of White Plains, NY; and Major John 
Buckovich, Richmond Police Department.

Online Pharmacies and the Problem of Internet Drug Abuse

    Summary.--The purpose of this hearing on June 24, 2008, was 
to explore the increasing use of prescription controlled 
substances by teenagers and others for non-medical purposes, 
which has been exacerbated by their easy availability over the 
Internet. Over recent years, there has been a growing epidemic 
of controlled prescription drug abuse over the Internet, 
involving opioids, such as OxyContin and Vicodin, depressants 
such as Valium and Xanax, and stimulants such as Ritalin and 
Adderall. Tens of thousands of ``prescriptions'' are written 
each year for controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs 
through these Internet pharmacies, which do not require medical 
records, examinations, lab tests or follow-ups.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA); Christine Jones, General 
Counsel, GoDaddy.com; William T. Winsley, Executive Director, 
Ohio State Board of Pharmacy; and Patrick J. Egan, Attorney at 
Law, Fox Rothschild LLP.

Hearing: Reauthorization of the U.S. Parole Commission

    Summary.--The United States Parole Commission's (Parole 
Commission) authority was due to expire October 31, 2008. On 
July 16, 2008, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security held a hearing to examine the current and 
anticipated future role and operations of the U.S. Parole 
Commission in light of the elimination of federal parole. 
Testimony was received and heard from The Honorable Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, U.S. House of Representatives Delegate--District 
of Columbia; Kenneth Linn, Director, Federal CURE; The 
Honorable Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman, United States Parole 
Commission; David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, 
Center for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation; and Horace 
Crenshaw, District of Columbia Parolee.
    H.R. 6509, United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 
2008 was introduced on July 16, 2008 by Chairman John Conyers, 
Jr. Senator Patrick Leahy introduced S.3294, the Senate version 
of the United States Parole Commission Extension Act. The 
Senate passed S. 3294 by Unanimous Consent on July 21, 2008. 
The House passed S. 3294 by a voice vote on a motion to suspend 
the rules and the measure was signed into law on August 12, 
2008.

OJP Oversight

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing of the 
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (OJP) on 
September 18, 2008. The mission of OJP is to increase public 
safety and improve the fair administration of justice across 
America through innovative leadership and programs. OJP serves 
a crucial role in supporting the Nation's criminal justice 
systems and as such its programs affect the quality of life for 
all Americans and to be sure, OJP's successes are many. 
However, OJP has also endured a number of controversies, which 
the subcommittee explored by examining testimony about its 
component organizations. Witnesses for this hearing were: 
(Panel One) Jeffrey Sedgwick, Acting Assistant Attorney General 
for OJP, (Panel Two) Bill Piper, Director of National Affairs 
for Drug Policy Alliance Network (DPA), a representative from 
the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations, Shay C. 
Bilchik, Research Professor at the Georgetown Public Policy 
Institute, Charles Sullivan from Citizens United for the 
Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE) and two witnesses selected by 
the minority.
 SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 
                     AND INTERNATIONAL LAW \1\ \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 26, 
2007, and February 28, 2007.
    \2\ Subcommittee name change from ``Immigration, Border Security, 
and Claims'' to ``Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law'' approved January 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa                     LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
                                     ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
                                     KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
                                     ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Public:
    Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.....................   253
    Legislation on which hearings were held......................     2
    Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.........    12
    Legislation reported adversely to the full Committee.........     0
    Legislation reported without recommendation to the full 
      Committee..................................................     0
    Legislation reported as original measure to the full 
      Committee..................................................     0
    Legislation discharged from the Subcommittee.................     3
    Legislation pending before the full Committee................     2
    Legislation reported to the House............................    13
    Legislation discharged from the Committee....................     3
    Legislation pending in the House.............................     5
    Legislation passed by the House..............................    13
    Legislation pending in the Senate............................     4
    Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).........     0
    Legislation enacted into Public Law..........................     6
    Legislation enacted into Public Law as part of other 
      legislation................................................     4
    Days of legislative hearings.................................     2
    Days of oversight hearings...................................    33
Private:
  Claims:
    Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.....................    15
    Legislation on which hearings were held......................     0
    Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.........     0
    Legislation pending before the full Committee................     0
    Legislation reported to the House............................     0
    Legislation discharged from the Committee....................     0
    Legislation pending in the House.............................     0
    Legislation passed by the House..............................     0
    Legislation pending in the Senate............................     0
    Legislation enacted into Private Law.........................     0
  Immigration:
    Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.....................    59
    Legislation on which hearings were held......................     0
    Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.........     5
    Legislation pending before the full Committee................     0
    Legislation reported to the House............................     5
    Legislation discharged from the Committee....................     5
    Legislation pending in the House.............................     1
    Legislation passed by the House..............................     4
    Legislation pending in the Senate............................     4
    Legislation enacted into Private Law.........................     0

                         Legislative Activities


S. 1104/H.R. 1790, To increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani 
        translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United 
        States as special immigrants, and for other purposes

    Summary.--In the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006, Congress authorized 50 special immigrant 
visas (SIVs) annually for Iraqi and Afghani translators who 
were employed for at least a year by the U.S. Armed Forces. The 
SIVs were meant to protect Iraqi and Afghani translators whose 
lives were at risk because of their service to the United 
States. But the need for these visas far outweighed the supply, 
and soon there were large backlogs of approved petitioners 
awaiting available SIVs. S. 1104 expands the SIV program by 
increasing from 50 to 500 the number of SIVs available annually 
for the following two fiscal years. The bill also expands 
eligibility for the SIVs by including both translators and 
interpreters working for the Chief of Mission or the United 
States Armed Forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.
    Legislative History.--S. 1104 was introduced by Senator 
Richard Lugar (R-IN) on April 12, 2007. A similar bill, H.R. 
1790, was introduced in the House by Representative Jeff 
Fortenberry (R-NE) on March 29, 2007. On April 12, 2007, S. 
1104 was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and sent to 
the House. On May 17, 2007, the full Committee ordered the bill 
favorably reported with an amendment by voice vote. On May 22, 
2007, the bill was passed by the House as amended under 
suspension of the rules by a recorded vote of 412 to 8. The 
Senate agreed to the House amendment by unanimous consent on 
May 24, 2007. S. 1104 became Public Law 110-36 on June 15, 
2007.

Carry forward of unused special immigrant visas for Iraqi and Afghani 
        translators (No Stand-Alone Bill)

    Summary.--The special immigrant visas (SIVs) made available 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
for Iraqi and Afghani translators would expire at the end of 
each fiscal year if such visas went unused in that fiscal year. 
A provision allowing for unused visas to be rolled over and 
reclaimed during the following fiscal year was added to the 
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Division J of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2008).
    Legislative History.--The provision allowing for the ``roll 
over'' of unused SIVs was added by the Senate in section 699J 
of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2008, which became Division J of 
H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. H.R. 2764 
became Public Law 110-161 on December 26, 2007.

Extension of refugee benefits to special immigrant visa beneficiaries 
        (No Stand-Alone Bill)

    Summary.--Unlike persons admitted to the United States as 
refugees, persons admitted under special immigrant visas (SIVs) 
are not eligible to receive resettlement assistance, benefits 
from entitlement programs, or other benefits available to 
refugees. A provision extending refugee benefits to SIV 
beneficiaries for up to 6 months was added to the Departments 
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (Division G of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008).
    Legislative History.--The provision extending refugee 
benefits to SIV beneficiaries was added by the Senate in 
section 525 of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2008, which became Division G of H.R. 2764, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. H.R. 2764 became Public 
Law 110-161 on December 26, 2007.

H.R. 1, the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
        of 2007''

    Summary.--Section 711 allows the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the 
discretion to allow countries to join the Visa Waiver Program 
(VWP) even if they do not meet the existing three percent visa 
refusal rate in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Sec. 
711 allows the Secretary to waive the three percent requirement 
if the country can meet all of the following requirements:
          1. The Secretary of Homeland Security determines that 
        the totality of the country's security risk mitigation 
        measures provide assurance that the country's 
        participation in the program would not compromise the 
        law enforcement, security interests, or enforcement of 
        the immigration laws of the United States;
          2. There has been a sustained reduction in the rate 
        of refusals for nonimmigrant visas for nationals of the 
        country and conditions exist to continue such 
        reduction;
          3. The country cooperated with the Government of the 
        United States on counterterrorism initiatives, 
        information sharing, and preventing terrorist travel 
        before the date of its designation as a program 
        country, and the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
        Secretary of State determine that such cooperation will 
        continue through agreements with the country; and
          4. The rate of refusals for nonimmigrant visitor 
        visas for nationals of the country during the previous 
        full fiscal year was not more than ten percent or the 
        visa overstay rate for the country for the previous 
        full fiscal year does not exceed the maximum visa 
        overstay rate, once such rate is established as 
        required by this Act.
    Prior to adding new countries to the VWP, Section 711 
requires that the Department of Homeland Security can verify 
that an air exit system is in place that can verify the 
departure of not less than 97 percent of foreign nationals who 
exit through airports of the United States. In addition, 
Section 711 requires that an electronic travel authorization 
system is implemented, under which a traveler in the VWP 
electronically provides information ahead of travel and 
receives permission to travel to the U.S. under the VWP.
    Section 721 requires the the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to nominate an official to serve as the Director of the Human 
Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC). This section also 
requires that the Secretary ensure that the HSTC is staffed by 
no fewer than 40 full-time equivalent positions, including 
detailees from various intelligence, immigration, border 
security, and travel offices of the U.S. Government with 
expertise in these areas. To attract the best and brightest 
detailees to the HSTC, this section requires the Secretary and 
the heads of other relevant agencies to promulgate regulations 
providing incentives, including financial incentives, bonuses, 
and protection of promotion capability in parent agencies. 
Finally, this section requires the Secretary to fund the HSTC 
in addition to a report within 180 days by the President on the 
HSTC.
    Section 722 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
consultation with the Director of the National Counterterrorism 
Center, to designate an official in the Department of Homeland 
Security, to establish a program to oversee the implementation 
of the Secretary's responsibilities with respect to terrorist 
travel. This official shall assist the Secretary of Homeland 
Security in improving the Department's ability to prevent 
terrorists from entering the United States or remaining in the 
United States undetected. This section also requires a report 
to Congress 180 days after enactment of H.R. 1.
    Section 723 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
enter into a memorandum of agreement to initiate a pilot 
program with not less than one State to determine if an 
enhanced driver's license, which is machine-readable and tamper 
proof, may permit the individual to use the driver's license to 
meet the documentation requirements to enter the United States 
from Canada or Mexico at land and sea ports of entry. This 
section requires a report to Congress on this pilot program 
within 180 days after the initiation of the pilot program.
    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
complete a cost-benefit analysis of the Western Hemisphere 
Travel Initiative and develop proposals for reducing the 
execution fee charged for the passport card.
    Section 725 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
establish a model ports-of-entry program (initially for 20 
ports) for the purpose of providing a more efficient and 
welcoming international arrival process in order to facilitate 
and promote business and tourist travel to the United States 
while also improving security.
    Section 731 requires a report to Congress by the Secretary 
of Homeland Security not later than 180 days after the date of 
the enactment regarding ongoing initiatives of the Department 
of Homeland Security to improve security along the northern 
border of the United States. This section also requires the 
Government Accountability Office, not later than 270 days after 
the date of the submission of the report by the Secretary, to 
issue a report reviewing the report of the Secretary, including 
a list of recommendations regarding any additional actions 
necessary to protect the northern border of the United States.
    Legislative History.--In the House, Representative Bennie 
Thompson introduced H.R. 1 on January 5, 2007 that included a 
similar provision to section 721. The House passed H.R. 1 on 
January 9, 2007. On July 9, 2007, the Senate considered H.R. 1 
on the Senate floor and insisted on an amendment that included 
similar provisions as sections 711, 722, 723, 724, and 731. A 
conference committee was agreed to in the House on July 17, 
2007. On July 25, 2007, a conference report was filed that 
included all sections described above with some modification in 
language. On July 26, 2007, the Senate agreed to the conference 
report and on the following day, July 27, 2007, the House also 
agreed to the conference report. The conference report became 
Public Law 110-153 on August 3, 2007.

H.R. 2940, To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
        with respect to discretionary determinations waiving an alien's 
        inadmissibility based on certain activities, and for other 
        purposes

    Summary.--After the attacks on 9/11, Congress sought to 
exclude and remove terrorists from the United States by 
strengthening the application of the terrorism bars in the 
nation's immigration laws. These bars, and their increased 
application, affected groups and individuals that were not, in 
fact, terrorist organizations, including allies, members of 
humanitarian organizations, and even victims of terrorism. H.R. 
2940 provides discretionary authority to the Secretaries of 
State and Homeland Security to waive certain national security 
grounds of inadmissibility for groups and individuals. A 
provision providing similar, but somewhat more limited, 
discretionary authority was added to the Department of State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
2008 (Division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008).
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2940 was introduced by 
Representative Edward Perlmutter (D-CO) on June 28, 2007. 
Similar language to that in H.R. 2940 was added by the Senate 
in section 691 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008, which became 
Division J of H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2008. H.R. 2764 became Public Law 110-161 on December 26, 2007.

S. 1651, the ``Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act''

    Summary.--S. 1651, the ``Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act,'' 
establishes a comprehensive framework for assisting Iraqi 
refugees and other nationals whose lives are in danger because 
of their association with the U.S. Government's mission in 
Iraq. Language similar to that in S. 1651 was added to Subtitle 
C of Title XII of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008:
    Section 1242 requires the Department of State to establish 
or use existing refugee processing mechanisms in Iraq and 
surrounding countries for Iraqis threatened because of their 
association with the United States Government.
    Section 1243 establishes refugee program processing 
priorities in and around Iraq. The bill includes among refugees 
of special humanitarian concern: Iraqis who worked with the 
U.S. government in Iraq; Iraqis who were employed in Iraq by a 
U.S.-based media or nongovernmental organization; Iraqis who 
were employed in Iraq by an organization closely associated 
with the U.S. mission in Iraq that has received official U.S. 
funding; Iraqis who have immediate family members in the United 
States; and Iraqis who are members of a religious or minority 
community and have close family members in the United States.
    Section 1244 establishes a new special immigrant visa 
program for certain Iraqis whose lives are in danger because of 
their association with the U.S. Government in Iraq. The section 
specifically provides 5,000 special immigrant visas each year 
for five years for Iraqis who worked for the U.S. Government in 
Iraq for at least one year, have been seriously threatened as a 
result of such employment; have a positive recommendation or 
evaluation from a senior supervisor; and have been approved by 
the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq or his designee.
    Section 1245 requires the Secretary of State to designate a 
Senior Coordinator for Iraqi Refugees and Internally Displaced 
Persons. This Senior Coordinator shall be responsible for 
overseeing the U.S. resettlement of refugees of special 
humanitarian concern, the new SIV program in Iraq, and the 
development and implementation of other appropriate policies 
and programs concerning Iraqi refugees and internally displaced 
persons.
    Section 1247 allows Iraqi nationals who were denied asylum 
or withholding of removal on or after March 1, 2003 on the 
basis of changed country conditions to reopen their asylum 
proceedings if the Iraqi national has remained in the United 
States since the date of such denial.
    Legislative History.--S. 1651 was introduced by Senator 
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) on June 19, 2007. Similar language to 
that in S. 1651 was added by the Senate in Subtitle C of Title 
XII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008, H.R. 4986. H.R. 4986 became Public Law 110-181 on January 
28, 2008.

H.R. 1119, the ``Purple Heart Family Equity Act of 2007''

    Summary.--Under the existing federal charter of the 
Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) prior to Public Law 
110-207, members of the MOPH were only allowed to invite 
parents and lineal descendants to join the MOPH as associate 
members. H.R. 1119 amended the Military Order of the Purple 
Heart's federal charter to allow members to invite their 
spouses to join as associate members both for male and female 
recipients of the Purple Heart medal.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1119, the ``Purple Heart Family 
Equity Act of 2007'' was introduced by Representative Susan 
Davis (D-CA) on February 16, 2007. On March 1, 2007, a similar 
bill was introduced and passed by unanimous consent in the 
Senate, S. 743. On July 27, 2007, the Immigration Subcommittee 
forwarded the bill favorably to the full committee by voice 
vote. On August 2, 2007, the full committee ordered the bill to 
be reported by voice vote. On November 6, 2007, the bill was 
passed by the House under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. On April 14, 2008, the Senate passed H.R. 1119 by 
unanimous consent in the Senate. H.R. 1119 became Public Law 
110-207 on April 30, 2008.

H.R. 3079, To amend the joint resolution that approved the covenant 
        establishing the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
        and for other purposes

    Summary.--Since the time that the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) became a U.S. territory under a 
``Covenant'' agreement in 1976, it has set and controlled its 
own immigration laws and procedures. Over the following three 
decades, the CNMI allowed for the large-scale importation of 
foreign guest workers to staff imported garment factories. But 
the lack of regulations and resources to protect these guest 
workers led to widespread abuse and large increases in human 
trafficking and sex slavery. Such abuses have gone largely 
unaddressed for the last 30 years. To rectify this situation, 
Representative Donna Christensen introduced H.R. 3079, which 
would move CNMI immigration to U.S. Government control. 
Specifically, H.R. 3079 would amend the Covenant with the CNMI 
to extend U.S. immigration laws over the Commonwealth, with 
certain provisions designed to meet the needs of the CNMI 
economy. Language similar to that in S. 3079 was added to 
Subtitle A of Title VII of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008:
    Section 701 provides a statement of congressional intent. 
The statement provides that it is the intention of Congress to 
ensure the security of the U.S. and the CNMI and to minimize 
potential adverse economic and fiscal effects to the CNMI.
    Section 702 amends the Joint Resolution establishing a 
Covenant between the U.S. and the CNMI by extending the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to the CNMI, subject to a 
transition period through December 31, 2014. The section sets 
forth special provisions to take effect during the transition 
period, including provisions waiving the numerical limitations 
for certain nonimmigrant ``H'' workers on the CNMI, provisions 
allowing for the admission of CNMI nonimmigrant investors, and 
provisions allowing for additional guest workers to meet 
legitimate business demands. The section temporarily prohibits 
the removal of persons lawfully admitted under the 
Commonwealth's immigration laws, provides employment 
authorization for such persons, and requires the Secretary of 
the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and the Governor of Guam, to file a report to Congress 
with recommendations related to the provision of long-term 
status for such persons.
    Section 702 also amends the INA by replacing the Guam-only 
Visa Waiver Program (VWP) with a new Guam-CNMI VWP. Stays are 
extended from 15 days to up to 45 days in Guam or the CNMI. The 
section directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to monitor 
such admissions and suspend the entry of nationals from a 
country whose nationals have created an unacceptable number of 
program violations or pose security or law enforcement risks. 
The section provides that persons seeking U.S. entry from the 
CNMI shall be processed under existing immigration authority 
regarding entry from Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. The section also authorizes additional countries to be 
added to the Guam-CNMI VWP, as well as the creation of 
additional Guam or CNMI-only nonimmigrant visas.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3079 was introduced by 
Representative Donna Christensen (D-VI) on July 18, 2007. A 
similar bill, S. 1634, was introduced in the Senate by Senator 
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) on June 15, 2007. On December 11, 2007, 
H.R. 3079 was passed by the House as amended under suspension 
of the rules by voice vote. Language similar to that in H.R. 
3079 was subsequently added by the Senate to Subtitle A of 
Title VII of S. 2739, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 
2008. S. 2739 became Public Law 110-229 on May 8, 2008.

S. 2829, A bill to make technical corrections to section 1244 of the 
        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which 
        provides special immigrant status for certain Iraqis, and for 
        other purposes

    Summary.--Section 1244 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY 08, enacted on January 28, 2008, 
created a new Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program for Iraqis 
whose lives are at risk because of their valuable service to 
the U.S. Government. These special immigrant visas (SIVs) were 
intended to be available beginning in fiscal year 2008. But a 
drafting error rendered the SIVs unavailable until the 
following fiscal year (fiscal year 2009). S. 2829 corrects this 
error and creates a transition period for Iraqi and Afghani 
translators and interpreters who had applied for SIVs under a 
related program but could not access the SIVs because the visas 
had been exhausted.
    Legislative History.--S. 2829 was introduced by Senator 
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) on April 8, 2008. A companion bill, H.R. 
5837, was introduced in the House by Representative Zoe Lofgren 
(CA-D) on April 17, 2008. On April 28, 2008, S. 2829 was passed 
by unanimous consent in the Senate and sent to the House. On 
May 21, 2008, the bill was passed by the House without 
amendment under suspension of the rules by voice vote. S. 2829 
became Public Law 110-242 on June 3, 2008.

S. 2516, the ``Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act''

    Summary.--S. 2516 directs the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to use fingerprints taken at the time of 
enlistment in the United States Armed Forces or filing of 
applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
residence to satisfy any naturalization background or security 
requirements if certain conditions are met. It requires DHS, in 
consultation with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), to: (1) determine the 
format for fingerprints and other biometric information; (2) 
implement procedures for electronic transmission of such 
information that will safeguard privacy and civil liberties; 
and (3) provide for centralization of naturalization 
applications of active-duty personnel serving abroad and such 
applications' expedited processing.
    S. 2516 also directs DHS to update appropriate Web sites to 
reflect changes in military naturalization laws within 30 days 
of any changes, and expresses the sense of Congress that DHS 
should make necessary updates to its application forms on 
military naturalization within 180 days of any changes. It 
requires DHS to report to the appropriate Congressional 
committees with respect to the adjudication of military 
naturalization applications and directs the GAO to report to 
the appropriate Congressional committees with respect to 
implementation of this Act.
    Legislative History.--On June 27, 2007, Representative 
Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced H.R. 2884, the Kendall 
Frederick Citizenship Act. On November 6, 2007, the House 
passed H.R. 2884 under suspension of the rules by voice vote. 
On December 28, 2007, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) 
introduced S. 2516, the ``Kendall Frederick Citizenship 
Assistance Act.'' On March 11, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2516 
with an amendment by unanimous consent. On June 9, 2008, the 
House passed S. 2516 under suspension of the rules by a voice 
vote. On June 26, 2008, the President signed into law S. 2516 
(Public Law No. 110-251).

H.R. 2852/S. 1692, A bill to grant a Federal charter to Korean War 
        Veterans Association, Incorporated.

    Summary.--S. 1692 grants a federal charter to the Korean 
War Veterans Association, Incorporated (a nonprofit corporation 
incorporated under the laws of New York).
    Legislative History.--On July 25, 2007, Majority Leader 
Steny Hoyer (D-MD) introduced H.R. 2852 to grant a federal 
charter to the Korean War Veterans Association which was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on the same day. On 
July 16, 2007, H.R. 2852 was referred to the Immigration 
Subcommittee. No further action was taken on H.R. 2852. Also on 
July 25, 2007, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced a companion 
measure, S. 1692, which was referred to the Senate Committee on 
the Judiciary on the same day. On September 6, 2007, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee discharged S. 1692 favorably and without 
amendment. On September 12, 2007, S. 1692 passed the Senate 
without amendment by unanimous consent and bill was held at the 
desk in the House on September 14, 2007. On June 17, 2008, the 
House passed S. 1692 under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. The bill became Public Law on June 20, 2008.

H.R. 5690, To remove the African National Congress from treatment as a 
        terrorist organization for certain acts or events, provide 
        relief for certain members of the African National Congress 
        regarding admissibility, and for other purposes

    Summary.--After the attacks on 9/11, Congress sought to 
exclude and remove terrorists from the United States by 
strengthening the application of the terrorism bars in the 
nation's immigration laws. These bars, and their increased 
application, affected groups and individuals that were not, in 
fact, terrorist organizations, including allies, members of 
humanitarian organizations, and even victims of terrorism. 
Among these groups was the African National Congress (ANC), 
which rose to power in South Africa after the defeat of the 
apartheid regime. H.R. 5690 corrects this result by removing 
the ANC from consideration as a terrorist organization and by 
giving discretionary authority to the Secretaries of State and 
Homeland Security to admit individuals regardless of activities 
undertaken in opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5690 was introduced by 
Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) on April 3, 2008. A similar 
bill, S. 2979, was introduced in the Senate by Senator John 
Kerry (D-MA) on May 6, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the full 
Committee ordered H.R. 5690 favorably reported, with an 
amendment, by voice vote. On May 6, 2008, the bill, as amended, 
was passed by the House under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. The bill was amended in the Senate, and the Senate passed 
the bill as amended by unanimous consent on June 26, 2008. On 
the same day, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by 
unanimous consent. H.R. 5690 became Public Law 110-257 on July 
1, 2008.

Removal of HIV/AIDS as a ground of inadmissibility in the Immigration 
        and Nationality Act (No Stand-Alone Bill)

    Summary.--The Immigration and Nationality Act contained a 
provision which held HIV infection as a ground for denying 
admission of noncitizens, including both nonimmigrants and 
immigrants, to the United States. A provision removing this 
ground of inadmissibility was added by the Senate to H.R. 5501, 
the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global 
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria 
Reauthorization Act of 2008.
    Legislative History.--The provision removing HIV/AIDS as a 
ground of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Nationality 
Act was added by the Senate as section 305 of H.R. 5501, the 
``Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership 
Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act 
of 2008.'' H.R. 5501 became Public Law 110-293 on July 30, 
2008.

H.R. 6633, the ``Employee Verification Amendment Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 6633 would have extended the Basic Pilot 
(also known as E-Verify) electronic employment eligibility 
confirmation program until November 2013. It also would have 
directed the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into an 
agreement which would: (1) provide funds to SSA for Basic 
Pilot/E-Verify program's full costs in quarterly advances; and 
(2) require an annual accounting and reconciliation of costs 
incurred and funds provided. H.R. 6633 also would have provided 
for funding continuation in the absence of an agreement. It 
also would have required that the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) conduct studies regarding: (1) erroneous tentative 
nonconfirmations under the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program; and 
(2) such program's effects on small entities.
    Legislative History.--On July 29, 2008, Representative 
Gabrielle Giffords introduced H.R. 6633, the Employee 
Verification Amendment Act of 2008. On July 31, 2008, the House 
passed H.R. 6633 under suspension of the rules by a recorded 
vote of 407 to 2 with 4 present. The Senate took no action on 
H.R. 6633.
    On June 8, 2007, Representative David Price (D-NC) 
introduced H.R. 2638, the ``Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, 2008.'' On June 15, 2007, the House passed 
H.R. 2638 by a recorded vote of 268-150. On July 26, 2007, the 
Senate passed H.R. 2638 with an amendment by a recorded vote of 
89 to 4. On September 24, 2008, the House passed a motion to 
concur with Senate amendment of H.R. 2638 with an amendment. 
Section 143, Division A of H.R. 2838 extended the Basic Pilot 
electronic employment verification program until March 6, 2009. 
On September 27, 2008, the Senate agreed to the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638 by a recorded vote of 78 
to 12. On September 30, 2008, the President signed into law 
H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110-329).

H.R. 5569, to extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot 
        program, and for other purposes

    Summary.--Congress created the fifth employment-based 
preference (EB-5) immigrant visa category in 1990 for 
immigrants seeking to enter the United States to invest in a 
commercial enterprise that will benefit the U.S. economy and 
create at least 10 full-time jobs. The basic amount required to 
invest is $1 million, although that amount can be reduced to 
$500,000 if the investment is made in a rural or high 
unemployment area. Approximately 10,000 numbers are available 
in this green card category each year. To encourage immigration 
through the EB-5 category, Congress created a temporary pilot 
program in 1993. The Immigrant Investor Pilot Program allocates 
3,000 visas each year for EB-5 investors who invest in 
``designated regional centers.'' The pilot program has been 
renewed several times. H.R. 5569 would have extended the 
program for five years, but Public Law 110-329 extended the EB-
5 regional center pilot program only until March 6, 2009.
    Legislative History.--On March 10, 2008, H.R. 5569 was 
introduced in the House by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) 
and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On March 
11, 2008, the bill was referred to the Immigration 
Subcommittee. On March 12, 2008, the Subcommittee forwarded the 
bill to the full committee by voice vote. On April 2, 2008, the 
full committee ordered the bill favorably reported. On June 9, 
2008, the bill was considered and passed by voice vote by the 
House through suspension of the rules. The bill was 
subsequently sent to the Senate, but no further action was 
taken. On September 24, 2008, the House passed a motion to 
concur with Senate amendment of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated 
Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations 
Act, 2009, with an amendment. Section 144 of Division A 
extended the EB-5 regional pilot center to March 6, 2009. On 
September 27, 2008, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638 by a recorded vote of 78 to 
12. On September 30, 2008, the President signed into law H.R. 
2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110-329).

S. 2135, the ``Child Soldiers Accountability Act''

    Summary.--S. 2135 makes it easier to prosecute and remove 
persons who have recruited or used children in armed conflicts 
anywhere in the world. The bill criminalizes the recruitment 
and use of child soldiers, and it expands jurisdiction to cover 
persons in the U.S. regardless of where a crime may have taken 
place. The bill also creates new grounds of removal and 
inadmissibility for the recruitment or use of child soldiers.
    Legislative History.--S. 2135 was introduced by Senator 
Richard Durbin (IL-D) on October 3, 2007. The bill was related 
to a similar bill previously filed by Senator Durbin, S. 1175, 
as well as two House bills--H.R. 2620 introduced by 
Representative Jim Marshall (GA-D) and H.R. 3028 introduced by 
Representative Jeff Fortenberry (NE-R). On December 19, 2007, 
S. 2135 was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and sent 
to the House. On September 8, 2008, the House amended the bill 
and passed it, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a 
recorded vote of 371 to 0. The Senate agreed to the House 
amendment by unanimous consent on September 15, 2008. S. 2135 
became Public Law 110-340 on October 3, 2008.

H.R. 5571, to extend for 5 years the program relating to waiver of the 
        foreign country residence requirement with respect to 
        international medical graduates

    Summary.--The Immigration and Nationality Act allows for 
foreign doctors to train in the United States under the ``J-1'' 
visa program, otherwise known as nonimmigrants in the Exchange 
Visitor Program. This Exchange Visitor Program seeks to promote 
peaceful relations and mutual understanding with other 
countries through educational and cultural exchange programs. 
Accordingly, many exchange visitors, including doctors in 
training, are subject to a requirement that they must return to 
their home country to share with their countrymen the 
knowledge, experience, and impressions gained during their stay 
in the United States. Unless U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) approves a waiver of this requirement in those 
cases, the exchange visitors must depart from the United States 
and live in their home country for two years before they are 
allowed to apply to return to the U.S. A waiver of the two year 
foreign residency requirement (commonly referred to as the 
``Conrad 30 J Waiver Program'') is available for doctors who 
have trained in the United States under the J-1 visa if a state 
or an interested government agency sponsors the physician 
exchange visitor to work in a health manpower shortage area for 
three years as a nonimmigrant in H-1B status (temporary worker 
in a specialty occupation). The Secretary of Health and Human 
Services determines which areas have a health manpower 
shortage. The authorization for the Conrad 30 J Waiver Program 
sunsetted on June 1, 2008. H.R. 5571, as enacted, extended this 
waiver through March 6, 2009, although H.R. 5571 would have 
extended the waiver program for five years.
    Legislative History.--On March 10, 2008, Rep. Zoe Lofgren 
(D-CA) introduced H.R. 5571 to extend the Conrad 30 J Waiver 
Program for five years. The bill was referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary on the same day. On March 11, 2008, 
the bill was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee. On March 
12, 2008, the Subcommittee forwarded the bill to the full 
committee by voice vote. On April 2, 2008, the full committee 
ordered the bill favorably reported. On May 19, 2009, the bill 
was considered by the House under suspension of the rules. On 
May 21, 2008, the bill was passed by the House by voice vote. 
On June 2, 2008, the bill was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. On September 
26, 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee discharged the bill by 
unanimous consent and the bill was passed by the Senate with an 
amendment to shorten the reauthorization period through March 
6, 2009. On September 27, 2008, the bill as amended by the 
Senate passed the House under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. The bill became Public Law on November 8, 2008.

S. 2840, the ``Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act''

    Summary.--S. 2840 creates an Office of the FBI Liaison 
within the Department of Homeland Security to monitor the 
functions of the FBI in the naturalization process. The Office 
will assist in the expeditious completion of all such functions 
pertaining to naturalization applications filed by, or on 
behalf of, current or former members of the Armed Forces, 
current spouses and children of service members, and deceased 
individuals eligible for posthumous citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1440-41.
    S. 2840 also requires USCIS to process and adjudicate 
applications filed by current or former members of the Armed 
Forces and their spouses and children no later than six months 
after receiving such applications. If an application is still 
pending after six months, S. 2840 requires that USCIS provide 
the applicant with an explanation for its inability to meet the 
deadline and an estimate of the date by which the application 
will be adjudicated. It also requires that the USCIS Director 
submit an annual report to relevant Congressional committees 
that identifies applications still pending after one year due 
to delays in conducting required background checks.
    Finally, S. 2840 calls for a Government Accountability 
Office report outlining the average length of time taken by 
USCIS to process and adjudicate applications for naturalization 
filed by members of the Armed Forces, deceased members of the 
Armed Forces, and their spouses and children. S. 2840 and the 
amendments made by this Act will expire five years from the 
date of enactment.
    Legislative History.--On April 10, 2008, Senator Charles 
Schumer introduced S. 2840, the Military Personnel Citizenship 
Processing Act. On September 24, 2008, the Senate passed S. 
2840 with an amendment by unanimous consent. On September 28, 
2008, the House passed S. 2840 under suspension of the rules by 
a recorded vote of 416 to 0. On October 9, 2008, the President 
signed into law S. 2840 (Public Law No. 110-382).

H.R. 5570/S. 3606, the ``Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker 
        Program Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 5570, the Religious Worker Visa Extension 
Act of 2008, reauthorized the Special Immigrant Non-minister 
Religious Worker Program that would have sunset on September 
30, 2008. The Special Immigrant Non-minister Religious Worker 
Program allows non-minister religious workers to obtain special 
immigrant status in the U.S. so that they may do the work 
required of their faith. The original bill, H.R. 5570, extended 
the program for five years, if the Department of Homeland 
Security issued regulations to eliminate or reduce fraud in the 
Religious Worker Program by December 31, 2008; but if not, the 
reauthorization would expire after 15 months. In addition, H.R. 
5570 requires that the Inspector General of the Department of 
Homeland Security to issue a report on the effectiveness of the 
regulations by September 30, 2010.
    Legislative History.--On March 10, 2008, Representative Zoe 
Lofgren (D-CA) introduced H.R. 5570. The bill was referred to 
the House Committee on the Judiciary on the same day. On March 
11, 2008, the bill was referred to the Immigration 
Subcommittee. On March 12, 2008, the Subcommittee forwarded the 
bill to the full committee by voice vote. On April 2, 2008, the 
full committee ordered the bill favorably reported. On April 
15, 2009, the bill was considered by the House under suspension 
of the rules and passed by voice vote. On April 16, 2008, the 
bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary on August 1, 2008. No further action 
was taken on H.R. 5570. On September 26, 2008, S. 3606 was 
introduced in the Senate. Also on that same day, the bill, with 
an amendment to shorten the period of reauthorization to March 
6, 2009, was considered and passed by unanimous consent in the 
Senate. S. 3606, which extended the religious worker program 
until March 6, 2009 in addition to requiring fraud regulations 
and a report as in H.R. 5571, was introduced in the Senate by 
Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT-R) and passed without amendment by 
unanimous consent. On September 27, 2008, the House passed S. 
3606 by voice vote under suspension of the rules.

H.R. 7311, the ``William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 
        Reauthorization Act of 2008''

    Summary.--H.R. 7311 amends the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act of 2000, the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
and several other laws to further combat human trafficking, 
both domestically and around the world:
    Section 201 amends section 101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (INA) to provide additional flexibility 
with the use of T visas for trafficking victims and their 
family members. Specifically, the section further expands T-
visa eligibility to cover persons brought into the country for 
investigations or as witnesses and persons unable to assist law 
enforcement because of physical or psychological trauma. The 
section further allows parents and siblings who are in danger 
of retaliation to join the trafficking victims in the United 
States. Finally, the section authorizes the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to extend the period of T-visa status and 
waive the disqualification for lack of good moral character for 
T-visa holders applying for adjustment to permanent resident 
status if the disqualification was incident to the trafficking.
    Section 202 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
create an information pamphlet for work-based non-immigrant 
visa applications. The pamphlet will detail the illegality of 
human trafficking and reiterate worker rights and information 
for related services.
    Section 203 sets forth new protections for trafficked 
domestic household workers and preventative measures to be 
followed by the State Department. The section requires the 
issuance of information pamphlets for A-3 and G-5 visa 
applicants and describes the required information to be 
included in the pamphlets. The section provides protections and 
remedies for A-3 and G-5 visa holders working in the United 
States, and it ensures protection from removal for visa holders 
wanting to file a complaint regarding a violation of contract 
or some Federal, State, or local law to allow time sufficient 
to participate fully in all legal proceedings.
    Section 204 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
stay the removal of an individual who has made a prima case for 
approval of a T or U visa under the INA.
    Section 205 expands the authority of the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to permit continued presence of trafficking 
victims, including for aliens who have filed civil actions 
against their traffickers. It also allows for parole into the 
United States of certain relatives of trafficking victims with 
several limitations.
    Section 211 clarifies that T-visa applicants have access to 
certain public benefits.
    Section 212 provides that the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) may provide interim assistance to a child upon 
receiving credible information that a child is a victim of 
trafficking. The section requires government officials to 
notify HHS within 48 hours of coming into contact with such a 
child, and it provides education on the identification of 
trafficking victims. The section also clarifies that long term 
assistance determinations are to be made by the Secretary of 
HHS, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary 
of the Department of Homeland Security, and nongovernmental 
organizations with expertise on victims of severe form of 
trafficking.
    Section 213 amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act 
of 2000 to specifically authorize an assistance program for 
victims of severe forms of trafficking of persons and to 
establish a system for referring such victims to existing 
programs at HHS and the Department of Justice.
    Section 222 amends the criminal code and the INA to further 
combat human trafficking, peonage, and involuntary servitude in 
the United States. The section creates a new crime for 
knowingly using force, threats of force, abuse or threatened 
abuse of law or legal process, and other threatening measures 
to obtain another person's labor or services. The section also 
creates a new crime for fraud in foreign labor contracting and 
it tightens immigration restrictions for human traffickers.
    Section 235 requires enhanced procedures for preventing 
child trafficking at the U.S. border and U.S. ports of entry, 
and it sets forth comprehensive protections for child victims 
of trafficking and other unaccompanied alien children. 
Subsection (a) codifies and improves procedures for the 
repatriation of unaccompanied children from contiguous 
countries. It also provides that the Secretary of State shall 
develop a system for the safe repatriation of unaccompanied 
children and shall develop a pilot program for that purpose. 
Subsection (b) provides, with specified exceptions, that the 
care and custody of unaccompanied alien children in the United 
States shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of HHS. It 
requires notification of HHS by government authorities within 
48 hours of encountering an unaccompanied alien child and it 
provides for the transfer of such children to HHS within 72 
hours. Subsection (c) improves procedures for the placement of 
unaccompanied children in safe and secure settings. It requires 
that HHS take steps to assist children in complying with 
immigration orders, to assist children in accessing pro bono 
representation and to assign child advocates for particularly 
vulnerable children. Subsection (d) revises procedures for 
obtaining special immigrant juvenile status and provides 
refugee assistance for children in such status. It also 
provides for adjudication of asylum applications by asylum 
officers. Subsection (e) provides specialized training, 
including training related to trafficking, to federal officials 
who come into contact with unaccompanied alien children.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 7311 was introduced by 
Representative Howard Berman (CA-D) on December 9, 2008. A 
similar bill, H.R. 3887, had been previously introduced by 
Representative Tom Lantos on October 18, 2007, and a companion 
bill had been filed in the Senate by Senator Joseph Biden on 
May 22, 2008. On December 10, 2008, H.R. 7311 was passed by the 
House by unanimous consent. Later that same day, the Senate 
passed the bill without amendment by unanimous consent. H.R. 
7311 became Public Law 110-457 on December 23, 2008.

H.R. 2399, the ``Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007''

    Summary.--H.R. 2399 would provide strong new enforcement 
tools at the border, including increased criminal penalties 
for: alien smuggling, human trafficking and slavery; drug 
trafficking; and terrorism or espionage. The bill would also 
subject smugglers and traffickers to even higher penalties for 
transporting persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an 
engine or storage compartment, or for causing serious bodily 
injury, or for endangering them by running the vessel 
transporting them to ground in order to escape apprehension. 
H.R. 2399 would also direct the Department of Homeland Security 
to check against all available terrorist watch lists alien 
smugglers and smuggled individuals who are interdicted at U.S. 
land, air, and sea borders. It would tighten proof requirements 
for distinguishing covert transportation of family members or 
others for humanitarian reasons, for which the penalties are 
appropriately less severe when truly justified.
    Legislative History.--On May 22, 2007, Rep. Baron Hill (D-
IN) introduced H.R. 2399. On May 22, 2007, the House passed 
H.R. 2399 by a recorded vote of 412-0. The bill was received in 
the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary on May 23, 2007 and no further action was taken. H.R. 
2399 was added to H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act 
of 2007, which passed the House on May 24, 2008. H.R. 2830 was 
received in the Senate on May 28, 2008 and no further action 
was taken.

H.R. 3123, To extend the designation of Liberia under section 244 of 
        the Immigration and Nationality Act so that Liberians can 
        continue to be eligible for temporary protected status under 
        that section

    Summary.--Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a temporary 
immigration status that may be granted by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to nationals of certain countries beset by 
ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other 
extraordinary and temporary conditions. Liberia had long been 
one of these designated countries due to ongoing armed 
conflict. But the TPS designation was set to expire on October 
1, 2007. Because conditions in Liberia had not improved to the 
point where repatriation of Liberian nationals would be 
prudent, H.R. 3123 was introduced to extend the TPS designation 
for Liberia until October 1, 2008.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3123 was introduced by 
Representative Patrick Kennedy (RI-D) on July 23, 2007. On July 
30, 2007, the bill was passed by the House under suspension of 
the rules by voice vote. A similar bill, S. 1903, was 
introduced in the Senate by Senator Jack Reed on July 31, 2007. 
But on September 12, 2007, the President rendered both bills 
unnecessary when he issued a memorandum directing the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to defer the enforced departure of those 
Liberians granted TPS until March 31, 2009. Neither H.R. 3123 
nor S. 1903 was passed in the Senate.

H.R. 1312, the ``Arts Require Timely Service (ARTS) Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 1312 would address visa processing delays 
facing nonprofit arts organizations by amending Section 214(c) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to shift to 
premium processing without additional fees any O or P visa 
application that is not processed within 30 days of filing a 
complete petition if the petitioner is or is filing on behalf 
of a qualified nonprofit organization.
    Legislative History.--On March 5, 2007, Rep. Howard Berman 
(CA-D) introduced H.R. 1312 and the bill was referred to the 
House Committee on the Judiciary. On March 30, 2007, the bill 
was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee. On September 25, 
2007, the bill was favorably forwarded to the full committee by 
a roll call vote of 7-5. On November 7, 2008, the full 
committee ordered the bill reported by voice vote. On April 1, 
2008, the bill was considered in the House under suspension of 
the rules and the bill was passed by voice vote. The next day, 
the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary. No further action was taken on this 
bill.

H.R. 1485, a Private Bill for the relief of Esther Karinge

    Summary.--H.R. 1485 provides lawful permanent residency to 
beneficiary Esther Karinge.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1485 was introduced by 
Representative Edward Markey (MA-D) on March 12, 2007. On May 
8, 2008, the Immigration Subcommittee ordered the bill 
favorably reported without amendment by voice vote. On May 14, 
2008, the full Committee ordered the bill favorably reported 
without amendment by voice vote. The bill was placed on the 
Private Calendar on July 8, 2008, and it was called up for 
consideration on September 16, 2008, when it was passed by the 
House by voice vote. The bill was not passed in the Senate.

H.R. 1512, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
        compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens 
        charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors

    Summary.--The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
(SCAAP) was originally passed to help reimburse states and 
localities for the costs associated with incarcerating criminal 
aliens. Currently states and localities are only reimbursed for 
a portion of what they spend incarcerating convicted criminal 
aliens. This bill would change the Immigration and Nationality 
Act to reflect the original intent of Congress, so that states 
and localities can be reimbursed for the cost of incarcerating 
aliens who are either ``charged with or convicted'' of a felony 
or two misdemeanors.
    Legislative History.--On March 13, 2007, Rep. Linda Sanchez 
(CA-D) introduced H.R. 1512 and the bill was referred to the 
House Committee on the Judiciary. On April 20, 2007, the bill 
was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee. On September 25, 
2007, H.R. 1512 was forwarded to the full committee by voice 
vote. The full committee ordered the bill reported on October 
24, 2007 by voice vote. On May 8, 2008, the bill was passed by 
voice vote in the House and received in the Senate on May 12, 
2008. No further action was taken on this bill.

H.R. 2575, a Private Bill for the relief of Mikael Adrian Christopher 
        Figueroa Alvarez

    Summary.--H.R. 2575 provides lawful permanent residency to 
beneficiary Mikael Adrian Christopher Figueroa Alvarez.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2575 was introduced by 
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) on June 5, 2007. On July 10, 
2008, the Immigration Subcommittee ordered the bill favorably 
reported without amendment by a roll call vote of 6 to 3. On 
July 30, 2008, the full Committee ordered the bill favorably 
reported without amendment by a roll call vote of 19 to 9. The 
bill was placed on the Private Calendar on September 8, 2008, 
and it was called up for consideration on September 16, 2008. 
At the request of Mr. King (R-IA), the House passed over the 
measure without prejudice. The bill remained on the Private 
Calendar at the end of the 110th Congress.

H.R. 2760, a Private Bill for the relief of Shigeru Yamada

    Summary.--H.R. 2760 provides lawful permanent residency to 
beneficiary Shigeru Yamada.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2760 was introduced by 
Representative Bob Filner (D-CA) on June 15, 2007. On February 
26, 2008, the Immigration Subcommittee ordered the bill 
favorably reported without amendment by voice vote. On April 2, 
2008, the full Committee ordered the bill favorably reported 
without amendment by voice vote. The bill was placed on the 
Private Calendar on July 8, 2008, and it was called up for 
consideration on September 16, 2008, when it was passed by the 
House by voice vote. The bill was not passed in the Senate.

H.R. 5030, a Private Bill for the relief of Corina de Chalup Turcinovic

    Summary.--H.R. 5030 provides lawful permanent residency to 
beneficiary Corina de Chalup Turcinovic.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5030 was introduced by 
Representative Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) on January 16, 2008. On 
February 13, 2008, the Immigration Subcommittee ordered the 
bill favorably reported without amendment by voice vote. On May 
14, 2008, the full Committee ordered the bill favorably 
reported without amendment by voice vote. The bill was placed 
on the Private Calendar on July 8, 2008, and it was called up 
for consideration on September 16, 2008, when it was passed by 
the House by voice vote. The bill was not passed in the Senate.

H.R. 5243, a Private Bill for the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena

    Summary.--H.R. 5243 provides lawful permanent residency to 
beneficiary Kumi Iizuka-Barcena.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5243 was introduced by 
Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) on February 6, 2008. On 
July 10, 2008, the Immigration Subcommittee ordered the bill 
favorably reported without amendment by voice vote. On July 30, 
2008, the full Committee ordered the bill favorably reported 
without amendment by voice vote. The bill was placed on the 
Private Calendar on July 8, 2008, and it was called up for 
consideration on September 16, 2008, when it was passed by the 
House by voice vote. The bill was not passed in the Senate.

H. Res. 954--Honoring the life of senior Border Patrol agent Luis A. 
        Aguilar, who lost his life in the line of duty near Yuma, 
        Arizona, on January 19, 2008

    Summary.--On January 19, 2008, senior Border Patrol Agent 
Luis A. Aguilar was killed in the line of duty while defending 
the southern border of the United States. H. Res. 954 honored 
his life and recognized the dedication and sacrifice made by 
all the men and women who have lost their lives while serving 
as United States Border Patrol agents.
    Legislative History.--H. Res. 954 was introduced by 
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) on January 29, 2008. On 
February 12, 2008, the resolution was passed by the House under 
suspension of the rules by a recorded vote of 357 to 0.

H. Res. 1438, Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Azorean Refugee 
        Act of 1958 and celebrating the extensive contributions of 
        Portuguese-American communities to the United States

    Summary.--In 1957 and 1958, the Azores Islands suffered 
several volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, killing many of its 
inhabitants and displacing many more. The United States, true 
to its history as a nation of immigrants and protector of 
vulnerable peoples, enacted the Azorean Refugee Act of 1958, 
which allocated 1,500 visas to permanently resettle displaced 
Azoreans. H. Res. 1438 commemorates the 50th anniversary of the 
Azorean Refugee Act of 1958 and celebrates the extensive 
contributions of Portuguese-American communities to the United 
States.
    Legislative History.--H. Res. 1438 was introduced by 
Representative Devin Nunes (CA-R) on September 15, 2008. A 
related bill, H. Res. 1401, had previously been introduced by 
Rep. Jim Costa (CA-D) on July 31, 2008. On September 22, 2008, 
H. Res. 1438 was passed by the House under suspension of the 
rules by voice vote.

H.R. 1071, the ``September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and Patriotism 
        Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 1071 would allow eligible surviving 
dependents of non-immigrant and unlawfully present aliens who 
died as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001, who received compensation from the September 11 Victims 
Compensation Fund, and who meet certain other requirements, to 
become lawful permanent residents of the United States.
    Legislative History.--On February 15, 2007, Rep. Carolyn 
Maloney (NY-D) introduced H.R. 1071 and the bill was referred 
to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On March 19, 2007, the 
bill was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee. On July 27, 
2009, the Subcommittee forwarded the bill to the full committee 
by voice vote. The full committee ordered the bill reported by 
a roll call vote of 21-10 on August 2, 2007. On October 3, 
2008, the bill was placed on the Union Calendar and no further 
action was taken.

H.R. 2405, the ``Proud to Be an American Citizen Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 2405 would direct the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to make funds available annually to the United 
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or to 
approved public or private nonprofit entities to support 
naturalization ceremonies. Such ceremonies would be held on or 
near Independence Day and would include appropriate outreach, 
ceremonial, and celebratory activities. H.R. 2405 would limit 
the funds available per ceremony to $5,000 and for specified 
purposes such as personnel and site costs.
    Legislative History.--On May 21, 2007, Representative Sam 
Farr introduced H.R. 2405, Proud to Be an American Citizen Act. 
On September 25, 2007, the Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law 
considered H.R. 2405 and forwarded the bill to the Full 
Committee by voice vote. On October 24, 2007, the Committee on 
the Judiciary considered H.R. 2405 and ordered to be reported 
by voice vote.

H.R. 4080, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a 
        separate nonimmigrant classification for fashion models

    Summary.--H.R. 4080 would have reclassified fashion models 
of distinguished merit and ability, moving them from the H-1B 
visa category and establishing a new visa category for fashion 
models within the P visa category. The creation of a new 
category for fashion models within the P visa category corrects 
an earlier inadvertent mis-classification of fashion models as 
H-1B workers.
    Legislative History.--On November 5, 2007, Rep. Anthony 
Weiner (D-NY) introduced H.R. 4080 and the bill was referred to 
the House Committee on the Judiciary. On December 3, 2007, the 
bill was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee. On May 13, 
2008, the Subcommittee discharged the bill. The full committee 
ordered the bill reported by a roll call vote of 20-3 on May 
14, 2008. The bill was placed on the union Calendar on June 5, 
2008 and no further action was taken.

H.R. 5060, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow 
        athletes admitted as nonimmigrants described in section 
        101(a)(15)(P) of such Act to renew their period of authorized 
        admission in 5-year increments

    Summary.--H.R. 5060 would have amended the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to allow athletes admitted as non-immigrants 
described in section 101(a)(15)(P) of such Act to continuously 
renew their period of authorized admission in 5-year 
increments.
    Legislative History.--On January 1, 2008, Rep. Linda 
Sanchez (D-CA) introduced H.R. 5060 and the bill was referred 
to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On February 4, 2008, 
the bill was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee. On March 
12, 2008, the Subcommittee forwarded the bill to the full 
committee by voice vote. The full committee ordered the bill 
reported on April 2, 2008 by voice vote. The bill was placed on 
the union Calendar on June 5, 2008 and no further action was 
taken.

H.R. 5882, to recapture employment-based immigrant visas lost to 
        bureaucratic delays and to prevent losses of family- and 
        employment-based immigrant visas in the future

    Summary.--H.R. 5882 was designed to ``recapture'' family-
sponsored and employment-based immigrant visas lost largely to 
bureaucratic delays from FY 1992 to FY 2007. It would also stop 
the loss of family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant 
visas that go unused in the future by allowing them to ``roll 
over'' to the next fiscal year. H.R. 5882 would be effective on 
the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the 
date of the enactment of the bill.
    Legislative History.--On April 23, 2008, Representative Zoe 
Lofgren introduced H.R. 5882. On July 31, 2008, the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 
Security, and International Law considered H.R. 5882 and 
forwarded the amended bill to Full Committee by a roll call 
vote of 8 to 1.

H.R. 5924, the ``Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act''

    Summary.--Section 2 of H.R. 5924 would have amend the 
American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 
2000 to permit the issuance of 20,000 immigrant visas to 
Schedule A nurses and physical therapists annually for three 
years. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would have 
been required to process such petitions within 30 days of 
receipt. An employer petitioning for a visa for an immigrant 
professional nurse would be assessed a fee of $1,500 for each 
immigrant nurse. However, no visa fee would have been assessed 
if the employer demonstrates that it is a health care facility 
located in a county receiving Major Disaster Declaration 
assistance, or the employer has been designated as a Health 
Professional Shortage Area facility.
    During the time that a lawfully admitted immigrant is 
working as a physician or other health care worker, the 
immigrant and their spouse or child would have been able to 
provide care in a developing country. The time the immigrant 
would have spent providing care in the developing country would 
meet the physically present and residing requirements, and the 
continuous residency requirements needed for naturalization. 
H.R. 5924 would have required the Secretary of State to publish 
a list of countries that qualify as a developing country under 
this section of the bill and would have updated the list of 
developing countries at least once a year.
    Legislative History.--On April 29, 2008, Representative 
Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced H.R. 5924, the ``Emergency 
Nursing Supply Relief Act.'' On July 31, 2008, the Subcommittee 
on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 
International Law considered H.R. 5924 and forwarded the bill 
to Full Committee by a roll call vote of 7 to 2.

H.R. 6020, the Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez Act of 2008

    Summary.--Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill 
as the ``Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez Act of 2008.''
    Section 2 of H.R. 6020 amends the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) to allow soldiers who have served 
honorably in dangerous operations not covered by a Presidential 
Executive Order to naturalize under the wartime naturalization 
provision of the INA. Section 2 also amends the INA to give 
soldiers one year (rather than six months under current law) 
after their honorable discharge to apply for citizenship under 
the peacetime naturalization provision.
    Section 3 amends the INA to allow conditional permanent 
resident soldiers to wait until they are honorably discharged 
before having to remove the condition on their permanent 
residence. For U.S. citizen soldiers who are married to 
conditional permanent residents, section 3 also amends INA to 
exempt these soldiers from having to appear at an in-person 
interview for their spouses' removal of condition.
    Section 4 codifies a United States Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement memorandum on procedures for placing soldiers or 
veterans in removal proceedings. If they are placed in removal 
proceedings, they must be given the opportunity to appear 
before an Immigration Judge before being ordered deported.
    Section 5 amends the INA to permit soldiers, honorably 
discharged veterans, and certain family members to apply for a 
discretionary waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility or 
deportability. They would have to demonstrate their eligibility 
for such relief based on a multi-factor test.
    Section 6 facilitates the reunification of lawful permanent 
resident soldiers with their spouses and/or minor children by 
making immigrant visas immediately available for these family 
members.
    Section 7 allows an unlawfully-present parent, spouse, 
child, or minor sibling of U.S. citizen or lawful permanent 
resident soldiers and certain veterans to apply for permanent 
residence.
    Legislative History.--On May 8, 2008, Representative Zoe 
Lofgren introduced H.R. 6020. On July 31, 2008, the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 
Security, and International Law considered H.R. 6020 and 
forwarded the amended bill to Full Committee by a roll call 
vote of 6 to 3. On September 17, 2008, the Committee on the 
Judiciary considered H.R. 6020 and ordered amended bill to be 
reported by voice vote.

H.R. 6034, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
        relief to surviving spouses and children

    Summary.--H.R. 6034 would allow alien widows of U.S. 
citizens who were married for less than two years at the time 
of the citizen spouses' death to remain ``immediate relatives'' 
for immigration purposes as long as they can prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was entered 
into in good faith and not for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit. H.R. 6034 would apply such provision to 
all applications and petitions pending on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act. It would also extend the petition filing 
deadline for two years after the date of enactment of this Act 
for an alien spouse if: (1) the U.S. citizen spouse died before 
the date of enactment of this Act; (2) the alien and the 
citizen spouse were married for less than two years at the time 
of the citizen spouse's death; and (3) the alien has not 
remarried.
    Legislative History.--On May 13, 2008, Representative James 
P. McGovern (D-MA) introduced H.R. 6034. On July 10, 2008, the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 
Security, and International Law considered H.R. 6034 and 
forwarded the bill to Full Committee by voice vote. On July 16, 
2008, the Committee on the Judiciary considered H.R. 6034 and 
ordered the amended bill to be reported by voice vote.

                          Oversight Activities


Oversight Hearing on the Executive Office for Immigration Review

    Summary.--On September 23, 2008, the Subcommittee met to 
receive testimony on the Executive Office for Immigration 
Review. This oversight hearing was conducted to (1) examine how 
EOIR has been affected by the hiring process of immigration 
judges and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members, the 2002 
regulatory changes to the BIA, and the ongoing lack of 
resources and manpower, and (2) explore ways to improve EOIR 
and the administrative removal process.
    The witnesses included: Lee Lofthus, Assistant Attorney 
General for Administration, U.S. Department of Justice; Kevin 
Ohlson, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR), U.S. Department of Justice; Susan B. Long, Co-Director, 
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC); Stephen H. 
Legomsky, The John S. Lehmann University Professor, Washington 
University School of Law.

Oversight Hearing on Immigration Raids: Postville and Beyond

    Summary.--The Subcommittee convened a hearing on July 24, 
2008 on the immigration worksite enforcement actions at 
Postville, Iowa. ICE conducted the enforcement action at a meat 
processing plant operated by Agriprocessors, Inc., in Postville 
on May 12, 2008. Rather than placing the unlawfully-present 
immigrant workers into administrative removal proceedings as 
has been customary, criminal charges were brought against 302 
of the 389 unlawfully-present immigrants arrested. In makeshift 
courtrooms at a fairground, hearings were held where ten 
defendants at a time entered pleas and were sentenced. Of 
these, 297 individuals were convicted and sentenced in a four 
day time period. Some criminal and immigration law experts have 
expressed grave concerns about the speed and the manner of 
these proceedings, which concerns were contested by the 
Department of Homeland Security. This hearing examined the 
events of the enforcement action, and explored whether the 
arrested workers in that case and other recent enforcement 
actions were accorded due process in accordance with the 
Constitution and criminal and immigration laws. The hearing 
also examined the impact on U.S. citizens of identity theft by 
unlawfully-present immigrants.
    The witnesses were: Representatives Bruce L. Braley (D-IA); 
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX); Lynn C. Woolsey (D-CA); and David 
Davis (D-TN); Deborah Rhodes, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney 
General, U.S. Department of Justice; Marcy Forman, Director of 
Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Erik 
Camayd-Freixas, Ph.D., Professor of Modern Languages, Florida 
International University; David Leopold, Esq., David Wolfe 
Leopold & Associates, on behalf of American Immigration Lawyers 
Association; Robert R. Rigg, Esq., Associate Professor of Law 
and Director of the Criminal Defense Program, Drake University 
School of Law; Mrs. Lora Costner, identity theft victim.

Oversight Hearing on the Need for Green Cards for Highly Skilled 
        Workers

    Summary.--This June 12, 2008 hearing explored the need for 
green cards for highly-educated employees in the fields of 
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), as 
well as nursing, and the impact of such immigrants on the job 
opportunities for American workers. The witnesses were: Edward 
Sweeney, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Human Resources, 
National Semiconductor Corporation; Lee Colby, Electrical 
Engineer, Lee Colby & Associates and Past Chair of the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Santa Clara 
Valley Section; John Pearson, Director of the Bechtel 
International Center, Stanford University Association of 
International Educators; Yongjie Yang, Ph.D., Legal Immigrant 
Association; Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for 
Immigration Studies; Jana Stonestreet Ph.D., RN, Chief Nursing 
Executive, Baptist Health System; Cheryl A. Peterson, MSN, RN, 
Senior Policy Fellow, American Nurses Association; Steven 
Francy, Executive Director, RNs Working Together, AFL-CIO.

Oversight Hearing on Electronic Employment Verification Systems: Needed 
        Safeguards to Protect Privacy and Prevent Misuse

    Summary.--The Subcommittee met on June 10, 2008 to convene 
this hearing that focused on proposals to mandate a nationwide 
electronic employment eligibility verification system (EEVS), 
how U.S. workers may be impacted by a mandatory EEVS, and 
explored ways to protect U.S. workers from unintended 
consequences of EEVS errors and/or misuse. In the hearing, the 
Subcommittee heard from Members of Congress who introduced EEVS 
bills on how their bills would protect U.S. workers from errors 
and/or misuse. The following Members and individuals testified 
before the Subcommittee: Hon. Ken Calvert (R-CA); Hon. Heath 
Shuler (D-NC); Hon. Sam Johnson (R-TX); Hon. Gabrielle Giffords 
(D-AZ); Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy Director, United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland 
Security; Carolyn Shettle, Senior Study Director, Westat; Tim 
Sparapani, Senior Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties 
Union; Chris Williams, Executive Director, Working Hands Legal 
Clinic; Glenda Wooten-Ingram, HR Director, Embassy Suites.

Oversight Hearing on Problems with Immigration Detainee Medical Care

    Summary.--This June 4, 2008, hearing explored recent 
reports about inadequate medical care for immigrant detainees 
and deaths while in custody. The hearing examined the quality 
of medical and mental health care provided in detention 
facilities under ICE's jurisdiction, including medical and 
mental health care standards and procedures and the growing 
number of immigration detainees that have died during or as a 
result of ICE custody. The witnesses were: Julie Myers, 
Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; Philip Farabaugh, Acting 
Director, Division of Immigration Health Services, Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 
Richard M. Stana, Government Accountability Office; Gloria 
Armendariz, wife of Isaias Vasquez, former detainee; Vena T. 
Asfaw, former detainee; Ann Schofield Baker, Partner at McKool 
Smith and attorney for Amina Bookey Mudey, former detainee; 
Rev. E. Roy Riley, Bishop of the New Jersey Synod, Evangelical 
Lutheran Church in America; Homer Venters, MD, Attending 
Physician & Public Health Fellow, Bellevue/NYU Program for 
Survivors of Torture; Mary Meg McCarthy, Director, National 
Immigrant Justice Center; Edward Harrison, President, National 
Commission on Correctional Health Care; and Isaac Reyes, 
Washington Representative; U.S./Mexico Border Counties 
Coalition.

Oversight Hearing on Immigration Needs of America's Fighting Men and 
        Women

    Summary.--On May 20, 2008 the Subcommittee met in open 
session to examine the ways in which our current immigration 
system impacts the needs of our soldiers, veterans, and their 
families. It also examined the unique situation of America's 
fighting men and women, as well as the service that they render 
to our country. The hearing witnesses included: Margaret Stock, 
Attorney and Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police Corps, United 
States Army Reserve; Karla Arambula de Rivera, E2 Officer, 
United States Navy; Christine Navarro, KC-135 Aircraft 
Commander, United States Air Force; Lt. General Edward D. Baca 
(retired), President and CEO, Baca Group; and Mark Seavey, 
Assistant Director of National Legislative Commission, American 
Legion.

Oversight Hearing on Wasted Visas, Growing Backlogs

    Summary.--The Subcommittee, on April 30, 2008, met to 
examine the failure by the Department of Homeland Security and 
the Department of State to issue numbers of family- and 
employment-based immigrant visas each year. The hearing also 
explored possible administrative and legislative solutions. The 
witnesses were: Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic 
Operations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; Donald Neufeld, Acting 
Associate Director, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 
Stephen A. Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa 
Service, U.S. Department of State; and Charles Oppenheim, 
Chief, Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of 
State.

Oversight Hearing on the H-2B Program

    Summary.--On April 16, 2008 the Subcommittee convened this 
hearing to explore several issues related to the H-2B program, 
including concerns that the program fails to meet the needs of 
U.S. employers and lacks effective labor protections. The 
hearing specifically analyzed the need to reauthorize the 
``returning worker exemption,'' which expired at the end of 
fiscal year 2007 and has decreased the number of H-2B workers 
available to U.S. businesses. The hearing also investigated 
alleged abuses of H-2B workers and the issue of adding labor 
protections to existing H-2B legislation.
    Witnesses at this hearing were: Hon. George Miller (D-CA); 
Hon. Bart Stupak (D-MI); Hon. Tim Bishop (D-NY); Hon. Wayne 
Gilchrest (R-MD); R. D. Musser, III, President, Grand Hotel; 
William Zammer, President, Cape Cod Restaurants, Inc.; Ross 
Eisenbrey, Vice President, Economic Policy Institute; Mary 
Bauer, Director, Immigrant Justice Project, Southern Poverty 
Law Center; and Steven Camarota, Director of Research, Center 
for Immigration Studies.

Oversight Joint Hearing on Paying With Their Lives: The Status of 
        Compensation for 9/11 Health Effects

    Summary.--When the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11, 
thousands of first responders, local residents, workers, 
students, and others inhaled a poisonous mixture of asbestos, 
lead, PCBs, and other contaminants. More than six years later, 
many of these people have become sick from the toxic dust and 
there is currently no comprehensive federal program to provide 
them with health care or compensation. On April 1, 2008, the 
Subcommittee met jointly with the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. This hearing 
addressed past successes, as well as the current and future 
challenges of compensating people for illnesses and injuries 
that resulted from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World 
Trade Center.
    The witnesses at this hearing were: Kenneth R. Feinberg, 
Esq., Former Special Master, Victim Compensation Fund; Michael 
Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, City of New York; Anne-Marie 
Lasowski, Acting Director, Education Workforce and Income 
Security, Government Accountability Office; Michael A. 
Valentin, Former NYPD Detective; Theodore H. Frank, Resident 
Fellow, American Enterprise (AEI), Director of AEI Legal Center 
for the Public Interest; and James Melius, MD, Ph.D., 
Administrator, New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust 
Fund.

Hearing on Problems with ICE Interrogation, Detention, and Removal 
        Procedures

    Summary.--As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has 
grown in size and activity, some have suggested that the agency 
has not been able to keep up with the necessary training and 
oversight of its agents. Accounts of ICE agents who may have 
acted in an inappropriate and possibly illegal manner during 
various enforcement actions have recently increased. On 
February 13, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing to review 
ICE's procedures for interrogations, detention, and removal, as 
well as some cases in which allegations have been made that 
U.S. citizens were questioned, searched, arrested, detained, or 
deported by ICE. The hearing also examined procedures that ICE 
uses to ensure that U.S. citizens are not detained and 
deported. Witnesses at this hearing were: Gary Mead, Assistant 
Director for Detention & Removal, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement; James J. Brosnahan, Senior Partner, Morrison & 
Foerster, LLP; Marie Justeen Mancha, Student, Tattnal County 
High School; Michael Graves, Member UFCW Local 1149; Kara 
Hartzler, Attorney, Florrence Immigrant & Refugee Rights 
Project; Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Human Rights Fellow, Center for 
Human Rights and International Justice at Boston College; and 
Dan Stein, President, Federation for American Immigration 
Reform.

Oversight Hearing on Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences and 
        Solutions

    Summary.--When U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) published its proposed fee increase rule on February 1, 
2007, its average processing time for naturalization 
applications was 5.57 months, just under its stated processing 
time goal of six months. In proposing the rule, the USCIS 
stated its goal of a 20% reduction in processing times. By 
January 16, 2008 the agency went from an average processing 
time of under six months to one of up to (or exceeding) a year 
and a half. This January 17, 2008 hearing examined the causes, 
consequences and solutions for naturalization delays, including 
an examination of persistent delays caused by the FBI name 
check. The hearing witnesses included: Emilio T. Gonzalez 
Ph.D., Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Department of Homeland Security; Arturo Vargas, Executive 
Director, NALEO Educational Fund; Fred Tsao, Policy Director, 
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; and 
Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations, Numbers USA.

Hearing on H.R. 750, the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act 
        of 2007''

    Summary.--This November 8, 2007 hearing highlighted the 
continuing need for comprehensive immigration reform through an 
examination of H.R. 750, the ``Save America Comprehensive 
Immigration Act of 2007.'' The witnesses were: the Honorable 
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI); the Honorable Barbara Lee (D-
CA); the Honorable Silvestre Reyes (D-TX); the Honorable Nancy 
E. Boyda (D-KS); William Spriggs, Ph.D., Chairman, Department 
of Economics, Howard University; Gregory Siskind, Partner, 
Siskind, Susser, Bland; Charles H. Kuck, President-Elect, 
American Immigration Lawyers Association, Adjunct Professor of 
Law, University of Georgia; Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, 
Community Services Team, Holland and Knight, LLP; Kim Gandy, 
President, National Organization for Women (NOW); T. J. Bonner, 
President, National Border Patrol Council of the American 
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; and Julie 
Kirchner, Director of Government Relations, Federation for 
American Immigration Reform.

Oversight Hearing on Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee 
        Medical Care

    Summary.--This hearing held on October 4, 2007, explored 
recent reports about the quality of medical care for immigrant 
detainees in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
custody. The witnesses were: Gary Mead, Assistant Director for 
Detention & Removal, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Francisco Castaneda, Former Detainee; Edwidge Danticat, Author 
and Niece of Reverend Joseph Dantica, deceased detainee; June 
Everett, Sister of Sandra Kenley, deceased detainee; Tom 
Jawetz, Immigration Detention Staff Attorney, ACLU National 
Prison Project; Allen S. Keller, MD, Associate Professor of 
Medicine, New York University School of Medicine; and Cheryl 
Little, Executive Director, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center.

Oversight Hearing on USCIS Fee Increase Rule

    Summary.--On September 20, 2007, the Subcommittee convened 
a hearing on the USCIS fee increase rule. This hearing explored 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) decision to 
raise its fees and the methodology the agency used to calculate 
its fee increases. The hearing also allowed the Subcommittee to 
follow up with USCIS about issues raised in the Subcommittee's 
February 14, 2007 hearing on the agency's then-proposed fee 
rule. The hearing also considered H.J. Res. 47, which would 
have, if passed, rendered USCIS' fee rule null and void and 
would have forced the agency to issue a new rule providing 
additional justifications for its fee increases.
    Testimony was heard from: Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy 
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; Rendell Jones, Chief Financial 
Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; Michael Aytes, Associate 
Director for Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 
Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, NALEO Educational Fund; 
William R. (Bill) Yates, Executive Consultant, Border 
Management Strategies (BMS); and Rhadmes Rivera Vice President 
of 1199, SEIU United Health Care Workers East.

H.R. 1645, the ``Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant 
        Economy Act of 2007 (STRIVE Act)''

    Summary.--This September 6, 2007 hearing examined H.R. 
1645, the ``Security Through Regularized Immigration and a 
Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 (STRIVE Act).'' The following 
witnesses testified before the Subcommittee: the Honorable Jeff 
Flake (R-AZ); the Honorable Joe Baca (D-CA); the Honorable Ray 
LaHood (R-IL); the Honorable Brian Bilbray (D-CA); Tony 
Wasilewski, Small Business Owner, Schiller Park, Illinois; 
Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. Navy Petty Officer Second Class, 
Jacksonville, Florida; Reverend Luis Cortes, Jr., President, 
Esperanza USA; Joshua Hoyt, Executive Director, Illinois 
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights; Cassandra Q. Butts, 
Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy, Center for American 
Progress; Michael L. Barrera, President and CEO, United States 
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Julie Kirchner, Director of 
Government Relations, Federation for American Immigration 
Reform; and The Honorable Corey Stewart, Chairman At-Large, 
Prince William County Board of Supervisors.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government 
        Perspectives on Immigration Statistics

    Summary.--This June 6, 2007 hearing examined relevant 
official government statistics relating to the reform of the 
country's immigration laws. Testimony was heard from: the 
Honorable Joseph Crowley (D-NY); the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher 
(R-CA); Ruth Ellen Wasem Ph.D., Specialist in Immigration 
Policy Congressional Research Service; Ron Bird Ph.D., Chief 
Economist and Director of the Office of Economic Policy and 
Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor; Michael Hoefer, Director of 
the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security; and Charles Oppenheim, Chief, Visa Control 
and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government 
        Perspectives on Immigration Statistics (Continued)

    Summary.--This June 19, 2007 hearing was a continuation of 
the June 6, 2007 hearing, as requested by the minority. The 
witnesses included: Shannon Benton, Executive Director, TREA 
Senior Citizens League; Steven Camarota, Director of Research, 
Center for Immigration Studies; and Robert Rector, Senior 
Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Business 
        Community Perspectives

    Summary.--This June 6, 2007 hearing explored the positions 
and viewpoints of the business community with respect to reform 
of the Nation's immigration laws; specifically, the high tech 
industry, the service industry and the agriculture industry. 
Witnesses: Laszlo Bock, Vice President, People Operations, 
Google Inc.; John Gay, Senior Vice President for Government 
Affairs & Public Policy, National Restaurant Association; 
William Hawkins, Senior Fellow, U.S. Business and Industry 
Council; Jerry Mixon, Partner Mixon Family Farms.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Labor Movement 
        Perspectives

    Summary.--This hearing explored the positions and 
viewpoints of various segments of the labor movement with 
respect to reforming the Nation's immigration laws. The 
witnesses at this May 24, 2007 hearing were: Jonathan Hiatt, 
General Counsel, American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); Fred Feinstein, Senior 
Fellow and Visiting Professor, University of Maryland, 
Representing SEIU and UNITE HERE; Michael J. Wilson, 
International Vice President and Director, Legislative and 
Political Action Department, United Food and Commercial Workers 
International Union (UFCW); Marcos Camacho, General Counsel, 
United Farm Workers of America; Vernon Briggs, Ph.D., Professor 
of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University; and Greg 
Serbon, State Director, Indiana Federation for Immigration 
Reform and Enforcement.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming 
        Americans--U.S. Immigrant Integration

    Summary.--This May 23, 2007 hearing was a continuation of 
the hearing on 5-16-2007, as requested by the minority. 
Witnesses: Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center 
for Equal Opportunity; Stanley Renshon, City University of New 
York Graduate Center; Tim Schultz, Director, Government 
Relations U.S. English; and Mark Seavey, Director of the 
National Legislative Commission, The American Legion.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Perspectives 
        from Faith-Based and Immigrant Communities

    Summary.--This May 22, 2007, hearing explored the positions 
and viewpoints of faith-based and immigrant organizations with 
respect to reforming the country's immigration laws. Witnesses: 
Reverend Charles G. Adams, Senior Pastor Hartford Memorial 
Baptist Church; Gideon Aronoff, President and CEO Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS); Reverend Luis Cortes, Jr., 
President, Esperanza USA; Reverend Derrick Harkins, Pastor 
Nineteenth Street Baptist Church; Dan Kosten, Director, World 
Relief Refugee and Immigration Programs, National Association 
of Evangelicals; Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski, U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Diocese of Orlando; Jim 
Edwards, Jr. Ph.D., Adjunct Fellow, Hudson Institute; Stephen 
Steinlight, Center for Immigration Studies, Former National 
Affairs Director at the American Jewish Committee (AJC); 
Marleine Bastien, Executive Director, Fanm Ayisyen Nan Miyami, 
Inc., Haitian Women of Miami; Deepa Iyer, Executive Director, 
South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow; Janet Murguia, 
President and CEO National Council of La Raza; Karen K. 
Narasaki, President and Executive Director, Asian American 
Justice Center (AAJC); Niall O'Dowd, Chairman, Irish Lobby of 
Immigration Reform; Noel J. Saleh, President, ACCESS Board of 
Directors; Rosanna Pulido, Illinois Spokesperson ``You Don't 
Speak for Me''; and Jan Ting, Professor of Law, Temple 
University, Beasley School of Law.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The Future of 
        Undocumented Immigrant Students

    Summary.--The Subcommittee convened this May 18, 2007 
hearing to examine the circumstances of unlawfully-present 
immigrant children who grow up in the United States, and the 
effect that they can have on the U.S. if they were to be given 
legal immigration status and were allowed to become full, 
participating members of our society. The following witnesses 
testified at the hearing: Marie Nazareth Gonzalez, Westminster 
College, Class of 2009; Martine Mwanj Kalaw, Hamilton College, 
Class of 2003, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public 
Affairs Syracuse University, Class 2004; Tam Tran, University 
of California, Los Angeles Class of 2006; Diana Furchtgott-
Roth, Senior Fellow & Director, Center for Employment Policy 
Hudson Institute; Allan Cameron Ph.D., Retired High School 
Computer Science Teacher, Carl Hayden High School, Phoenix, AZ; 
Jamie P. Merisotis, President, Institute for Higher Education 
Policy; and Kris W. Kobach Ph.D., Professor of Law, University 
of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Impact of 
        Immigration on States and Localities

    Summary.--Most scholars tend to agree that illegal 
immigration imposes some costs on states and localities. This 
May 17, 2008 hearing focused on those costs. The witnesses 
were: The Honorable Sharon Tomiko Santos, Washington State 
House of Representatives, National Conference of State 
Legislatures; The Honorable Dennis Zine, Councilman, City of 
Los Angeles, National League of Cities; Stephen Appold Ph.D., 
Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, The University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill; The Honorable John Andrews, Former 
President of the Colorado State Senate; Audrey Singer Ph.D., 
Immigration Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings 
Institution; Anne Morrison Piehl Ph.D., Department of Economics 
& Program in Criminal Justice Rutgers, The State University of 
New Jersey; Deborah A. Santiago, Ph.D., Vice President for 
Policy and Research, Excelencia in Education; Robert Rector, 
Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

Oversight Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming 
        Americans--U.S. Immigrant Integration

    Summary.--On May 16, 2007 the Subcommittee convened a 
hearing to explore whether and to what extent immigrants are 
integrating into the United States and discuss policies to 
promote greater immigrant integration. Testimony was heard 
from: John Fonte, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute; 
Gary Gerstle, Ph.D., Professor of History, Vanderbilt 
University; Donald Kerwin, Executive Director, Catholic Legal 
Immigration Network, Inc.; and Ruben G. Rumbaut, Ph.D., 
Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine.

Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Economy, U.S. Workers, and Immigration 
        Reform

    Summary.--This May 9, 2007 hearing was a continuation of 
the hearing held on May 3, 2007 as requested by the minority. 
The witnesses were: T. Willard Fair, President, Miami Urban 
League; Roy Beck, Director, Numbers USA; and Steve Camarota, 
Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies.

Oversight Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. 
        Immigration System

    Summary.--The Subcommittee convened this hearing on May 8, 
2007 to examine the role of family-based immigration in the 
U.S. immigration system. Testimony was heard from: Stuart 
Anderson, Executive Director, National Foundation for American 
Policy; Harriet Duleep, Ph.D., Research Professor of Public 
Policy, Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College 
of William and Mary; The Honorable Phil Gingrey, U.S. House of 
Representatives (R-GA); and Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law and 
Asian American Studies, University of California, Davis.

Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Economy, U.S. Workers, and Immigration 
        Reform

    Summary.--This May 3, 2007, hearing was held to examine the 
effects of immigrants on the Nation's economy, with particular 
attention to the native-born workforce. The witnesses were: the 
Honorable Steve King, (R-IA); Leon R. Sequeira, Assistant 
Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor; Patricia 
Buckley, Ph.D., Senior Economic Advisor to the Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Commerce; Peter R. Orszag, Ph.D., Director, 
Congressional Budget Office; Gerald Jaynes, Professor of 
Economics and African-American Studies, Yale University; Rachel 
Friedberg, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in Economics, Brown 
University; Wade Henderson, Esq., President and CEO, Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights; and Vernon Briggs, Professor of 
Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.

Oversight Hearing on An Examination of Point Systems as a Method for 
        Selecting Immigrants

    Summary.--The Subcommittee met on May 1, 2007, to receive 
testimony examining the role of ``point systems'' for admitting 
immigrants from foreign law experts who described how point 
systems are used in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, 
practitioners experienced with point systems in other 
countries, and Senator Jeff Sessions who supports a point 
system. The witnesses were: The Honorable Jeff Sessions, United 
States Senate (R-AL); Clare Feikert, Foreign Law Specialist, 
Law Library of Congress; Stephen F. Clarke, Senior Foreign Law 
Specialist, Law Library of Congress; Lisa White, Foreign Law 
Specialist, Law Library of Congress; Demetrios Papademetriou, 
Ph.D., President and Board Member, Migration Policy Institute; 
Howard D. Greenberg, Partner, Greenberg Turner, A Human 
Resources Law Firm; Lance Kaplan, Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, 
Bernsen & Loewy, LLP; Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, 
The Heritage Foundation.

Oversight Hearing on Proposals for Improving the Electronic Employment 
        Verification and Worksite Enforcement System

    Summary.--In its previous hearing, the Subcommittee 
examined issues in the current paper and electronic employment 
eligibility verification systems. This hearing on April 6, 2007 
examined various proposals for modifying the employment 
eligibility verification and worksite enforcement system. 
Testimony was heard from: the Honorable Ken Calvert (R-CA); the 
Honorable Elton Gallegly (R-CA); the Honorable David Dreier (R-
CA); the Honorable Silvestre Reyes (D-TX); Luis V. Gutierrez 
(D-IL); the Honorable Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Randel Johnson, Vice 
President, Labor, Immigration & Employee Benefits, U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce; Robert Gibbs, Partner, Gibbs Houston Pauw, On 
behalf of the Service Employees International Union; Jim 
Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, The Cato 
Institute; Jessica Vaughan, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for 
Immigration Studies.

Oversight Hearing on Problems in the Current Employment Verification 
        and Worksite Enforcement System

    Summary.--On April 24, 2007, the Subcommittee convened a 
hearing to examine issues in the current paper and electronic 
employment eligibility verification systems. The witnesses 
included: Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy Director, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security; John Shandley, Senior V.P., Human Resources, 
Swift & Company; Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, Miller Mayer, LLP, 
Adjunct Professor, Cornell Law School; and Marc Rosenblum, 
Ph.D., Department of Political Science, University of New 
Orleans.

Oversight Hearing on Shortfalls of 1996 Immigration Reform Legislation

    Summary.--On April 20, 2007, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing to examine the effects that 1996 immigration reform 
legislation had on historical patterns of circular migration, 
rule of law, and due process. The following witnesses testified 
before the Subcommittee: Douglas Massey, Ph.D., Professor of 
Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University; Hiroshi 
Motomura, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of 
North Carolina School of Law; Paul Virtue, Former INS General 
Counsel and Executive Associate Commissioner, Partner, Hogan & 
Hartson; and Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for 
Immigration Studies.

Oversight Hearing on Shortfalls of the 1986 Immigration Reform 
        Legislation

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on April 19, 
2007, to examine the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 
(IRCA) and its effects, both intended and unintended. Testimony 
was received from: Muzaffar Chishti, Director, Migration Policy 
Institute, New York University School of Law; Rosemary Jenks, 
Director of Government Relations, Numbers USA; Stephen 
Legomsky, John S. Lehmann University Professor, Washington 
University in St. Louis; and Stephen Pitti, Ph.D., Professor of 
History & American Studies, Director of the Program in 
Ethnicity, Race and Migration, Yale University.

Oversight Hearing on Past, Present, and Future: A Historic and Personal 
        Reflection on American Immigration

    Summary.--The Subcommittee convened this hearing on March 
30, 2007 to examine how America has dealt with immigration in 
the past, the impact that immigration is having in the present, 
and the role that immigration will play in our country's 
future, with help from experts in history, economics, and 
demography, as well as government officials in charge of 
immigration policy and border security. The hearing witnesses 
included: David V. Aguilar, Chief, Office of Border Patrol, 
Department of Homeland Security; Igor V. Timofeyev, Director of 
Immigration Policy and Special Advisor for Refugee and Asylum 
Affairs, Policy Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security; Dowell Myers, Professor of Urban Planning and 
Demography and Director of the Population Dynamics Research 
Group, University of Southern California; Dan Siciliano, 
Professor of Urban Planning and Demography and Director of the 
Population Dynamics Research Group, University of Southern 
California; Daniel J. Tichenor, Associate Professor, Department 
of Political Science Rutgers, The State University of New 
Jersey; Michael W. Cutler, Former Senior Special Agent of the 
INS, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies; and Jack 
Martin, Special Projects Director, Federation for American 
Immigration Reform.

Oversight Hearing on ``The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase''

    Summary.--On February 14, 2007, the Subcommittee convened a 
hearing to explore the proposal by U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) to increase its fees, with 
particular attention to whether the USCIS fee increase proposal 
adequately and fairly calculated an appropriate share of the 
agency's true costs of adjudicating naturalization and 
immigration applications and petitions. Dr. Emilio T. Gonzalez, 
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security was the only witness at this 
hearing.

                                LETTERS

Visa Waiver Program for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
        Mariana Islands (CNMI)

    On October 1, 2008, Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and 
Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, with Committee 
on Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall, Insular Affairs 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Donna Christensen, Rep. Madeleine 
Bordallo, and Rep. Luis Fortuno, wrote to Secretary of Homeland 
Security Michael Chertoff urging him to adopt the visa waiver 
expansion proposals submitted by the Governors of Guam and the 
CNMI.

Protecting Women From Female Genital Mutilation

    On January 28, 2008, Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and 
Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote to 
Attorney General Michael Mukasey questioning the Board of 
Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision in Matter of A-T and urging 
him to certify the case for review. The BIA's decision denied 
asylum and withholding of removal to a woman who had 
experienced female genital mutilation as a child and feared 
further abuse of forced marriage.
    On September 23, 2008, Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and 
Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman wrote to Attorney General 
Michael Mukasey commending him for his decision to vacate and 
remand Matter of A-T.

Optional Practical Training Extension

    On February 27, 2008, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Zoe Lofgren, with Representatives Adam Schiff, Dennis Moore, 
Sheila Jackson Lee, and Jerrold Nadler, wrote to Secretary of 
Homeland Security Michael Chertoff urging him to extend the 
Optional Practical Training (OPT) period permitted for foreign 
students from 12 to 29 months.
    On July 15, 2008, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren and Rep. Chris Cannon wrote to Secretary of Homeland 
Security Michael Chertoff applauding efforts to extend the 
period of OPT for the best and the brightest students to remain 
in the U.S., urging Secretary Chertoff to include accounting 
and auditing in the list of degrees that would qualify for the 
OPT extension, and expressing reservation about attaching 
policy to the OPT extension which compels employers to enroll 
in the Basic Pilot program if their employees' OPT is extended.

Inadequate Medical Care for Immigration Detainees

    On May 15, 2008, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote to Secretary of 
Homeland Security Michael Chertoff regarding a Washington Post 
series concerning the quality of medical care provided at 
detention centers holding immigration detainees. The letter 
requested complete and unredacted copies of all documents 
submitted to the Washington Post relating to the provision of 
medical and mental health care to immigration detainees.
    On August 18, 2008, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote to Secretary of 
Homeland Security Michael Chertoff regarding the in-custody 
death of Hiu Lui Ng, an immigrant who was very close to 
naturalization through his U.S. citizen spouse. The letter 
requested an investigation for Mr. Ng's death based upon 
disturbing allegations by the New York Times of serious medical 
neglect in immigration detention. The letter also re-requested 
the documents requested in the May 15, 2008 letter regarding 
the quality of medical care for immigration detainees.

Security-related Bars to the Admission of Deserving Refugees, Asylees, 
        Special Immigrants, and Other Non-citizens

    On April 1, 2008, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote Secretary of Homeland 
Security Michael Chertoff concering the failure of the 
Department of Homeland Security to make use of its statutory 
authority to exempt deserving individuals from security-related 
bars to admission.

H-2A Non-immigrant Regulations

    On March 6, 2008, Chairman John Conyers, Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, with Committee on 
Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, Foreign Affairs 
Chairman Howard Berman, and Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey, wrote to Secretary of 
Labor Elaine Chao urging her to withdraw the proposed H-2A 
regulations that would, among other things, eliminate 
protections for U.S. farm workers and lower wage rates for both 
U.S. and foreign guest workers.

Adjustment of Status Regulations for ``T'' and ``U'' Non-immigrants

    On July 9, 2008, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote to Secretary of 
Homeland Security Michael Chertoff urging him to issue 
regulations, which had been delayed for eight years, regarding 
adjustment of status for ``T'' and ``U'' non-immigrants.

Exploitation of H-2B Non-immigrants

    On June 3, 2008, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, with Committee on 
Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, wrote to the Acting 
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the Assistant 
Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement encouraging 
them to investigate disturbing allegations of worker 
exploitation in a shipyard owned by Signal International where 
H-2B non-immigrants were employed.

Refugee Consultation Follow-up

    On December 13, 2007, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote to Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice to thank her for the Fall refugee consultation 
and her commitment to a more timely and meaningful consultation 
process under section 207(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. The letter also reiterated views expressed during the 
consultation about various refugee concerns, including 
shortfalls in meeting admissions goals and pipeline management, 
Iraqi refugees, ``material support'' bars preventing deserving 
refugees from admission, the refugee situation in Darfur and 
Chad, the situation of Haitian refugees, the protection of 
vulnerable women and children refugees, and shortfalls in 
refugee funding.

Self-petitions Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

    On November 28, 2007, Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren 
wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director 
Emilio Gonzalez asking him to confirm whether a memorandum 
would be issued narrowly limiting approved self-petitioners 
under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) contrary to the 
plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 
amended by VAWA. If the Director was in fact considering 
issuing such a memorandum, the letter urges him to reconsider.

Immigration Detention Standards

    On September 7, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Zoe Lofgren wrote to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) Assistant Secretary Julie Myers to request a copy of 
proposed detention standards, request that ICE brief 
Subcommittee staff on the detention standards, and to express 
concern regarding reports that ICE had not worked with non-
governmental organizations to establish the standards.

Visa Bulletin Irregularities

    On July 2, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and 
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expressing concern 
about the potential unprecedented action of, and the effects 
of, revising the July 2007 visa bulletin mid-month to reflect 
retrogression in various employment-based visa categories. The 
letter requests a response to the concerns raised in the letter 
and a meeting to discuss the matter before the revision is 
made.
    On July 9, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael 
Chertoff to follow up on the July 2, 2007 letter that received 
no response as requested. The letter requests various written 
information regarding the July 3, 2007 revision of the July 
2007 visa bulletin.

Interrogation, Detention, and Removal of U.S. Citizens

    On June 26, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael 
Chertoff to express concern over reports of the deportation of 
a U.S. citizen, to request information regarding this case, and 
to request manuals, materials, and written policy used to make 
decisions regarding the removal of the mentally impaired.

U Visa Regulations

    On April 5, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Director Emilio Gonzalez inquiring into the status of U visa 
regulations required under the Victims of Trafficking and 
Violence Protection Act of 2000, P.L. 106-386.

Operation Return to Sender

    On March 1, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
Assistant Secretary Julie Meyers seeking clarification and 
understanding of ICE's policy and methods of removal of 
unlawfully-present immigrants pursuant to ``Operation Return to 
Sender.''

Budgeting for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

    On February 13, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Zoe Lofgren wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael 
Chertoff seeking clarification of a statement made to Congress 
in which Secretary Chertoff claimed that seeking an 
appropriation for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) ``would be a problem . . . . [because] Congress has 
always mandated this fee [to cover the full costs of USCIS].'' 
The letter explained that Congress has simply authorized fees 
to cover the full costs of USCIS, not mandated it. The letter 
also asked Secretary Chertoff to clarify his statement to 
Congress suggesting that USCIS fees could be used for 
enforcement purposes, which the authors asserted contravened 
section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative

    On February 9, 2007, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, along with Committee on 
Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson and Subcommittee 
Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism Chairwoman 
Loretta Sanchez, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice 
seeking information on the authority and methods used to 
determine passport and passport card fees and the circumstances 
and standards used to waive the fees.

Security Checks Resulting in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
        Application Backlogs

    On February 16, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Zoe Lofgren wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) Director Emilio Gonzales seeking answers to several 
questions regarding the name check process that caused backlogs 
in immigration application processing at USCIS.

Protection of Montagnard Refugees In and Outside Vietnam

    On March 26, 2007, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, along with Foreign Affairs 
Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, Foreign Affairs Committee 
Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Subcommittee on Africa and 
Global Health Ranking Member Christopher Smith, and 
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and 
Oversight Ranking Member Dana Rohrbacher, wrote to Assistant 
Secretary of Population, Refugees, and Migration Ellen 
Sauerbrey expressing concern over reports that the Department 
of State might soon refuse to process intending Montagnard 
refugees in Cambodia without referrals from the U.N. High 
Commissioner for Refugees.

Return of Vietnamese to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

    On October 23, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Zoe Lofgren, along with Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, 
Global Counterterrorism Chairwoman Loretta Sanchez, and 
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Ranking Member 
Christopher Smith, wrote to President George W. Bush expressing 
concern over the potential forced return to the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam of a family of Vietnamese refugees who 
survived ``re-education'' camps and had a court order stating 
that a return to Vietnam could not occur for fear of 
persecution. One of the family members was a witness in an 
Immigration Subcommittee hearing on May 18, 2007. The letter 
sought clarification on whether U.S. policy had changed 
regarding the return of Vietnamese refugees to Vietnam.
    On January 23, 2008, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman, 
along with Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Michael Honda, 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Loretta Sanchez, and Mario Diaz-Balart, 
wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff 
expressing extreme concern over a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) reached with the Government of the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, that would result in the forcible return of thousands 
of Vietnamese nationals who had been ordered deported to the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, a country with an extensive and 
continuing record of human rights violations. The letter 
requested a briefing on the MOU regarding the process by which 
the agreement was reached prior to the implementation of the 
agreement.
    On March 6, 2008, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman, 
along with Representatives Loretta Sanchez, Michael Honda, Neil 
Abercrombie, and Al Green, wrote to Secretary of Homeland 
Security Michael Chertoff following up on the response received 
to the January 23, 2008 letter and to request answers to 
questions raised at a staff briefing on this issue on February 
11, 2008, including whether human rights reports were ignored 
in the development of the MOU, differences between similar MOUs 
with other nations, whether specific provisions in the MOU 
address human rights concerns in Vietnam, whether the MOU would 
allow for consideration of humanitarian concerns prior to 
deportation, and whether the Department would consent to 
reopening of removal proceedings as completion of the MOU could 
be considered a ``changed condition.''

                              GAO REQUESTS

Criminal Aliens

    On July 21, 2008, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren and Ranking Member Steve King requested a follow up 
report to an April 7, 2005 report regarding statistics relating 
to criminal aliens in the United States.

Review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Cost Accounting 
        Method

    On September 12, 2007, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Zoe Lofgren and Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security Chairman David Price requested a review of the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) cost accounting 
methods, including those used for developing its most current 
fee schedule, the assumptions underlying the allocation of 
costs covered by these fees, and the financial controls USCIS 
has put in place to ensure the appropriate collection and use 
of the fees.

                                  
