[House Report 111-712]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 Union Calendar No. 435

111th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 111-712

 
                        REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES 

                                 of the 

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

                                 of the 

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

                               during the 

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

                              pursuant to 

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

                        House of Representatives

                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


January 3, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                ----------
                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

99-006 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2010 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; 
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, 
Washington, DC 20402-0001 

















                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

   JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, 
            Chairman\1\

LAMAR SMITH, Texas\2\                HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WisconsinICK BOUCHER, Virginia
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          ZOE LOFGREN, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE KING, Iowa                     MAXINE WATERS, California
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TED POE, Texas                       Georgia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TOM ROONEY, Florida                  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JUDY CHU, California
                                     THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
                                     LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
                                     TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
                                     CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
                                     ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
                                     ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
                                     LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
                                     DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
                                     JARED POLIS, Colorado

--------------------
\1\John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, elected to the Committee as Chairman 
pursuant to House Resolution 8, approved by the House January 6, 2009.
\2\Lamar Smith, elected to the Committee as ranking minority Member 
pursuant to House Resolution 12, approved by the House January 6, 2009.
Republican Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 38, approved by the House January 9, 2009.
Democratic Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 74, approved by the House January 21, 2009.















           SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

                       STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            ZOE LOFGREN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
STEVE KING, Iowa                     Georgia
                                     ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
                                     Virginia
                                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
                                     JUDY CHU, California
                              ----------                              

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                       JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WisconsinELVIN L. WATT, North Carolinia
TOM ROONEY, Florida                   ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
STEVE KING, Iowa                        Virginia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                 WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                  HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                        Georgia
                                      TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
                                      JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
                                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
                                      SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
                                      JUDY CHU, California
                              ----------                              

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND COMPETITION POLICY

                    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
                          Georgia, Chairman

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina             JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                     RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin   HARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia                  SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California              MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi                MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
                                         DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
                                         JARED POLIS, Colorado












        SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

             ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico         LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JERROLD NADLER, New York             TED POE, Texas
ZOE LOFGREN, California              BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California            J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               TOM ROONEY, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
                              ----------                              

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 
                         AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

                   ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         STEVE KING, Iowa
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
MAXINE WATERS, California            ELTON GALLEGLY, California
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico         DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois          TED POE, Texas
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JUDY CHU, California
                              ----------                              

                   TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT

                  ADAM B. SCHIFF, California, Chairman
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee                   Wisconsin
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    Georgia                          J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico         LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                   Washington, DC, January 3, 2011.
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 111th 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.................................................     4

Committee Prints.................................................     9

House Documents..................................................     9

Legislation Enacted into Law.....................................    10

Public Laws......................................................    10

Private Laws.....................................................    13

Conference Appointments..........................................    13

Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary..........    13
    Intellectual Property Activities.............................    13
    Oversight Hearings on Executive Branch Agencies and their 
      Activities.................................................    15
    Continuation of Investigations on U.S. Attorney Removals, the 
      Politicization of the Department of Justice, and OLC 
      Approval of Waterboarding and Other Interrogation 
      Techniques.................................................    17
    Oversight Concerning the Gulf Oil Spill......................    18
    Oversight on Antitrust Activities............................    19
    Oversight on Bankruptcy and Foreclosure Activities...........    20
    Other Oversight Activities...................................    21
    Legislative Activities.......................................    23

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW................    33
    Legislative Activities.......................................    33
    Oversight Activities.........................................    47

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL 
  LIBERTIES......................................................    61
    Legislative Activities.......................................    61
    Oversight Activities.........................................    77

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND COMPETITION POLICY....................    99
    Legislative Activities.......................................    99
    Oversight Hearings...........................................   104

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY..........   121
    Legislative Activities.......................................   121
    Oversight Activities.........................................   134

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER 
  SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW................................   149
    Legislative Activity.........................................   150
    Oversight Activities.........................................   160
    Oversight Letters............................................   163

TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT...............................   169














                                                 Union Calendar No. 435

111th Congress  }                                           {    Report
  2d Session    }          HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES         {   111-712

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

       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                _______
                                

January 3, 2011.--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...............................................       818
    House joint resolutions...................................        59
    House concurrent resolutions..............................        29
    House resolutions.........................................       126
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                   1,032
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
    Senate bills..............................................        21
    Senate joint resolutions..................................         3
    Senate concurrent resolutions.............................         2
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                      26
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
        Subtotal..............................................     1,058
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Private Legislation:
    House bills (claims)......................................         0
    House bills (copyrights)..................................         1
    House bills (immigration).................................        62
    House resolutions (claims)................................         2
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                      65
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
    Senate bills (claims).....................................         0
    Senate bills (immigration)................................         1
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                       1
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
        Subtotal..............................................        66
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total.............................................     1,124

             ACTION ON LEGISLATION NOT REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

Held at desk for House action:
    Senate bills..............................................        12
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                      12
Conference appointments:
    House bills...............................................         1
    Senate bills..............................................         0
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  
                                                                       1
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total.............................................        13

                              FINAL ACTION

House concurrent resolutions approved (public)................         8
House resolutions approved (public)...........................        58
Public legislation vetoed by the President....................         1
Public Laws...................................................        54
Private Laws..................................................         2
  
                                                                        
                            Printed Hearings

                          Serial No. and Title
                               __________
    1. District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
January 27, 2009. (H.R. 157).
    2. Midnight Rulemaking: Shedding Some Light. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. February 4, 2009.
    3. Copyright Licensing in a Digital Age: Competition, Compensation 
and the Need to Update the Cable and Satellite TV Licenses. Committee 
on the Judiciary. February 25, 2009.
    4. Libel Tourism. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. February 12, 2009.
    5. Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security jointly with 
the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities of the Committee 
on Education and Labor. March 12, 2009.
    6. Circuit City Unplugged: Why Did Chapter 11 Fail to Save 34,000 
Jobs? Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. March 11, 
2009.
    7. Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2009. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. March 24, 2009. 
(H.R. 1478).
    8. Performance Rights Act. Committee on the Judiciary. March 10, 
2010. (H.R. 848).
    9. Consumer Debt: Are Credit Cards Bankrupting Amercians? 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. April 2, 2009.
    10. Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009 and 
the Emergency Homeownership and Equity Protection Act. Committee on the 
Judiciary. January 22, 2009. (H.R. 200, H.R. 225).
    11. To Consider the Possible Impeachment of United States District 
Judge Samuel B. Kent. Task Force on Judicial Impeachment. June 3, 2009.
    12. James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law jointly with the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. March 31, 2009. (H.R. 
847).
    13. Treatment of Latin Amercians of Japanese Descent, European 
Amercians, and Jewish Refugees During World War II. Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 
Law. March 19, 2009.
    14. State Secret Protection Act of 2009. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. June 4, 2009. (H.R. 
984).
    15. Youth Violence: Trends, Myths, and Solutions. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. February 11, 2009.
    16. Lessons Learned from the 2008 Election. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. March 19, 2009.
    17. Continuity of Congress in the Wake of a Catastrophic Attack. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
July 23, 2009.
    18. Legal Issues Surrounding the Military Commissions System. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
July 8, 2009.
    19. Public Safety and Civil Rights Implications of State and Local 
Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law jointly 
with the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties. April 2, 2009.
    20. Representation of Indigent Defendants in Criminal Cases: A 
Constitutional Crisis in Michigan and Other States? Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. March 26, 2009.
    21. Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): 
Barriers to Timely Compliance by States. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. March 10, 2009.
    22. Ramifications of Auto Industry Bankruptcies (Part 1). Committee 
on the Judiciary. May 21, 2009.
    23. VoIP: Who Has Jurisdiction to Tax It? Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. March 31, 2009.
    24. Trends Affecting Minority Broadcast Ownership. Committee on the 
Judiciary. July 9, 2009. 25. Escalating Violence in Mexico and the 
Southwest Border as a Result of the Illicit Drug Trade. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 6, 2009.
    26. Proposals for Reform of the Military Commissions System. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
July 30, 2009.
    27. Unfairness in Federal Cocaine Sentencing: Is it Time to Crack 
the 100 to 1 Disparity? Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. May 21, 2009. (H.R. 1459, H.R. 1466, H.R. 265, H.R. 2178, 
H.R. 18).
    28. National Research Council's Publication ``Strengthening 
Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward''. Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 13, 2009.
    29. Indigent Representation: A Growing National Crisis. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 4, 2009.
    30. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Committee on the Judiciary. 
May 20, 2009.
    31. Competition and Commerce in Digital Books. Committee on the 
Judiciary. September 10, 2009.
    32. Civil Rights Under Fire: Recent Supreme Court Decisions. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
October 8, 2009.
    33. Too Big to Fail?: The Role of Antitrust Law in Government-
Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry. Subcommittee on Courts 
and Competition Policy. March 17, 2009.
    34. A Constitutional Amendment Concerning Senate Vacancies. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, 
jointly with the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. March 11, 2009. (S.J.Res 7, H.J.Res. 21).
    35. USA PATRIOT Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Civil Liberties. September 22, 2009.
    36. Access to Justice Denied: Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. October 27, 2009.
    37. Bye, Bye, Bargains? Retail Price Fixing, the Leegin Decision, 
and Its Impact on Consumer Prices. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy. April 28, 2009.
    38. A New Age for Newspapers: Diversity of Voices, Competition, and 
the Internet. Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. April 21, 
2009.
    39. Federal Arbitration Act: Is the Credit Card Industry Using It 
to Quash Legal Claims? Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. May 5, 2009.
    40. Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. June 4, 2009. (H.R. 1508).
    41. Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009. Subcommittee on the Commercial 
and Administrative Law. June 9, 2009.
    42. Bankruptcy Judgeship Needs. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. June 16, 2009.
    43. To Consider Possible Impeachment of United States District 
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (Part I). Task Force on Judicial 
Impeachment. November 17, 18, 2009.
    44. To Consider Possible Impeachment of United States District 
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (Part II). Task Force on Judicial 
Impeachment. December 8, 2009.
    45. To Consider Possible Impeachment of United States District 
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (Part III). Task Force on Judicial 
Impeachment. December 10, 2009.
    46. To Consider Possible Impeachment of United States District 
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (Part IV). Task Force on Judicial 
Impeachment. December 15, 2009.
    47. Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 9, 2009.
    48. Mandatory Minimums and Unintended Consequences. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 14, 2009. (H.R. 2934, 
H.R. 834, H.R. 1466).
    49. National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Report and 
Standards. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
July 8, 2009.
    50. Role of the Lending Industry in the Home Foreclosure Crisis. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. September 9, 2009.
    51. Proposals to Fight Fraud and Protect Taxpayers. Committee on 
the Judiciary. April 1, 2009. (H.R. 1748, H.R. 1292, H.R. 1667, 
H.R.1788, H.R. 1779, H.R. 1793, H.R. 78).
    52. Accountability, Transparency, and Uniformity in Corporate 
Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreements. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. June 25, 2009.
    53. Home Foreclosures: Will Voluntary Mortgage Modification Help 
Families Save Their Homes? (Part I). Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. July 9, 2009.
    54. Ramifications of Auto Industry Bankruptcies (Part II). 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 21, 2009.
    55. Ramifications of Auto Industry Bankruptcies (Part III). 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 22, 2009.
    56. Medical Debt: Is Our Healthcare System Bankrupting Americans? 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 28, 2009.
    57. Mandatory Binding Arbitration: Is it Fair and Voluntary? 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. September 15, 2009.
    58. An Undue Hardship? Discharging Educational Debt in Bankruptcy. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. September 23, 2009.
    59. Legal Services Corporation. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. October 27, 2009.
    60. Too Big to Fail: The Role for Bankruptcy and Antitrust Law in 
Financial Regulation Reform (Part I). Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. October 22, 2009.
    61. Protecting Employees in Airline Bankruptcies. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. December 16, 2009.
    62. Competition in the Ticketing and Promotion Industry. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. February 26, 2009.
    63. Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. Subcommittee on 
Courts and Competition Policy. May 19, 2009. (H.R. 233).
    64. Transparency and Integrity in Corporate Monitoring. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. November 19, 2009.
    65. Home Foreclosures: Will Voluntary Mortgage Modification Help 
Families Save Their Homes? (Part II). Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. December 11, 2009.
    66. Impact of Federal Habeas Corpus Limitations on Death Penalty 
Appeals. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties. December 8, 2009.
    67. Over-Criminalization of Conduct/Over-Federalization of Criminal 
Law. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 22, 
2009.
    68. State Taxation: The Role of Congress in Defining Nexus. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. February 4, 2010.
    69. Domestic and International Trademark Implications of HAVANA 
CLUB and Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999. 
Committee on the Judiciary. March 3, 2010.
    70. Expansion of Top Level Domains and Its Effects on Competition. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. September 23, 2009.
    71. First Amendment and Campaign Finance Reform After Citizens 
United. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties. February 3, 2010.
    72. Executive Accountability Act of 2009. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 27, 2009. (H.R. 743).
    73. Biologics and Biosimilars: Balancing Incentives for Innovation. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. July 14, 2009.
    74. Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act. Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 22, 2009.
    75. Crime Victims Rights Act of 2004. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 29, 2009.
    76. Cyberbullying and Other Online Safety Issues for Children. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 30, 
2009. (H.R. 1966, H.R. 3630).
    77. Girls in the Juvenile Justice System: Strategies to Help Girls 
Achieve Their Full Potential. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. October 20, 2009.
    78. Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System. Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. October 29, 2009.
    79. Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009. Subcommittee on 
Courts and Competition Policy. June 11, 2009. (H.R. 569).
    80. Protecting the American Dream (Part I): A Look at the Fair 
Housing Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties. March 11, 2010.
    81. Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
December 3, 2009.
    82. Legal Issues Relating to Football Head Injuries (Part I and 
Part II). Committee on the Judiciary. October 28, 2009 and January 4, 
2010.
    83. Department of Justice With Attorney General Eric Holder. 
Committee on the Judiciary. May 14, 2009.
    84. Democracy Restoration Act of 2009. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. March 16, 2010. (H.R. 
3335).
    85. Report by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department 
of Justice on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of Exigent 
Letters and Other Informal Requests for Telephone Records. Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. April 14, 2010.
    86. Youth Prison Reduction Through Opportunities, Mentoring, 
Intervention, Support, and Education (PROMISE) Act. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 15, 2009. (H.R. 1064).
    87. Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative April 27, 2010. (H.R. 3764).
    88. Protecting the American Dream (Part II): Combating Predatory 
Lending Under the Fair Housing Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. April 29, 2010.
    89. Federal Bureau of Prisons Oversight. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 21, 2009.
    90. State Taxation: The Impact of Congressional Legislation on 
State and Local Government Revenues. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. April 15, 2010.
    91. Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2010. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. April 22, 2010. 
(H.R. 5043).
    92. Patent Reform Act of 2009. Committee on the Judiciary. April 
30, 2009. (H.R. 1260).
    93. State Taxation: The Role of Congress in Developing 
Apportionment Standards. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. May 6, 2010.
    94. Piracy of Live Sports Broadcasting Over the Internet. Committee 
on the Judiciary. December 16, 2009.
    95. Achieving the Promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 
the Digital Age--Current Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
April 22, 2010.
    96. Combating Organized Retail Crime--The Role of Federal Law 
Enforcement. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 
November 5, 2009.
    97. To Amend Title 18, United States Code, to Include Constrictor 
Snakes of the Species Python Genera as Injurious Animal. Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. November 6, 2009. (H.R. 
2811)
    98. Electronic Communications Privacy Act Reform. Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. May 5, 2010.
    99. Help Find the Missing Act or Billy's Law. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. January 21, 2010. (H.R. 3695).
    100. Keeping Youth Safe While In Custody: Sexual Assault in Adult 
and Juvenile Facilities. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. February 23, 2010.
    101. Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2009. Committee on the Judiciary. 
April 28, 2010. (H.R. 2695).
    102. Recent Inspector General Reports Concerning the FBI. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. February 24, 
2010.
    103. Ethical Imperative for Reform of Our Immigration System. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. July 14, 2010.
    104. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. March 23, 2010.
    105. Pay to Delay: Are Patent Settlements that Delay Generic Drug 
Market Entry Anticompetitive? Subcommittee on Courts and Competition 
Policy. June 3, 2009.
    106. Too Big to Fail: The Role for Bankruptcy and Antitrust Law in 
Financial Regulation Reform (Part II). Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy. November 17, 2009.
    107. Competition in the Airline Industry. Committee on the 
Judiciary. June 16, 2010.
    108. Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
June 10, 2010. (H.R. 3721).
    109. ECPA Reform and the Revolution in Location Based Technologies 
and Services. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties. June 24, 2010.
    110. Americans with Disabilities Act at 20--Celebrating Our 
Progress, Affirming Our Commitment. Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. July 22, 2010.
    111. Executive Office for Immigration Review. Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 
Law. June 17, 2010.
    112. Design Patents and Auto Replacement Parts. Committee on the 
Judiciary. March 22, 2010.
    113. Enforcement of the Criminal Laws Against Medicare and Medicaid 
Fraud. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. March 
4, 2010.
    114. Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the Honest 
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Initiative Act of 2009. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 11, 2010. 
(H.R. 4080, H.R. 4055).
    115. Rape Kit Backlogs: Failing the Test of Providing Justice to 
Sexual Assault Survivors. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. May 20, 2010.
    116. Sharing and Analyzing Information to Prevent Terrorism. 
Committee on the Judiciary. March 24, 2010.
    117. Impact of China's Antitrust Law and Other Competition Policies 
on U.S. Companies. Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. July 
13, 2010.
    118. Examining the State of Judicial Recusals After Caperton v. 
A.T. Massey. Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. December 
10, 2009.
    119. Is There Life After Trinko and Credit Suisse?: The Role of 
Antitrust in Regulated Industries. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy. June 15, 2010.
    120. Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. October 8, 2009. (H.R. 
3596).
    121. Competition in the Media and Entertainment Distribution 
Market. Committee on the Judiciary. February 25, 2010.
    122. End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act of 
2009. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 15, 2010. 
(H.R. 4175).
    123. Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act 
of 2010. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 25, 
2010. (H.R. 4677).
    124. Open Access to the Courts Act of 2009. Subcommittee on Courts 
and Competition Policy. December 16, 2009. (H.R. 4115).
    125. Legal Issues Concerning State Alcohol Regulation. Subcommittee 
on the Courts and Competition Policy. March 18, 2010.
    126. Antitrust Implications of American Needle v. NFL. Subcommittee 
on Courts and Competition Policy. January 20, 2010.
    127. Administrative Conference of the United States. Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law. May 20, 2010.
    128. Removal Clarification Act of 2010. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy. May 25, 2010. (H.R. 5281).
    129. United States v. Stevens: The Supreme Court's Decision 
Invalidating the Crush Video Statute. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security. May 26, 2010.
    130. Legal Liability Issues Surrounding the Gulf Coast Oil 
Disaster. Committee on the Judiciary. May 27, 2010.
    131. Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications in Law 
Enforcement Policy. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 
Civil Liberties. June 17, 2010.
    132. Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 24, 2010.
    133. Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition and the U.S. 
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy. July 27, 2010.
    134. Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. December 10, 2009. (H.R. 1924).
    135. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Committee on the 
Judiciary. May 5, 2010.
    136. United States Department of Justice. Committee on the 
Judiciary. May 13, 2010.
    137. Senior Financial Empowerment Act of 2009. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security. May 25, 2010. (H.R. 3040).
    138. Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC-Universal. Committee 
on the Judiciary. June 7, 2010.
    139. Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Barriers to 
Reentry for the Formerly Incarcerated. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 9, 2010.
    140. Role and Operations of the United States Secret Service. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 29, 2010.
    141. Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. July 15, 2010. (H.R. 901).
    142. Ensuring Justice for Victims of the Gulf Coast Oil Disaster. 
Committee on the Judiciary. July 21, 2010.
    143. Federal Rulemaking and the Regulatory Process. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. July 27, 2010.
    144. Online Privacy, Social Networking, and Crime Victimization. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 28, 2010.
    145. Protecting the American Dream (Part III): Advancing and 
Improving the Fair Housing Act on the 5-Year Anniversary of Hurricane 
Katrina. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties. July 29, 2010.
    146. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 15, 2010.
    147. Competition in the Evolving Digital Marketplace. Subcommittee 
on Courts and Competition Policy. September 16, 2010.
    148. Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act of 2010. Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law. September 22, 2010.
    149. ECPA Reform and the Revolution in Cloud Computing. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 
September 23, 2010.
    150. Protecting America's Harvest. Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. 
September 24, 2010.
    151. Reining in Overcriminalization: Assessing the Problems, 
Proposing Solutions. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. September 28, 2010.
    152. Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act of 
2010. Committee on the Judiciary. September 29, 2010.
    153. Courtroom Use: Access to Justice, Effective Judicial 
Administration, and Courtroom Security. Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy. September 29, 2010.
    154. Reauthorization of the Second Chance Act. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. September 29, 2010.
    155. Role of Immigration in Strengthening America's Economy. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 
and International Law. September 30, 2010.
    156. Faith-Based Initiatives: Recommendations of the President's 
Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Community Partnerships and Other 
Current Issues. Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 
Civil Liberties. November 18, 2010.
    157. Antitrust Laws and Their Effects on Healthcare Providers, 
Insurers, and Patients. Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. 
December 1, 2010.
    158. Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure 
Crisis (Part I and II). Committee on the Judiciary. December 2, 15, 
2010.
    159. Civil Liberties and the National Security. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. December 9, 2010.
    160. Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised 
by WikiLeaks. Committee on the Judiciary. December 16, 2010.

                            Committee Prints

                          Serial No. and Title

    1. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 2009.
    2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 2009.
    3. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 2009.
    4. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 2009.
    5. Federal Rules of Bankruptcy. December 1, 2009.
    6. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 2010.
    7. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 2010.
    8. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 2010.
    9. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 2010.
    10. Federal Rules of Bankruptcy. December 1, 2010.

                            House Documents

                         H. Doc. No. and Title

    111-7. National Drug Control Strategy 2009 Annual Report. Message 
from the President of the United States transmitting the 
Administration's 2009 National Drug Control Strategy, pursuant to 21 
U.S.C. 1504. Referred jointly to the Committees on Armed Services, 
Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, Foreign Affairs, Homeland 
Security, Judiciary, Natural Resources, Oversight and Government 
Reform, Small Business, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' 
Affairs, and Ways and Means. January 15, 2009. (Presidential Message 
No. 005).
    111-28. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2074. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. April 21, 
2009. (Executive Communication No. 01263).
    111-29. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2072. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. April 21, 2009. 
(Executive Communication No. 01264).
    111-30. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2074. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. April 21, 
2009. (Executive Communication No. 01265).
    111-31. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2075. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. April 21, 
2009. (Executive Communication No. 01266).
    111-107. National Drug Control Strategy 2010. Message from the 
President of the United States transmitting the Administration's 2010 
National Drug Control Strategy, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 1504. Referred 
jointly to the Committees on Armed Services, Education and Labor, 
Energy and Commerce, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, Judiciary, 
Natural Resources, Oversight and Government Reform, Small Business, 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, and Ways and 
Means. May 12, 2010. (Presidential Message No. 0060).
    111-110. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2074. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. May 13, 2010. 
(Executive Communication No. 07472).
    111-111. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2072. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. May 13, 2010. 
(Executive Communication No. 07473).
    111-112. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2074. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. May 13, 2010. 
(Executive Communication No. 07474).
    111-113. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Communication 
from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States 
transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that have been 
adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. Referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. May 13, 2010. (Executive Communication 
No. 07475).
    111-114. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. 2075. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. May 13, 2010. 
(Executive Communication No. 07476).
    111-152. Veto Message on H.R. 3808. Message from the President of 
the United States transmitting notification of the veto of H.R. 3808, 
the ``Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010''. Referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary. November 18, 2010. (Presidential 
Message No. 0074).
                               __________

                      Legislation Enacted into Law

    A variety of legislation within the Committee's jurisdiction was 
enacted into law during the 110th Congress. The public laws are listed 
below and are more fully detailed in the subsequent sections of this 
report recounting the activities of the Committee and its individual 
subcommittees.

                              Public Laws

    Public Law 111-2. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. (S. 181). 
(Approved January 29, 2009).
    Public Law 111-9. To extend certain immigration programs. (H.R. 
1127). (Approved March 20, 2009).
    Public Law 111-10. Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. (S. 386). 
(Approved May 20, 2009).
    Public Law 111-16. Statutory Time-Periods Technical Amendments Act 
of 2009. (H.R. 1626). (Approved May 7, 2009).
    Public Law 111-22. Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. 
(S. 896). (Approved May 20, 2009).
    Public Law 111-30. Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and 
Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act. (H.R. 2675). (Approved June 19, 
2009).
    Public Law 111-36. Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009. (H.R. 2344). 
(Approved June 30, 2009).
    Public Law 111-41. Korean War Veterans Recognition Act. (H.R. 
2632). (Approved July 27, 2009).
    Public Law 111-45. To authorize the Director of the United States 
Patent and Trademark Office to use funds made available under the 
Trademark Act of 1946 for patent operations in order to avoid furloughs 
and reductions-in-force, and for other purposes. (H.R. 3114). (Approved 
August 7, 2009).
    Public Law 111-48. Miami Dade College Land Conveyance Act. (H.R. 
838). (Approved August 12, 2009).
    Public Law 111-49. Judicial Survivors Protection Act of 2009. (S. 
1107). (Approved August 12, 2009).
    Public Law 111-62. A joint resolution granting the consent and 
approval of Congress to amendments made by the State of Maryland, the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia to the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact. (S.J.Res. 19). 
(Approved August 19, 2009).
    Public Law 111-79. Foreign Evidence Request Efficiency Act of 2009. 
(S.1289). (Approved October 19, 2009).
    Public Law 111-83. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act, 2010. (H.R. 2892). (Approved October 28, 2009).
    Public Law 111-94. Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary 
citizen of the United States posthumously. (H.J.Res. 26). (Approved 
November 6, 2009).
    Public Law 111-95. A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to 
grant a federal charter to the Military Officers Association of 
America, and for other purposes. (S. 832). (Approved November 6, 2009).
    Public Law 111-113. Reserve Officers Association Modernization Act 
of 2009. (S. 1599). (Approved December 14, 2009).
    Public Law 111-122. Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2009. (S. 
1472). (Approved December 22, 2009).
    Public Law 111-141. An act to extend expiring provisions of the USA 
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until February 28, 2011. 
(H.R. 3961). (Approved February 27, 2010).
    Public Law 111-143. Criminal History Background Checks Pilot 
Extension Act of 2009. (S. 2950) (Approved March 1, 2010).
    Public Law 111-144. Temporary Extension Act of 2010. (H.R. 4691). 
(Approved March 2, 2010).
    Public Law 111-145. Travel Promotion Act of 2009. (H.R. 1299). 
(Approved March 4, 2010).
    Public Law 111-146. Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment 
Act of 2010. (S. 2968). (Approved March 17, 2010).
    Public Law 111-154. Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009. 
(S. 1147). (Approved March 31, 2010).
    Public Law 111-157. Continuing Extension Act of 2010. (H.R. 4851). 
(Approved April 15, 2010).
    Public Law 111-160. A joint resolution granting the consent and 
approval of Congress to amendments made by the State of Maryland, the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia to the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact. (S.J.Res. 25) 
(Approved April 14, 2010).
    Public Law 111-174. Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements 
Act of 2010. (S. 1782). (Approved May 27, 2010).
    Public Law 111-175. Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act 
of 2010. (S. 3333). (Approved May 12, 2010).
    Public Law 111-190. To amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty 
Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of such Act, 
and for other purposes. (H.R. 5330). (Approved June 9, 2010).
    Public Law 111-192. Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare 
Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010. (H.R. 3962). (Approved 
June 25, 2010).
    Public Law 111-203. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act. (H.R. 4173). (Approved July 21, 2010).
    Public Law 111-211. Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2010. 
(H.R. 725). (Approved July 29, 2010).
    Public Law 111-220. Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. (S. 1789). 
(Approved August 3, 2010).
    Public Law 111-223. Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and 
Established Constitutional Heritage Act. (H.R. 2765). (Approved August 
10, 2010).
    Public Law 111-225. Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2010. (S. 1749). 
(Approved August 10, 2010).
    Public Law 111-268. Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2010. 
(H.R. 2923). (Approved October 12, 2010).
    Public Law 111-272. Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act 
Improvements Act of 2010. (S. 1132). (Approved October 12, 2010).
    Public Law 111-273. Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 
2010. (S. 3397). (Approved October 12, 2010).
    Public Law 111-287. International Adoption Simplification Act. (S. 
1376). (Approved November 30, 2010).
    Public Law 111-293. Help HAITI Act of 2010. (H.R. 5283). (Approved 
December 9, 2010).
    Public Law 111-294. Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010. 
(H.R. 5566). (Approved December 9, 2010).
    Public Law 111-295. Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and 
Corrections Act of 2010. (S. 3689). (Approved December 9, 2010).
    Public Law 111-306. A bill to require the accreditation of English 
language training programs, and for other purposes. (S. 1338). 
(Approved December 14, 2010).
    Public Law 111-307. Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act. (S. 
1421). (Approved December 14, 2010).
    Public Law 111-314. Charles `Pete' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act. 
(H.R. 3237). (Approved December 18, 2010).
    Public Law 111-327. Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010. 
(H.R. 6198). (Approved December 22, 2010).
    Public Law 111-341. Criminal History Background Checks Pilot 
Extension Act of 2010. (S. 3998). (Approved December 22, 2010).
    Public Law 111-342. Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for 
Forfeiture Act of 2010. (S. 4005). (Approved December 22, 2010).
    Public Law 111-347. James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act 
of 2010. (H.R. 847). (Approved January 2, 2011).
    Public Law 111-349. To establish a pilot program in certain United 
States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent 
cases among district judges. (H.R. 628). (Approved January 4, 2011).
    Public Law 111-350. To enact certain laws relating to public 
contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts''. (H.R. 
1107). (Approved January 4, 2011).
    Public Law 111-369. Access to Criminal History Records for State 
Sentencing Commissions Act of 2010. (H.R. 6412). (Approved January 4, 
2011).
    Public Law 111-356. Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act 
of 2010. (H.R. 4748). (Approved January 4, 2011).
    Public Law 111-364. Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010. (H.R. 
5809). (Approved January 4, 2011).
                              Private Laws

    Private Law 111-1. A bill for the relief of Shigeru Yamada. 
(S. 4010). (Approved December 22, 2010).
    Private Law 111-2. Private bill for the relief of Hotaru 
Nakama Ferschke. (S. 1774). (Approved December 22, 2010).

                        Conference Appointments

    Members of the Committee were named by the Speaker as 
conferees on the following bills which were not referred to the 
Committee but which contained legislative language within the 
Committee's Rule X jurisdiction:
    H.R. 4173--A bill to promote the financial stability of the 
United States by improving accountability and transparency in 
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect 
the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers 
from abusive financial services practices, and for other 
purposes. ``Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act''. Passed the House December 11, 2009 (223 yeas; 
202 nays). Passed the Senate, amended, May 20, 2010 (59 yeas; 
39 nays). The Senate requested a conference May 20, 2010. The 
Senate appointed conferees May 25, 2010. The House agreed to a 
conference and appointed conferees June 9, 2010 (including from 
the Committee on the Judiciary). Conference report filed in the 
House June 29, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-517). The House agreed to the 
conference report June 30, 2010 (237 yeas; 192 nays). The 
Senate agreed to the conference report July 15, 2010 (60 yeas; 
39 nays). Became Public Law 111-203, July 21, 2010.

        Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary

    During the 111th 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 its Subcommittees.

                    Intellectual Property Activities

    During the 111th Congress, the full Judiciary Committee 
retained original jurisdiction over intellectual property 
legislation and oversight matters. Intellectual property laws, 
which primarily are patents, copyrights and trademarks, were 
created to promote innovation and creativity. Industries that 
have grown around the creation and use of intellectual property 
rights play a critical role in our economy. The United States 
Patent and Trademark Office is responsible for examination and 
registration of patent and trademark rights. The Copyright 
Office is responsible for examination and registration of 
copyrights. Civil enforcement of Federal intellectual property 
laws may be obtained through the Federal courts by private 
right of action. Criminal enforcement of Federal intellectual 
property laws is carried out by the Department of Justice.
Hearing on Copyright Licensing in a Digital Age: Competition, 
        Compensation and the Need to Update the Cable and Satellite TV 
        Licenses (Serial No. 111-3)
    On February 25, 2009, the Committee held a hearing 
regarding the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 and related issues. Witnesses 
included: Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyright, U.S. 
Copyright Office; Fritz Attaway, Executive Vice President, 
Motion Picture Association of America; Bob Gabrielli, Senior 
Vice President, DIRECTV; Chris Murray, Internet and 
Telecommunications Counsel, Consumers Union; Kyle McSlarrow, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cable and 
Telecommunications Association; and David Rehr, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Broadcasters.
Hearing on Competition and Commerce in Digital Books (Serial No. 111-
        31)
    On September 10, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on 
competition in the digital book industry, including issues 
related to the Google books settlement. Witnesses included: 
David C. Drummond, Senior Vice President of Corporate 
Development and Chief Legal Officer, Google Inc.; Paul Misener, 
Vice President of Global Policy, Amazon.com; Marc Maurer, J.D., 
President, National Federation of the Blind; John M. Simpson, 
Consumer Advocate, Consumer Watchdog; Paul Aiken, Executive 
Director, Authors Guild; Marybeth Peters, Register of 
Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office; Randal C. Picker, Paul H. 
and Theo Leffmann Professor of Commercial Law, University of 
Chicago Law School; and David Balto, Senior Fellow, Center for 
American Progress.
Hearing on Piracy of Live Sports Broadcasting Over the Internet (Serial 
        No. 111-94)
    On December 16, 2009, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine how the piracy of live sporting events transmitted over 
the Internet impacts sports leagues, consumers, broadcasters, 
and copyright owners. Witnesses included: Michael J. Mellis, 
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel, MLB Advanced Media, 
L.P.; Lorenzo Fertitta, Chief Executive Officer, Ultimate 
Fighting Championship; Michael Seibel, Chief Executive Officer, 
Justin.TV Inc.; Ed Durso, Executive Vice President, 
Administration, ESPN, Inc.; and Christopher S. Yoo, Professor 
of Law and Communication, University of Pennsylvania Law 
School.
Hearing on Domestic and International Trademark Implications of HAVANA 
        CLUB and Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999 
        (Serial No. 111-69)
    On March 3, 2010, the Committee held a hearing on the 
domestic and international trademark implications of Section 
211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999. Section 211 of 
the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999 prevents recognition of 
ownership rights in trademarks nationalized and confiscated by 
the Cuban government. The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled 
that the law violated the WTO Agreement on Trade Related 
Aspects of Intellectual Property, and hearing evaluated 
competing proposals to bring the U.S. into compliance with its 
treaty obligations. The following witnesses gave testimony and 
submitted written statements for the record: Mark Z. Orr, Vice 
President of North American Affairs, Pernod Ricard USA, Inc.; 
Bruce A. Lehman, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and 
Expert Counsel for Bacardi, USA; Mark T. Esper, Ph.D, Executive 
Vice President, Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce; William A. Reinsch, President, National 
Foreign Trade Council; and John K. Veroneau, Partner, Covington 
& Burling, LLP.
Hearing on Design Patents and Auto Replacement Parts (Serial No. 111-
        112)
    On March 22, 2010, the Committee held a hearing on the 
intellectual property and economic impact of design patents in 
exterior automotive parts. The hearing examined the use of 
design patent protection for exterior automotive parts, whether 
an exception to this protection is needed for replacement 
parts, and what impact such an exception might have on the 
United States intellectual property system and United States 
treaty obligations related to intellectual property. The 
following witnesses gave testimony and submitted written 
statements for the record: Jack Gillis, Director of Public 
Affairs, Consumer Federation of America; Damian Porcari, 
Licensing and Enforcement, Ford Global Technologies, LLC; 
Robert C. Passmore, Senior Director, Personal Lines, Property 
Casualty Insurers Association of America; and Perry Saidman, 
Saidman Design Law Group.
Hearing on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Serial No. 
        111-135)
    On May 5, 2010, the Committee held a hearing on the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The hearing took a 
close look at initiatives of USPTO to reduce the patent 
application backlog, improve examiner production and 
satisfaction, and strengthen the organization's information 
technology infrastructure. The hearing also focused on the role 
that inconsistent funding of the USPTO plays in its operational 
challenges. The following witnesses gave testimony and 
submitted a written statement for the record: Honorable David 
Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property 
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; 
Robert Budens, President, Patent Office Professional 
Association; James Johnson, Counsel, Sutherland Asbill & 
Brennan LLP and Board Member of the Trademark Public Advisory 
Committee; and Damon Matteo, Vice President and Chief 
Intellectual Property Officer, Palo Alto Research Center and 
Chair of the Patent Public Advisory Committee.

  Oversight Hearings on Executive Branch Agencies and Their Activities

    During the 111th Congress, the Committee and its 
Subcommittees held extensive hearings concerning the work of 
Executive Branch agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction. 
This included not only the Department of Justice (DOJ), but 
also such agencies as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the 
Administrative Conference of the United States, and the 
Department of Homeland Security. With respect to DOJ and its 
component agencies alone, the Committee and its Subcommittees 
held 25 such hearings during the 111th Congress. These hearings 
included testimony from the Attorney General, the Director of 
the FBI, and other officials from DOJ's Antitrust, Civil, Civil 
Rights, Criminal, and National Security Divisions, the Office 
of Justice Programs, the Office of Legal Policy, the Executive 
Office of Immigration Review, the FBI, Bureau of Prisons, and 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
    Hearings held by each Subcommittee are described in the 
relevant sections of this report. Full Committee hearings on 
agency oversight included the following:
Hearing on the Department of Justice With Attorney General Eric Holder 
        (Serial No. 111-83)
    On May 14, 2009, Attorney General Holder appeared before 
the Committee for an oversight hearing concerning the 
Department of Justice.
Hearing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Serial No. 111-30)
    On May 20, 2009, Director Robert S. Mueller III appeared 
before the Committee for an oversight hearing concerning the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Classified Hearing on the Patriot Act and Related Matters
    On October 29, 2009, the Committee held a classified 
oversight hearing concerning the operation of the Patriot Act 
and related matters. Witnesses included Assistant Attorney 
General for National Security David S. Kris and Michael E. 
Leiter, Director of the National Counterrorism Center.
Sharing and Analyzing Information To Prevent Terrorism (Serial No. 111-
        116)
    On March 24, 2010, the Committee held a hearing focusing on 
the efforts of the FBI and other federal agencies to improve 
the sharing and analyzing of information to prevent terrorism. 
Witnesses included Timothy J. Healy, Director of the FBI's 
Terrorist Screening Center; Russell E. Travers, Deputy Director 
for Information Sharing and Knowledge Development, National 
Counterrorism Center; Patrick F. Kennedy, Undersecretary for 
Management, Department of State; and Patricia Cogswell, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy, Department of 
Homeland Security.
Hearing on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Serial No. 
        111-135)
    On May 5, 2010, the Committee held an oversight hearing on 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Witnesses 
included David J. Kappos, Undersecretary of Commerce for 
Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. PTO; Robert D. 
Budens, President of the Patent Office Professonal Association; 
James H. Johnson. Board Member, Trademark Public Advisory 
Committee; and Damon C. Matteo, Chairman, Patent Public 
Advisory Committee.
Hearing on the United States Department of Justice (Serial No. 111-136)
    On May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared 
before the Committee for his second oversight hearing 
concerning the Department of Justice.

     Continuation of Investigations on U.S. Attorney Removals, the 
   Politicization of the Department of Justice, and OLC Approval of 
            Waterboarding and Other Interrogation Techniques

    As described in the Activities Report for the 110th 
Congress, in 2007, the Committee undertook an extensive 
investigation into the abrupt removal of a number of U.S. 
Attorneys in 2006 and related allegations of politicization of 
the Department of Justice.2a Because the White House 
asserted executive privilege and immunity to Congressional 
subpoena, as a result of which the Committee was unable to 
obtain access to relevant White House documents and to procure 
the recorded testimony of key White House officials, the full 
House held several such officials in contempt and the Committee 
was forced to file a civil lawsuit seeking the subpoenaed 
documents and testimony.\3\ The federal district court found in 
favor of the Committee, largely upholding the Committee's 
authority.\4\ As of the end of the 110th Congress, the decision 
was on appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2a\See Report on the Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary 
of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred and Tenth 
Congress Pursuant to Clause 1 (D) Rule XI of the House of 
Representatives, H. Rep. 110-941 (January, 2009) at 31-40.
    \3\See Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, Civil Action No. 08-
0409 (JDB) (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 
filed March 10, 2008).
    \4\Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March, 2009, the Committee reached an agreement with the 
former Bush Administration to resolve the Committee's lawsuit 
and the previously issued contempt citations.\5\ Pursuant to 
that agreement, the Committee proceeded over the next several 
months to receive access to previously subpoenaed White House 
documents and to obtain the on-the-record testimony of former 
White House officials Harriet Miers and Karl Rove. Committee 
members and staff questioned Ms. Miers at a deposition session 
on June 15, 2009, and questioned Mr. Rove on July 7 and 20, 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See Agreement Concerning Accommodation in Committee on the 
Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Harriet Miers, et al. 
(March 4, 2009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 11, 2009, the Committee publicly released over 
5,400 pages of White House documents and more than 700 pages of 
Miers and Rove transcripts, and also forwarded them to the 
special U.S. Attorney investigating the U.S. Attorney firings.
    On July 21, 2010, the Department of Justice wrote a 
detailed letter to Chairman Conyers concerning the special U.S. 
Attorney's investigation.
    The letter noted that the joint Office of Professional 
Responsibility/Office of the Inspector General report concluded 
that ``then Attorney General Gonzales made a `series of 
statements after the removals' that were `inaccurate and 
misleading' to Congress and others, and that other improprer 
conduct occurred.'' However, it explained that the 
investigation did not find sufficient evidence to meet the high 
standard for criminal prosecution of any of the officials 
involved. The letter also stated explicitly that the actions of 
former DOJ leadership ``were contrary to DOJ principles'' and 
that Attorney General Holder had ``taken steps to ensure those 
mistakes will not be repeated.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See Letter from Assistant Attorney General Ron Weich to Chairman 
Conyers (July 21, 2010) at 4,5,6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the 111th Congress, the Committee also pursued the 
investigation begun in 2008 concerning the prior approval by 
DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of waterboarding and other 
``enhanced'' interrogation techniques.\7\ Specifically, the 
Committee made arrangements to obtain the testimony of the 
author of several key OLC memos, then director of OLC and now 
federal judge Jay Bybee. Judge Bybee was interviewed on the 
record by Committee members and staff on May 26, 2010, and the 
transcript and related documents were publicly released and 
forwarded to the Department of Justice on July 15, 2010. Judge 
Bybee testified that a number of the harsh interrogation 
techniques reportedly used by the CIA in 2001-04 had not been 
approved by OLC, which is relevant to the Department's 
continuing investigation of the use of such techniques.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\By early 2009, the prior OLC opinions had been revoked and the 
use of waterboarding and other ``enhanced'' interrogation techniques 
had been banned. A description of the Committee's 2008 investigation on 
the subject can be found in House Committee on the Judiciary Majority 
Staff, Final Report to Chairman John Conyers, Jr., Reining in the 
Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the 
Presidency of George W. Bush (March, 2009) at 119-125.
    \8\The transcript of and documents used in the Bybee interview were 
made available on the Committee Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Oversight Concerning the Gulf Oil Spill

    The full Committee held several oversight hearings 
concerning liability issues relating to the disastrous Gulf 
Coast oil spill of April, 2010 and to victim compensation 
efforts led by Gulf Coast Claims Facility Administrator Kenneth 
Feinberg. These included the following:
Hearing on Liability Issues Surrounding the Gulf Coast Oil Disaster 
        (Serial No. 111-130)
    On May 27, 2010, the Committee heard testimony from a 
number of witnesses concerning liability issues stemming from 
the April 20, 2010 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil 
vessel that killed 11 workers and resulted in an environmental 
and economic disaster in the Gulf Coast region. These witnesses 
included: Keith D. Jones, father of Gordon Jones who died while 
working on the Deepwater Horizon; Rachel G. Clingman, Acting 
General Counsel, Transocean, Ltd.; Douglas Harold Brown, Chief 
Mechanic, Transocean, Ltd. and survivor of the Deepwater 
Horizon explosion; James W. Ferguson, Senior Vice President and 
Deputy General Counsel, Halliburton, Inc.; Stephen L. Stone, 
Offshore Oil Rig Roustabout, Transocean, Ltd., and survivor of 
the Deepwater Horizon explosion; William C. Lemmer, Sr. Vice 
President and General Counsel, Cameron International 
Corporation; Byron Encalade, President, Louisiana Oysters 
Association; Vincent J. Folet, Partner, Holland and Knight LLP; 
Hon. Jim Hood, Attorney General, State of Mississippi; Tom C. 
Galligan, Jr., President and Professor, Colby-Sawyer College; 
and Daryl Willis, Vice President, Resources, BP America.
Hearing on Ensuring Justice for the Victims of the Gulf Coast Oil 
        Disaster (Serial No. 111-142)
    On July 21, 2010, the Committee conducted a hearing 
examining the procedures for the submission and resolution of 
claims by individuals and businesses for costs and damages 
incurred as a result of the Gulf Coast oil disaster. The sole 
witness was Kenneth P. Feinberg, the Administrator of the Gulf 
Coast Claims Facility.

                   Oversight on Antitrust Activities

    The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over 
competition policy and all laws relevant to antitrust. In 
addition, the Committee has jurisdiction over the federal 
agencies empowered to enforce those laws, the Antitrust 
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice as well as the 
Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission. The bulk 
of antitrust issues were examined at the subcommittee level 
this past session by the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition 
Policy. However, the Committee exercised its general oversight 
over antitrust to examine competition in minority broadcast 
ownership, the media and entertainment distribution markets, 
and the airline industry. With respect to legislation, the 
Committee held a hearing examining the implications of 
legislation that would have created short-term collective 
bargaining rights for merchants seeking to reduce the 
interchange surcharges charged by banks for credit card 
transactions. In addition, the Committee passed legislation 
that would have removed the antitrust exemption for railroad 
companies as well as health insurance companies.
Hearing on Trends Affecting Minority Broadcast Ownership (Serial No. 
        111-24)
    On July 9, 2009, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
issues facing small and minority-owned terrestrial radio 
stations, such as ratings systems, advertising revenue, and 
competition. Witnesses included: Kendall Minter, Chairman of 
the Board, Rhythm and Blues Foundation; Andrew Schwartzman, 
President, Media Access Project; Michael Skarzynski, President. 
Arbitron, Inc.; and James L. Winston, Executive Director, 
National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters.
Hearing on Competition in the Media and Entertainment Distribution 
        Market (Serial No. 111-121) and Field Hearing on the Proposed 
        Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal (Serial No. 111-138)
    On February 25, 2010, the Committee held a hearing on 
competition in modern media markets and the issue of horizontal 
and vertical mergers, including discussion of the proposed 
merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. Witnesses included: Brian 
L. Roberts, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Comcast 
Corporation; Jeff Zucker, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, NBC Universal; Jean M. Prewitt, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, Independent Film & Television Alliance; 
Thomas W. Hazlett, Professor of Law & Economics, George Mason 
University School of Law; Mark Cooper, Ph.D., Director of 
Research, Consumer Federation of America; Larry Cohen, 
President, Communications Workers of America; Andrew Jay 
Schwartzman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Media 
Access Project; and Marc H. Morial, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, National Urban League.
    On June 7, 2010, the Committee held a field hearing at the 
Donald P. Loker Conference Center at the California Science 
Center, Los Angeles, California, to further discuss these and 
related issues. Witnesses included: Will Griffin, President and 
Chief Operating Officer, Hip Hop On Demand; Alex Nogales, 
President and CEO, National Hispanic Media Coalition; Samuel 
Kang, Managing Attorney, The Greenlining Institute; Allen 
Hammond, Phil and Bobbie Sanfilippo Professor of Law, Santa 
Clara University School of Law; Alfred C. Liggins III, resident 
and Chief Executive Officer, Radio One, Inc.; Stanley E. 
Washington, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, National 
Coalition of African American Owned Media; Paula Madison, 
Executive Vice President, Diversity, NBC Universal; Jim 
Weitkamp, District 9 Vice President, Communications Workers of 
America; Suzanne de Passe, Co-Chair, de Passe Jones 
Entertainment; Darnell M. Hunt, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, 
University of California, Los Angeles; Kathryn F. Galan, 
Executive Director, National Association of Latino Independent 
Producers; and Frank G. Washington, Chairman and Chief 
Executive Officer, Tower of Babel, LLC.
Hearing on Competition in the Airline Industry (Serial No. 111-107)
    On June 16, 2010, the Committee held a hearing regarding 
competition in the airline industry, including the proposed 
merger of United and Continental Airlines. Witnesses included: 
Glenn F. Tilton, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, UAL Corporation; Jeffrey A. Smisek, Chairman, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Continental Airlines; 
Darren Bush, Ph.D., J.D., Associate Professor of Law, 
University of Houston Law Center; Jay Pierce, Chairman, 
Continental Master Executive Council, Air Line Pilots 
Association, International; Wendy J. Morse, Chairman, United 
Master Executive Council, Air Line Pilots Association, Intl.; 
William S. Swelbar, Research Engineer, Department of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology; Robert Roach, Jr., General Vice President--
Transportation, The International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers; and Patricia A. Friend, International 
President, Association of Flight Attendants--CWA.

           Oversight on Bankruptcy and Foreclosure Activities

Hearing on Ramifications of Auto Industry Bankruptcies (Serial No. 111-
        22)
    On May 21, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on the 
economic and social consequences of automobile industry 
bankruptcies. Witnesses included: Joan Claybrook, President 
Emeritus, Public Citizen; Andrew Grossman, Senior Legal Policy 
Analyst, The Heritage Foundation; Damon Lester, President, 
National Association of Minority Dealers; Randy Henderson, 
Owner, Webster Chrysler Jeep, Inc.; Clarence Ditlow, Executive 
Director, Center for Auto Safety; Lynn M. LoPucki, Security 
Pacific Bank Professor of Law, UCLA Law School; Ralph Nader, 
Consumer Advocate; David Arthur Skeel, M.D., S. Samuel Arsht 
Professor of Corporate Law, University of Pennsylvania Law 
School; and Bruce Fein, Principal, The Lichfield Group.
Hearing on Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure 
        Crisis--Part II (Serial No. 111-000 as listed on Jan. 6, 2011)
    On December 2, 2010, the Committee heard testimony from a 
number of witnesses concerning the implications of faulty 
foreclosure-related documentation practices by mortgage 
servicers from the perspective of three federal government 
regulators and a state court judge. Additionally, Members 
discussed concerns about the effectiveness of the Treasury 
Department's Home Affordable Modification Program in addressing 
the continuing home foreclosure crisis. The witnesses were 
Phyllis Caldwell, Chief of Homeownership Preservation, 
Department of the Treasury; Edward DeMarco, Acting Director, 
Federal Housing Finance Agency; Julie Williams, Chief Counsel, 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; and Judge F. Dana 
Winslow, New York State Supreme Court.
    On December 15, 2010, the Committee received testimony from 
witnesses on the implications of faulty foreclosure-related 
documentation practices by mortgage servicers from the 
perspective of consumer advocates, a former homeowner who lost 
her home in foreclosure, an academic, and a representative of 
the securitization industry. The hearing examined: (1) whether 
foreclosure documentation irregularities undermine due process; 
(2) whether the entities seeking foreclosures actually have the 
right to do so; and (3) the status of loan modifications and 
other loss mitigation efforts. Witnesses included Senator 
Sheldon Whitehouse for the State of Rhode Island; James A. 
Kowalski, Jr., Esq.; Thomas A. Cox, Maine Attorneys Saving 
Homes Project; Dr. Joseph Mason, Louisiana State University; 
Sandra Hines, a former homeowner; Vanessa G. Fluker, Esq.; Tom 
Deutsch, American Securitization Forum; and Professor 
Christopher Peterson, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University 
of Utah.

                       Other Oversight Activities

    The Committee held several hearings and forums relating to 
legal issues concerning football head injuries. These included 
the following:

Hearing on Legal Issues Relating to Football Head Injuries (Serial No. 
        111-82)

    On October 28, 2009, the Committee conducted a hearing and 
heard from a number of witnesses with respect to legal issues 
relating to football head injuries. These witnesses included: 
Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr., U.S. House of Representatives, 8th 
District, New Jersey; Roger S. Goodell, Commissioner, National 
Football League; DeMaurice Smith, Executive Director, NFL 
Players Association; Gay Culverhouse, Former President, Tampa 
Bay Buccaneers; Dr. Andrew M. Tucker, Member, NFL Mild 
Traumatic Brain Injury Committee; Dr. Robert C. Cantu, Clinical 
Professor of Neurosurgery, Boston University School of 
Medicine; David R. Weir, Lead Author, NFL's Player Care 
Foundation Study of Retired NFL Players; George Martin, 
Executive Director, NFL Alumni Association; Tiki Barber and 
Merril Hoge, Retired NFL Players; Dick Benson, High School 
Football Safety Advocate; Eleanor M. Perfetto, Wife of Former 
NFL Player Ralph Wenzel; Christopher Nowinski, Co-Director, 
Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy, Boston 
University; Dr. Ann C. McKee, Associate Professor, Neurology 
and Pathology, Boston University School of Medicine; Dr, Joseph 
Maroon, Vice Chair, Department of Neurosurgery, University of 
Pittsburgh; Dr. Julian Bailes, Chairman, Department of 
Neurosurgery, West Virginia School of Medicine; and Dr. Joel 
Morgenlander, Professor of Neurology, Duke University Medical 
Center.

Hearing on Legal Issues Relating to Football Head Injuries Part II 
        (Serial No. 111-82)

    On January 4, 2010, at the Wayne State School of Medicine 
Conference Center in Detroit, Michigan, the Committee further 
examined legal issues relating to football head injuries. 
Witnesses included: DeMaurice Smith, Executive Director, NFL 
Players Association; Dr. Joseph C. Maroon, Vice Chair, 
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh; David 
Klossner, Director of Health and Safety, National Collegiate 
Athletic Association; Bob Colgate, Assistant Director, National 
Federation of State High School Associations; Scott Hallenbeck, 
Executive Director, USA Football; Lemuel J. Barney, Kyle 
Turley, and Bernard P. Parrish, Retired NFL Players; Dr. Bennet 
I. Omalu, Co-Director, Brain Injury Research Institute, West 
Virginia University; Dr. Ira Casson, Former Co-Chairman, NFL 
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee; Vincent R. Ferrara, 
Founder and CEO, Xenith, LLC; Dan Arment, President, Riddell; 
R. David Halstead, Technical Director, Southern Impact Research 
Center; Dr. Randall R. Benson, Assistant Professor of 
Neurology, Wayne State University; Dr. Jeffrey S. Kutcher, 
Department of Neurology, University of Michigan; Christopher 
Nowinski, Co-Director, Center for the Study of Traumatic 
Encephalopathy; Robert L. Schmidt, Chairman, Vincent T. 
Lombardi Foundation; George Martin, Executive Director, NFL 
Alumni Association; and Luther Campbell, Trainer of 
Professional Athletes.

Forum on Head Injuries and Other Sports Injuries in Youth, High School, 
        College, and Professional Football

    On February 1, 2010, at the Prairie View A&M University 
College of Nursing in Houston, Texas, the Committee held a 
forum concerning the prevention of head injuries in all levels 
of football and the education of players, parents, educators, 
and the public about the dangers of concussions. Participants 
included: Jon Butler, Vice President, National Council of Youth 
Sports; Ron Courson, Director of Sports Medicine, University of 
Georgia Athletic Association; Dick Benson, High School Football 
Safety Advocate; Chester Pitts, NFL Player, Houston Texans, Dr. 
Stan Herring, Team Physician for Seattle Seahawks, American 
College of Sports Medicine; Patrick Donohue, Esq., Founder of 
the Sarah Jane Brain Foundation; Dr. Bennet Omalu, Co-Director, 
Brain Injury Research Institute, West Virginia University; Dr. 
Howard Derman, Concussion Specialist for Houston Texans, 
Director, Headache and Pain Center at Methodist Hospital; 
Trevor Cobb, Retired NFL Player; James Hardin, Head Athletic 
Trainer, University of Texas in Austin; Kevin Sumlin, Head 
Football Coach, University of Houston, Dr. Cindy Ivanhoe, 
Associate Professor, Baylor University; Wes Speights, Athletic 
Trainer, Houston Independent School District; and Christopher 
Pichon, Principal, Landis Elementary School.

Forum on Key Issues Related to the Identification and Prevention of 
        Head Injuries in Football

    On May 24, 2010, at the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom 
House in New York, New York, the Committee held a forum 
relating to key issues concerning the identification and 
prevention of football head injuries. Participants included: 
Dr. Hunt Batjer, Co-Chair; NFL Head, Neck and Spine Committee; 
Dr. Richard C. Ellenbogen, Co-Chair, NFL Head, Neck and Spine 
Committee; Dr. Thom A. Mayer, Medical Director, NFL Players 
Association; Dr. Walter J. Koroshetz, Deputy Director, National 
Institute of Neurological Disorders, National Institutes of 
Health; Charlotte D. Bingham, Managing Director, Equal 
Opportunity Office, Texas Tech University System; Tammy 
Plevretes, Football Safety Advocate; Nolan Harrison, Corey 
Louchiey, Retired NFL Players; and Dr. Daniel L. Alkon, 
Scientific Director, Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences 
Institute.

Hearing on the Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues 
        Raised by WikiLeaks (Serial No. Not Available as of Jan. 6, 
        2011)

    On December 16, 2010, the Committee held a hearing on the 
legal issues raised by the recent release of U.S. government 
documents by WikiLeaks, including the constitutional and 
statutory issues raised by calls for a criminal prosecution of 
the organization. Witnesses included: Geoffrey R. Stone of the 
University of Chicago; Abbe D. Lowell of McDermott, Will a& 
Emery LLP; Kenneth L. Wainstein of O'Melveny & Myers LLP; 
Gabriel Schoenfeld of the Hudson Institute; Steven I. Vladeck 
of American University; Thomas S. Blanton of the National 
Security Archve at George Washington University; and legal 
advocate Ralph Nader of the District of Columbia.

                         Legislative Activities


H.R. 628, ``Pilot Program in District Courts for Patent Cases''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Darrell Issa, H.R. 
628 establishes a pilot program in certain United States 
district courts to develop expertise in trying patent-related 
cases among district court judges.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on January 22, 2009, H.R. 
628 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
March 17, 2009, under suspension the House passed H.R. 628 
without amended by recorded vote 409-7 (Roll No. 130). On March 
18, 2009, H.R. 628 was referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary. On December 13, 2010, H.R. 628 was passed by the 
Senate, with an amendment, by unanimous consent. On January 4, 
2011 President Obama signed H.R. 628. and became Public Law 
No.: 111-349.

H.R. 801, the ``Fair Copyright in Research Works Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Chairman John Conyers, Jr., H.R. 
801 amends title 17, United States Code, to prohibit any 
federal agency from imposing any condition, in connection with 
a funding agreement, that requires the transfer or license to 
or for a federal agency, or requires the absence or 
abandonment, of specified exclusive rights of a copyright owner 
in an extrinsic work.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on February 3, 2009, H.R. 
801 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
Committee. On March 16, 2009, H.R. 801 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. No further 
action was taken on the bill.

H.R. 848, the ``Performance Rights Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Chairman John Conyers, Jr., H.R. 
848, would extend the scope of public performance rights to 
terrestrial broadcast performances. H.R. 848 grants performers 
the right to receive compensation from terrestrial radio, and 
contains significant protections for the broadcast radio 
industry, including a scale-based fee system for radio stations 
with gross annual revenues of less than $1.25 million, a one-
to-three-year-delay of the bill's implementation as to smaller 
and noncommercial broadcasters, and a requirement that, in 
making any royalty determinations, the Copyright Royalty Judges 
consider the effect on minority and religious broadcasters and 
religious and minority royalty recipients.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on February 4, 2009, H.R. 
848 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
February 4, 2009, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a similar 
bill, S. 379, the Performance Rights Act. On March 10, 2009, 
the full House Committee on the Judiciary held a legislative 
hearing on H.R. 848. The following witnesses appeared and 
submitted statements for the record: Billy Corgan, Vocalist and 
Lead Guitarist, The Smashing Pumpkins; Mitch Bainwol, Chairman 
and Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Artist 
Association (RIAA); Paul Almeida, President, Department for 
Professional Employees, AFL-CIO; W. Lawrence Patrick, 
President, Patrick Communications; Stan Liebowitz, Ph.D., 
Ashbel Smith Distinguished Professor of Managerial Economics, 
University of Texas at Dallas; and Steve Newberry, Chairman of 
the Radio Board, National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). On 
May 13, 2009, the Committee met in open session to mark-up and 
ordered H.R. 848, as amended, favorably reported by a roll call 
vote of 21 to 9. On December 14, 2010 the Committee on the 
Judiciary reported the bill. (H. Rept. 111-680).

H.R. 1107, To enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 
        41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts''

    Summary.--Introduced by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., H.R. 1107 
revises and restates certain laws relating to public contracts 
and re-enacts those laws as title 41, United States Code. The 
bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of 
the House of Representatives, as part of its responsibility 
under 2 U.S.C. 285b to submit to the Committee on the Judiciary 
proposed bills to enact titles of the United States Code into 
positive law.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on February 23, 2009, H.R. 
1107 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
March 18, 2009, the Committee ordered the bill, H.R. 1107, 
favorably reported, by a voice vote. On May 6, 2009, H.R. 1107 
passed the House by voice vote without amendment under 
suspension of the rules. On December 2, 2010 the Senate passed 
H.R. 1007, with an amendment, by unanimous consent. On December 
17, 2010,on motion to suspend the rules, the House agreed to 
the Senate amendments by record vote 385-0. On January 4, 2011, 
President Obama signed H.R. 1107 and became Public Law No.: 
111-350.

H.R. 1260, the ``Patent Reform Act of 2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 1260, the Patent Reform Act of 2009, amends several 
provisions of the patent law. Specifically, it provides rules 
regarding the calculation of damages, establishes a post-grant 
opposition procedure, revises inter partes reexamination, 
permits third parties to submit prior art, makes changes to 
venue in patent cases, and switches the United States patent 
filing system from a first-to-invent system, to a first-
inventor-to-file system.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on March 3, 2009, H.R. 
1260 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
April 30, 2009, pursuant to notice, the Committee held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 1260. The following witnesses 
appeared and submitted statements for the record: David Simon, 
Chief Patent Counsel, Intel, Inc.; Phillip S. Johnson, Chief 
Intellectual Property Counsel, Johnson & Johnson; John R. 
Thomas, Professor, Georgetown University Law School; Jack W. 
Lasersohn, Partner, Vertical Group; Dean Kamen, Inventor, DEKA 
Research and Development Inc.; Mark Chandler, Senior Vice 
President, Cisco; and Bernard Cassidy, Senior Vice President 
and General Counsel, Tessera Inc.

H.R. 2196, the ``Design Piracy Prohibition Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative William Delahunt, 
H.R. 2196 would amend title 17, United States Code, to extend 
protection to fashion design, and for other purposes. The bill 
includes clothing, handbags, duffel bags, tote bags, and 
eyeglass frames as protected items.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on April 30, 2009, H.R. 
2196 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No further 
action was taken on the bill. On August 5, 2010, the Senate 
introduced S. 3728, the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy 
Prevention Act. S. 3728 was reported by Senator Leahy with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, without a written 
report on December 6, 2010. S. 3728 was placed on the Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders on December 6, 2010.

H.R. 2344, the ``Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Jay Inslee, H.R. 
2344 amends section 114 of title 17, United States Code, to 
allow the recording industry to negotiate and enter into 
alternative royalty fee agreements with webcasters within 
thirty days of its enactment.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on May 12, 2009, H.R. 2344 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On May 13, 
2009, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill 
favorably reported without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum 
being present. On May 21, 2009, Senator Ron Wyden introduced S. 
1145, the Webcaster Settlement Act. S. 1145 was referred to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. On June 9, 2009, the House passed 
H.R. 2344 on a motion to suspend the rules, by voice vote. On 
June 17, 2009 the Senate passed S. 1145 without amendment by 
Unanimous Consent. On June 30, 2009 President Obama signed H.R. 
2344. and became Public Law No.: 111-36.

H.R. 2695, the ``Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 2695 permits merchants to collectively negotiate with 
banks and payment card networks regarding rates and terms for 
access to the networks in a limited series of negotiations. 
H.R. 2695 creates an antitrust exemption that is limited to the 
duration and content of these negotiation sessions, which are 
scheduled and overseen by the Department of Justice.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on April 28, 2010, H.R. 
2695 was referred to the Judiciary Committee. On that same day, 
the Committee to examine the merits of Congress granting a 
limited antitrust exemption to merchants, banks, and payment 
networks so that the parties can negotiate a fair credit card 
interchange rate. Witnesses at the hearing included: Dave 
Carpenter, President, J.D. Carpenter Companies on behalf of the 
National Association of Convenience Stores; Ed Mierzwinski, 
Director, Consumer Program, U.S. PIRG; John Blum, Vice 
President of Operations, Chartway Federal Credit Union, on 
behalf of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions; 
and Douglas Kantor, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, on behalf 
of the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Society 
of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, and the Merchants 
Payments Coalition. (Serial No. 111-101)

H.R. 3114, To authorize the Director of the United States Patent and 
        Trademark Office to use funds made available under the 
        Trademark Act of 1946 for patent operations in order to avoid 
        furloughs and reductions-in-force, and for other purposes

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 3114 gave the Director of the United States Patent and 
Trademark Office (USPTO) temporary authority to use funds made 
available for trademark registration purposes for patent 
administration expenses, notwithstanding provisions restricting 
the use of such fees to activities relating trademark 
registrations, provided the Director certifies to Congress that 
the use of such funds is reasonably necessary to avoid USPTO 
furloughs or a reduction-in-force.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on July 7, 2009, H.R. 3114 
was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On the 
same day, under suspension of the rules the House passed H.R. 
3114 by voice vote. On July 8, 2009, H.R. 3114 was received by 
the Senate and read twice. On July 16, 2009, the Senate passed 
H.R. 3114 without amendment by unanimous consent. On August 7, 
2009, H.R. 3114 was signed by the President and become Public 
Law 111-45.

H.R. 3570, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Chairman John Conyers, Jr., H.R. 
3570 would amend title 17, United States Code, to reauthorize 
the satellite statutory license, to conform the satellite and 
cable statutory licenses to all-digital transmissions, and for 
other purposes. The bill would modernize, improve and simplify 
the compulsory copyright licenses governing the retransmission 
of distant and local television signals by cable and satellite 
television operators, under Sections 111, 119 and 122 of 
Chapter 17 of the United States Code.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on September 15, 2009, 
H.R. 3570 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
February 25, 3009, the full House Committee on th Judiciary 
held a hearing on ``Copyright Licensing in a Digital Age: 
Competition, Compensation and the Need to Update the Cable and 
Satellite TV Licenses''. The purpose of the hearing was to 
assess the Satellite Extension and Reauthorization Act. The 
following witnesses participated: Ms. Marybeth Peters, Register 
of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office; Mr. Fritz Attaway, 
Executive Vice President, the Motion Picture Association; Mr. 
Bob Gabrielli, Senior Vice President, DIRECTV, Inc; Mr. Chris 
Murray, Internet and Telecommunications Counsel, Consumers 
Union; Mr. Kyle McSlarrow, President and CEO, the National 
Cable & Telecommunications Association (NATA); Mr. David K. 
Rehr, President and CEO, the National Association of 
Broadcasters (NAB). On September 16, 2009 a committee markup 
was held and the bill was ordered to be reported by a roll call 
vote of 34 to 0. On October 28, 2009 the Committee filed an 
amended report. (H. Rept. 111-319). On October 28, 2009 the 
bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 182. On May 
7, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced S. 3333, the 
``Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010''. On 
May 27, 2010, President Obama signed S. 3333. (Public Law No.: 
111-175). See S. 3333 for further action.

H.R. 4515, the ``Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 
        2010''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 4515, the ``Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment 
Act of 2010'' makes available an existing six-month grace 
period for trademark applications to applications filed in the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) pursuant to 
the Madrid Protocol, an international agreement that 
streamlines trademark filing in multiple countries. 
Additionally, this legislation gives the Director of the USPTO 
discretion to allow applicants to correct good faith and 
harmless errors.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on January 26, 2010, H.R. 
4515 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No 
further action was taken on the bill. A measure that 
incorporated much of H.R. 4515, S. 3325, the Trademark 
Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010, was 
subsequently signed by the President on March 17, 2010 and 
became Public Law 111-146. See S. 2968 for further action.

H.R. 4954, ``To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide recourse 
        under the patent law for persons who suffer competitive injury 
        as a result of false markings''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Darrell E. Issa, 
H.R. 4954 limits the right to file a civil action for false 
marking of a patent to persons who have suffered a competitive 
injury as a result of the false marking. The bill allows 
recovery of damages adequate to compensate for the injury.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on March 25, 2010, H.R. 
4954 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No 
further action was taken on the bill.

H.R. 5322, the ``Patent and Trademark Office Funding Stabilization Act 
        of 2010''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 5322, the Patent and Trademark Office Funding 
Stabilization Act of 2010, would give the Director of the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) authority to 
set or adjust patent and trademark fees for a 10-year period, 
establishes the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
Public Enterprise Fund within the Treasury, requires all funds 
collected by the USPTO to be deposited in the Public Enterprise 
Fund, makes such funds available until expended, and 
establishes a temporary 15% surcharge on all patent fees.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on May 18, 2010, H.R. 5322 
was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No 
further action was taken on the bill.

H. Con. Res. 328, ``Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the 
        successful and substantial contributions of the amendments to 
        the patent and trademark laws that were initially enacted in 
        1980 by Public Law 96-517 (commonly referred to as the ``Bayh-
        Dole Act'') on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its 
        enactment.''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H. Con. Res. 328 expresses the sense of Congress that the Bayh-
Dole Act and its amendments have helped to spur innovation, 
benefitted public health and safety, and has led to the 
development of new domestic industries and private sector jobs. 
Expresses the gratitude of Congress for the bipartisan 
leadership of specified former Members on the 30th anniversary 
of enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on November 15, 2010, H. 
Con. Res. 328 was referred to the House Committee on the 
Judiciary. On the same day, under suspension of the rules the 
House passed H.Con.Res. 328 by a recorded vote 385-1 (Roll No. 
568). The bill was received by the Senate and referred to the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary on November 17, 2010.

H. Res. 1208, Supporting the goals of World Intellectual Property Day

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Adam Smith, H. Res. 
1208 expresses support for the goals of World Intellectual 
Property Day to promote, inform, and teach the importance of 
intellectual property and recognizes the importance of 
intellectual property and the challenges and threats to its 
protection.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on March 23, 2010, H. Res. 
1208 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On March 
27, 2010, H. Res. 1208 was passed by the House on a motion to 
the suspend the rules by voice vote.

S. 1670, the ``Satellite Television Modernization Act of 2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Leahy, S. 1670 would 
reauthorize, modernize, and simplify important portions of the 
Copyright Act used by satellite providers and cable systems 
that facilitate the retransmission of broadcast stations to 
consumers.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on September 15, 2009, S. 
1670 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
February 25, 2009, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a 
hearing on ``Ensuring Television Carriage in the Digital Age.'' 
The following witnesses testified: Charlie Ergen, Chairman and 
CEO of DISH Network, L.L.C.; K. James Yager, CEO of Barrington 
Broadcasting Group, L.L.C., and Chairman of the National 
Association of Broadcaster's Television Board; Martin D. 
Franks, Executive Vice President for Policy, Planning and 
Government Relations, CBS Corporation; David L. Cohen, 
Executive Vice President, Comcast Corporation; and the 
Honorable Robert M. Hartwell, Vermont State Senator, Bennington 
District. The following materials were submitted for the 
Record: statement of Gigi B. Sohn, President of Public 
Knowledge; statement of the Association of Public Television 
Stations; statement of Bob Gabrielli, Senior Vice President, 
DIRECTV, Inc.; and statement of Mike Mountford, CEO, National 
Programming Service. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered 
S. 1670 on September 24, 2009. The Committee voted to report 
the Satellite Television Modernization Act of 2009, as amended, 
favorably to the Senate by voice vote. The report was filed on 
November 10, 2009 (Report No. 111-98).

S. 2968, the ``Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 
        2010''

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, S. 2968, the 
``Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010,'' 
makes available an existing six-month grace period for 
trademark applications to applications filed pursuant to the 
Madrid Protocol, which is an international agreement that 
streamlines trademark filing in multiple countries. 
Additionally, this legislation gives the Director of the USPTO 
discretion to allow applicants to correct good faith and 
harmless errors. The legislation also requires a study and 
report to Congress on concerning harm done businesses through 
trademark litigation and the best use of Federal resources to 
protect trademarks and prevent counterfeiting.
    Legislative History.--S. 2968 was introduced on January 28, 
2010, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 
without amendment by unanimous consent. On January 29, 2010, S. 
2968 was received by the House and referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary. On March 3, 2010, under suspension 
of the rules, the House passed S. 2968 without amendment by 
voice vote. On March 17, 2010, H.R. 2968 was signed by the 
President and become Public Law 111-146.

S. 3333, the ``Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 
        2010''

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, S. 3333 
would modernize and extend important statutory copyright 
licenses that allow cable and satellite companies to retransmit 
the content transmitted by television broadcasters.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on May 7, 2010 and passed 
the same day in the Senate by unanimous consent. S. 3333 is a 
bill built upon earlier bills introduced by members of the 
House and Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees, and over a 
year of hearings, markups, and negotiations. On May 12, 2010, 
S. 3333 passed the House on motion to suspend the rules and 
passed by a voice vote. On May 27, 2010, President Obama signed 
the bill (Public Law No.: 111-175).

S. 3689, the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 
        2010

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Leahy, S. 3689, streamlines 
operating procedures of the United States Copyright Office, 
including elimination of the requirement to keep a hard copy 
version of the directory of internet service providers in the 
office and permitting the Office to accept electronic 
signatures. The bill also clarifies that nonmusical works 
distributed by phonograph before 1978 are not automatically 
public domain if they lacked a copyright notice, as Congress 
clarified with respect to musical works in 1997. The bill also 
corrects several technical errors in the copyright code.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on August 2, 2010 and 
passed without amendment by unanimous consent. On August 9, 
2010 the bill was referred to the House Committee on the 
Judiciary and to the Committee on Budget, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker of the House, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On November 15, 2010 
Chairman John Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill, as amended. On November 15, 2010 the bill was considered 
under suspension of the rules. The bill passed by a roll call 
vote of 385 to 0, with one member voting present. On November 
19, 2010 the Senate agreed to the House amendments by unanimous 
consent. On December 9, 2010 President Obama signed the bill. 
(Public Law No: 111-295).

S. 3728, the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act

    Summary.--Introduced by Senator Charles Schumer, S. 3728 
amends title 17, United States Code, to extend protection to 
fashion design, and for other purposes. The bill provides 
protection for articles includes clothing, handbags, purses, 
wallets, tote bags, belts, and eyeglass frames.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on August 5, 2009, S. 3728 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On December 6, 
2009 Committee on Judiciary favorably reported the bill with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute without a written 
report. On December 6, 2009, S. 3728 was placed on the Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 674.
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW\1\

 STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            ZOE LOFGREN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
STEVE KING, Iowa                     Georgia
                                     ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
                                     Virginia
                                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
                                     JUDY CHU, California

----------          
\1\Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 22, 2009.

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.........................    44
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.....................     2
Legislation pending before the full Committee....................     3
Legislation reported to the House................................     1
Legislation discharged from the Committee........................     0
Legislation pending in the House.................................     1
Legislation passed by the House..................................     1
Legislation pending in the Senate................................     1
Legislation vetoed by the President..............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law..............................     0
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another bill......     3
Legislation on which hearings were held..........................     9
Days of legislative hearings.....................................     9
Days of oversight hearings.......................................    26

                         Legislative Activities


H.R. 901, the ``Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act''

    Summary.--Until full implementation of the health care 
reform legislation that was enacted earlier this year, the 
United States will continue to lag in the provision of health 
care for all of its citizens. Medicare and Medicaid cover only 
the elderly and indigent, respectively. 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.''\9\ As a result, many go 
without insurance. Approximately 45.7 million Americans, or 
15.3 percent, did not have health insurance in 2007, the last 
year for which data are available.\10\ While the health care 
reform legislation enacted in March 2010 will address many of 
these concerns, many of its provisions will not go into effect 
until 2014 or beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\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.
    Id.
    \10\U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance 
Coverage in the United States: 2007. (Doc. P60-235), August 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At any rate, even the insured face economic distress.\11\ 
According to one 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.''\12\ 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.''\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Reed Abelson, Insured, But Bankrupted by Health Crises, N.Y. 
Times, July 1, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/
business/ 01meddebt.html?_r=1
    \12\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).
    \13\Carol Pryor et al., The Illusion of Coverage: How Health 
Insurance Fails People When They Got Sick, The Access Project, at 5 
(2007).
    \14\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.\15\ The study, which 
surveyed 1,692 low and moderate income people in various 
locales around the nation,\16\ found that one-quarter of the 
respondents stated that they had housing problems as a result 
of their medical debt.\17\ 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.\18\ Some of the respondents reported that they were 
evicted or were rendered homeless because of medical debt.\19\ 
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[.]''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Robert W. Seifert, Home Sick--How Medical Debt Undermines 
Housing Security, The Access Project (Nov. 2005).
    \16\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.
    \17\Id. at 1.
    \18\Id.
    \19\Id.
    \20\Carol Pryor et al., The Illusion of Coverage: How Health 
Insurance Fails People When They Got Sick, The Access Project, at 3 
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June 2009, the authors of the 2005 medical bankruptcy 
paper published a follow-up study in the American Journal of 
Medicine, which, in contrast to the earlier study, was based on 
``national random-sample survey of bankruptcy filers.''\21\ The 
authors surveyed a random sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filers in 
2007, abstracted their court records, and performed follow-up 
interviews with 1,032 of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\David U. Himmelstein, et al. Medical Bankruptcy in the United 
States, 2007, Am. J. Med., June 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The authors found that 62.1 percent of the 2007 sample had 
a medical cause.\22\ Of these medical debtors, 92 percent had 
medical debts over $5,000 or 10 percent of pretax family 
income.\23\ The rest had lost significant income or had 
mortgaged their home to pay medical bills.\24\ The authors 
additionally found that 77.9 percent of the individuals whose 
illness led to bankruptcy had health insurance at the onset of 
the bankrupting illness and that 60.3 percent had private 
insurance as their primary coverage.\25\ Limiting the 
definition of ``medical bankruptcy'' to only those cases where 
the debtor specifically cited illness or medical bills as the 
cause of bankruptcy, 44.4 percent of bankruptcy filings were 
``medical bankruptcies.''\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Id. at 3.
    \23\Id.
    \24\Id.
    \25\Id. at 4.
    \26\Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--Rep. Carol Shea-Porter introduced 
H.R. 901, the ``Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act,'' on February 
4, 2009. The bill would amend Section 522 of the Bankruptcy 
Code to allow a ``medically distressed debtor'' (as defined in 
the Act) to exempt up to $250,000 of the debtor's interest in 
the residence of the debtor or the debtor's dependent. The Act 
would also create an exemption to the ``means test'' contained 
in Section 707(b) of the Bankruptcy Code for medically 
distressed debtors and economically distressed caregivers.
    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held 
an oversight hearing on ``Medical Debt: Is Our Health Care 
System Bankrupting Americans?'' on Tuesday, July 28, 2009. The 
witnesses were: Elizabeth Edwards, Senior Fellow, Center for 
American Progress; Dr. Stephani Woolhandler, Professor of 
Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Aparna Mathur, Ph.D., 
Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; and Professor 
John A.E. Pottow, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law 
School.
    On July 15, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
901. The witnesses were the Honorable Cecelia Morris, Judge, 
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New 
York; Aparna Mathur, Ph.D., American Enterprise Institute; and 
Peter Wright, Franklin Pierce Law Center.
    No further action was taken with respect to H.R. 901 during 
the 111th Congress.

H.R. 1478, the ``Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act 
        of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 1478, the ``Carmelo Rodriguez Military 
Medical Accountability Act of 2009,'' would amend the Federal 
Tort Claims Act (FTCA)\27\ to allow service members to sue for 
damages when they are harmed by medical malpractice committed 
by government-employed or directed healthcare providers. It 
would amend the FTCA by adding a new section 2681 to chapter 
171 of title 28 of the United States Code. Section 2681(a) 
would allow service members to sue the government to redress 
healthcare-related malpractice (and only healthcare-related 
malpractice) committed by government-employed or directed 
healthcare providers. The new section 2681 would not apply, 
however, to ``any claim arising out of the combatant activities 
of the Armed Forces during time of armed conflict.'' This 
exclusion is broader than the exclusion that appears in the 
existing FTCA, which is limited to claims ``arising out of the 
combatant activities . . . during time of war,''\28\ and has 
been interpreted to apply only to combatant activities pursuant 
to a formal declaration of war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680.
    \28\28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) 
introduced H.R. 1478 on March 12, 2009. On March 24, 2009, the 
CAL Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1478.\29\ The hearing 
consisted of two witness panels. The first panel included 
Representative Maurice Hinchey. The second witness panel 
included: retired Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., a 
former Deputy Judge Advocate General of the United States Army 
and of counsel at Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Eugene R. Fidell, the 
Florence Rogatz Visiting Lecturer at Yale Law School, the 
President of the National Institute of Military Justice, and of 
counsel to the law firm of Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP; 
Ivette Rodriguez, the sister of Carmelo Rodgriguez, the 
deceased Marine sergeant after whom H.R. 1478 is named; and 
Stephen A. Saltzburg, the Wallace and Beverley Woodbury 
Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School, a 
member of the House of Delegates of the American Bar 
Association, and the co-chair of the ABA's Military Justice 
Committee of the Criminal Justice Section, who testified on 
behalf of the ABA. On May 19, 2009, the CAL Subcommittee marked 
up H.R. 1478, and ordered the bill to be favorably reported, as 
amended, by a roll call vote. On October 7, 2009, the Committee 
marked up H.R. 1478, and ordered the bill to be favorably 
reported, as amended by the Subcommittee, by a roll call vote 
of 14 to 12, a quorum being present. Congress took no further 
action on H.R. 1478 before the end of the 111th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\H.R. 1478, the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical 
Accountability Act of 2009: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Com. and 
Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 1521, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 1521, the ``Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009,'' 
would impose on States and localities a five-year moratorium on 
any new discriminatory taxes on mobile services, mobile service 
providers, and mobile service property.
    Legislative History.--Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) 
introduced H.R. 1521 on March 16, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the 
CAL Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1521.\30\ Witnesses at 
the hearing included supporters of the legislation: Robert D. 
Atkinson, President of Information Technology and Innovation 
Foundation; Indiana Representative Mara Candelaria Reardon; and 
Florida Representative Joseph A. Gibbons. The CAL Subcommittee 
also received testimony from opponents of the legislation: 
Joanne Hovis, President of Columbia Telecommunications 
Corporation, who spoke on behalf of the National Association of 
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the National 
Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers 
Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the 
National League of Cities; and Don Stapley, President of the 
National Association of Counties, who spoke on behalf of the 
Government Finance Officers Association, the United States 
Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. On 
September 15, 2010, the CAL Subcommittee marked up H.R. 1521, 
and ordered it to be favorably reported, by voice vote. The 
Committee took no further action on H.R. 1521 before the end of 
the 111th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\H.R. 1521, the Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009: Hearing Before 
the Subcomm. on Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 
111th Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 2247, the ``Congressional Review Act Improvement Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 2247, the ``Congressional Review Act 
Improvement Act,'' amends the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to 
reduce administrative burdens and duplicative paperwork by 
repealing the requirement that agencies submit copies of all 
final rules and reports thereon directly to both the House and 
the Senate. The bill instead requires that the House and Senate 
receive a weekly list of all final rules from the Comptroller 
General of the Government Accountability Office and to have 
such list printed in the Congressional Record with a statement 
of referral for each rule. The bill does not affect the 
authority of Congress under the CRA to disapprove an agency 
rule.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Steve Cohen introduced H.R. 2247 
on May 5, 2009. The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings 
on H.R. 2247 during the 111th Congress. The Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law, however, held an oversight 
hearing on the CRA on November 6, 2007, during the 110th 
Congress. Testimony was received from the Honorable John V. 
Sullivan, Parliamentarian, House of Representatives; Morton 
Rosenberg, Specialist in American Public Law, Congressional 
Research Service, and Professor Sally Katzen, George Mason 
University School of Law. At that hearing, Mr. Sullivan 
testified about the burdens of implementing the CRA imposed on 
the Office of the Parliamentarian. Mr. Sullivan had previously 
testified before the Subcommittee in the 109th Congress on the 
same topic.\31\ Additionally, Mr. Sullivan's predecessor, 
Charles W. Johnson, testified before the Subcommittee in the 
105th Congress on the same topic.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\10th Anniversary of the Congressional Review Act: Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Administrative Law of the H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 38-42 (2006) (statement of John V. 
Sullivan, Parliamentarian, U.S. House of Representatives).
    \32\Congressional Review Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on 
Commercial and Administrative Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 
105th Cong. 12-21 (1997) (statement of Charles W. Johnson III, 
Parliamentarian, U.S. House of Representatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 13, 2009, the Committee met in open session and 
considered H.R. 2247. On May 20, 2009, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered H.R. 2247, favorably reported, without 
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 12, 2009, the Committee reported H.R. 2247 as H. 
Rep. No. 111-150. On June 16, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2247 
under suspension of the rules by a 414-0 vote.
    H.R. 2247 was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Government Affairs, which took no action on the 
bill during the 111th Congress.

H.R. 2765, the ``Securing the Protection of our Enduring and 
        Established Constitutional Heritage Act'' or the ``SPEECH Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 2765 is intended to dissuade potential 
defamation plaintiffs from circumventing First Amendment 
protections by filing suit in foreign jurisdictions that lack 
similar protections, a phenomenon referred to as ``libel 
tourism.'' The bill amends title 28 of the United States Code 
to add provisions to prevent U.S. courts from recognizing or 
enforcing a foreign defamation judgment when (1) such judgment 
is inconsistent with the First Amendment; (2) enforcement would 
be inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Act of 
1934, providing immunity for interactive computer services from 
suits based on content hosted by such services; or (3) the 
foreign court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over the 
defamation defendant is inconsistent with the due process 
standards of the United States Constitution. H.R. 2765 also 
provides for a declaratory judgment remedy for a defamation 
defendant based on one of the grounds enumerated in the bill. 
H.R. 2765 also contains a fee-shifting provision that requires 
a court, absent exception circumstances, to award a reasonable 
attorney's fee to a party that successfully resists recognition 
or enforcement of a foreign defamation judgment based on one of 
the grounds enumerated in the bill.
    Legislative History.--On February 12, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a 
hearing on the problem of libel tourism and possible 
legislative alternatives for addressing it. Witnesses included 
Bruce D. Brown, a partner at the law firm of Baker & Hostetler 
LLP; Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for 
Democracy; Laura R. Handman, a partner at the law firm of Davis 
Wright Tremaine; and Linda J. Silberman, the Martin Lipton 
Professor of Law at New York University Law School.
    On June 9, 2009, Rep. Steve Cohen introduced H.R. 2765. On 
June 10, 2009, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
session to consider H.R. 2765 and ordered H.R. 2765 favorably 
reported without amendment, by a voice vote. On June 15, 2009, 
the Committee reported H.R. 2765 as H. Rep. No. 111-154 (2009). 
On that same day, the House of Representatives passed the bill 
by voice vote on motion to suspend the rules.
    On July 14, 2010, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H.R. 2765 favorably with an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, which passed the Senate on July 19, 2010.
    On July 27, 2010, the House passed the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 2765 by voice vote on motion to suspend the rules.
    On August 10, 2010, the President signed H.R. 2765 into law 
as Public Law No. 111-223.

H.R. 3764, the ``Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 3764, the ``Civil Access to Justice Act of 
2009,'' would re-authorize the Legal Services Corporation by 
amending the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996 et 
al.). H.R. 3764 would authorize $750,000,000 for LSC for each 
of the next five fiscal years; create new limitations on 
Federal funding; eliminate most of the limitations on non-
Federal funding sources; and strengthen corporate governance 
and internal controls.
    Legislative History.--Representative Bobby Scott introduced 
H.R. 3764 on October 8, 2009. On April 27, 2010, the CAL 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 3764.\33\ The hearing 
consisted of two witness panels. The first panel included 
Representative Bobby Scott and Senator Tom Harkin. The second 
witness panel included: John Levi, Chairman of the Board of the 
Legal Services Corporation; Jeffrey Schantz, Inspector General 
of the Legal Services Corporation; Ken Boehm, Chair of the 
National Legal and Policy Center; and Rebekah Diller, Deputy 
Director, Justice Program, Brennan Center for Justice. The CAL 
Subcommittee took no further action on H.R. 3764 before the end 
of the 111th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\H.R. 3764, the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009: Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 4175, the ``End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters 
        Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 4175, the ``End Discriminatory State Taxes 
for Automobile Renters Act of 2009,'' would prohibit a State or 
locality from levying or collecting a new discriminatory tax on 
the rental of motor vehicles, the business of renting motor 
vehicles, or motor vehicle rental property.
    Legislative History.--Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) 
introduced H.R. 4175 on December 2, 2009. On June 15, 2010, the 
CAL Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 4175.\34\ The hearing 
consisted of two witness panels. The first panel included 
Representative Rick Boucher. The second witness panel included: 
Raymond T. Wagner, Jr., Vice President, Government Affairs of 
Enterprise Holdings, a motor vehicle rental company; Timothy 
Firestine, Chief Administrative Officer for Montgomery County, 
Maryland, who testified on behalf of the National League of 
Cities, the National Association of Counties, the United States 
Conference of Mayors, and the Government Finance Officers 
Association; and Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the 
National Consumers League, a consumer rights organization. The 
CAL Subcommittee took no further action on H.R. 4175 before the 
end of the 111th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\H.R. 4715, the End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile 
Renters Act of 2009: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Com. and Admin. Law 
of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 4283--Transparency and Integrity in Corporate Monitoring Act of 
        2009

    Summary.--H.R. 4283, the Transparency and Integrity in 
Corporate Monitoring Act of 2009, prohibits United States 
attorneys or assistant United States attorneys who participate 
in the investigation or prosecution of an organization for a 
criminal offense for which a deferred prosecution or non-
prosecution agreement is made from acting as or working for, 
for a specified period of time after their service, corporate 
monitors selected to oversee the implementation of such 
agreements. The bill also authorizes the Attorney General to 
seek a civil penalty or injunctive relief to address violations 
of the Act.
    Legislative History.--On November 19, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a 
hearing on ``Transparency and Integrity in Corporate 
Monitoring.'' The hearing included one panel, with testimony 
from the following four witnesses: Anthony Barkow, Executive 
Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New 
York University School of Law; Ms. Eileen R. Larence, Director 
of Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Mr. Gil M. Soffer, Partner, Katten 
Muchin Rosenman, LLP; and, Mr. Brandon L. Garrett, Associate 
Professor of Law, University of Virginia.
    On December 11, 2009, CAL Subcommittee Chairman Steve Cohen 
(D-TN) introduced H.R. 4283, the Transparency and Integrity in 
Corporate Monitoring Act of 2009, to prohibit United States 
attorneys and assistant United States attorneys from acting as 
or working for corporate monitors for specified periods after 
their service with the Government terminates. Nine members of 
Congress co-sponsored the bill.
    On April 26, 2010, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. No further 
action was taken on the legislation in the 111th Congress.

H.R. 4506, the ``Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010''

    Summary.--Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 152(b)(2), the 
Judicial Conference of the United States is required 
periodically to submit to Congress recommendations regarding 
the number of bankruptcy judges needed and to identify in which 
districts they are needed.\35\ On February 9, 2009, the 
Judicial Conference transmitted recommendations concerning 
additional bankruptcy judgeships to the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the House Judiciary Committee and to the Majority and 
Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\28 U.S.C. Sec. 152(b)(2) (2007).
    \36\Letter from James C. Huff, Secretary of the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, to the Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary (February 9, 2009) (on file with Subcommittee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Judicial Conference asserted that its proposal is 
``essential to the efficient functioning of the bankruptcy 
court system,'' noting that bankruptcy ``case filings are 
increasing dramatically in the current state of our 
economy.''\37\ According to the Judicial Conference, filings 
have ``increased steadily since [the Bankruptcy Abuse 
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA)] took 
effect, and are even approaching record pre-BAPCPA 
levels.''\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Id.
    \38\Judicial Conference of the United States, Bankruptcy Judgeship 
Recommendations 4 (2009) (on file with Subcommittee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Judicial Conference proposed the addition of 13 
bankruptcy judgeships in 10 judicial districts and the 
conversion of 22 existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships in 15 
judicial districts to permanent status.\39\ Additionally, the 
Judicial Conference proposes to extend two existing temporary 
judgeships for an additional five years.\40\ Overall, the 
proposal affects 25 judicial districts in 9 of the 12 
geographically based federal judicial circuits (all except the 
Seventh, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits.)\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\Id., Table 1.
    \40\Id.
    \41\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--Rep. Steve Cohen introduced H.R. 4506 
together with Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, 
Jr., and Ranking Member Rep. Lamar S. Smith on January 26, 
2010. The bill adopts the recommendations of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States, authorizing 13 new permanent 
bankruptcy judgeships, converting 22 temporary judgeships to 
permanent judgeships, and extending authorization for 2 
temporary judgeships for 5 more years. To offset mandatory 
costs, the bill also raises filing fees by $1.00 for Chapter 7 
and Chapter 13 cases and by $42.00 for Chapter 11 cases.
    No legislative hearing was held on H.R. 4506. The 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a 
hearing on ``Bankruptcy Judgeship Needs'' on June 16, 2009. At 
that hearing, the Subcommittee considered the Judicial 
Conference's bankruptcy judgeship recommendations, as reflected 
in H.R. 4506. Testimony was received from the Honorable Barbara 
M.G. Lynn, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern 
District of Texas, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States; the Honorable David S. Kennedy, Chief Judge of 
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of 
Tennessee, on behalf of the National Conference of Bankruptcy 
Judges; William Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security and 
Justice Issues, Government Accountability Office; and Carey D. 
Ebert, President of the National Association of Consumer 
Bankruptcy Attorneys.
    On January 27, 2010, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered H.R. 4506 favorably reported without amendment, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. The Committee reported the 
bill on March 9, 2010 as H. Rep. No. 111-430 (2010). On March 
12, 2010, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4506 on 
motion to suspend the rules by a recorded vote of 345-5.
    On May 27, 2010, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H.R. 4506 favorably to the full Senate without 
amendment.

H.R. 4677, the ``Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business 
        Bankruptcies Act of 2010''

    Summary.--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.''\42\ 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.''\43\ 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.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\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).
    \43\Thomas H. Jackson, Of Liquidation, Continuation, and Delay: An 
Analysis of Bankruptcy Policy and Nonbankruptcy Rules, 60 Am. Bankr. L. 
J. 399, 399 (1986).
    \44\Paul F. Festersen, Equitable Powers in Bankruptcy 
Rehabilitation: Protection of the Debtor and the Doomsday Principle, 46 
Am. Bankr. L. J. 311, 311 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bankruptcy Code contains several provisions dealing 
with labor issues in Chapter 11. These include Section 1113, 
which establishes procedures and standards by which a Chapter 
11 debtor may reject a collective bargaining agreement.\45\ As 
enacted, Section 1113 ``seeks to reconcile the policy of the 
Bankruptcy Code, which fosters rehabilitation of debtors, with 
that of labor law, which seeks to protect employee rights 
through collective bargaining.''\46\ Section 1113 provides the 
exclusive means by which a collective bargaining agreement may 
be rejected.\47\ A Chapter 11 plan may not be confirmed unless 
the debtor has complied with section 1113.\48\ In addition, a 
debtor is prohibited from unilaterally terminating or altering 
any provision of a collective bargaining agreement without 
having first complied with section 1113.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\11 U.S.C. 1113 (2006).
    \46\Alan N. Resnick, & Henry J. Sommer, 7 Collier on Bankruptcy 
para.1113.01(15th ed. rev'd 2007).
    \47\11 U.S.C.A. 1113(a) (2006).
    \48\11 U.S.C.A. 1129(a)(1) (2006); Alan N. Resnick, & Henry J. 
Sommer, 7 Collier on Bankruptcy para.1113.02 (15th ed. rev'd 2007).
    \49\11 U.S.C.A. 1113(f) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In recent years, news headlines have been filled with 
numerous reports about the bankruptcy filings of corporate 
giants such as CIT Group, Chrysler, General Motors, Lehman 
Brothers, Linens 'n Things, Delphi Corporation, Delta Air 
Lines, Enron, and WorldCom.\50\ In 2002 alone, the ten largest 
companies filing for bankruptcy employed nearly 445,000 
employees.\51\ In 2009, the number of businesses filing for 
bankruptcy protection rose by 38 percent over the previous 
year's filings.\52\ 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.''\53\ Pensions funded by a company's stock are typically 
rendered worthless after the company files for bankruptcy.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\Tomoeh Murakami Tse, Taxpayers on Hook as Some Bailed Out Firms 
Prove Frail, Washington Post, Nov. 16, 2009, available at http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/
AR2009111502280.html; Bill Vlasic and Nick Bunkley, Obama is Upbeat for 
G.M.'s Future, N.Y. Times, June 1, 2009, available at http://
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/business/02auto.html; Andrew Ross Sorkin, 
Lehman Files for Bankruptcy; Merrill is Sold, N.Y. Times, Sept. 14, 
2008, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/
15lehman.html?_r=1; Mae Anderson, Linens 'n Things Files for 
Bankruptcy, Associated Press, May 2, 2008, http://www.usatoday.com/
money/industries/retail/2008-05-02-linens_N.htm; Delphi Files for 
Bankruptcy, CNNMoney.com, October 8, 2005, available at http://
money.cnn.com/2005/10/08/news/fortune500/delphi_bankrupt/index.htm; 
Chris Isidore, Delta Air Lines Files for Bankruptcy, CNNMoney.com, 
Sept. 15, 2005, available at http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/14/news/
fortune500/delta/index.htm; Christopher Edmonds, Enron Files for 
Chapter 11Bankruptcy Protection, TheStreet.com, Dec. 2, 2001, http://
www.thestreet.com/story/10004757/enron-files-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy-
protection.html.
    \51\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.
    \52\Chelsea Emery, U.S. Business Bankruptcies Rise 38 Percent in 
2009, Reuters, Jan. 5, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/
idUSN059048720100105
    \53\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.
    \54\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.''\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\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 the U.S. Airways case, 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.''\56\ 
The Third Circuit interprets this phrase to mean ``necessary to 
prevent liquidation,''\57\ whereas the Second Circuit applies 
``a more debtor-friendly'' standard,\58\ that focuses on the 
``debtor's ultimate long-term economic health.''\59\ 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.''\60\ 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.''\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1113(b)(1) (2006).
    \57\Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers, 791 
F.2d 1074, 1088 (3d 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'').
    \58\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).
    \59\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.'').
    \60\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).
    \61\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, Chapter 11 may restrict self-help options available 
to organized labor. For example, the Second Circuit, in In re 
Northwest Airlines Corp., 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.\62\ This is apparently ``the first federal 
appeals court to deny workers the right to strike following 
contract rejection in bankruptcy.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ 483 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007).
    \63\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--House Judiciary Committee Chairman 
John Conyers, Jr. introduced H.R. 4677, the ``Protecting 
Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act of 2010,'' 
on February 24, 2010. A substantially similar bill, H.R. 3652, 
the ``Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business 
Bankruptcies Act of 2007,'' was introduced by Chairman Conyers 
during the 110th Congress on September 25, 2007.
    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held 
an oversight hearing on ``Protecting Employees in Airline 
Bankruptcies'' on December 16, 2009. The witnesses were: Capt. 
Chesley Sullenberger, U.S. Airline Pilots Association; Capt. 
Arnold Gentile, U.S. Airline Pilots Association; Capt. Bob 
Coffman, Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations; Marshall 
Huebner, Davis, Polk & Wardell LLP; Robert Roach, International 
Association of Machinists; and Stephen Nagrotsky, International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters. The purpose of the hearing was to 
consider whether the Bankruptcy Code should be amended to 
exempt airline employees from the Section 1113 process for 
rejecting collective bargaining agreements in airline 
bankruptcies.
    The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 4677 on 
May 25, 2010. The witnesses were Babette Ceccotti, Cohen, 
Weiss, and Simon, LLP; Capt. John Prater, Air Line Pilots 
Association; James H.M. Sprayregen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; 
Janette Rook, Association of Flight Attendants; Tim Conway, 
United Steelworkers; Michael Bernstein, Arnold & Porter LLP; 
and Robert Roach, Jr., International Association of Machinists 
and Aerospace Workers.
    On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee met to markup H.R. 
4677. During the markup, the Subcommittee adopted an amendment 
offered by Rep. Dan Maffei that carved an exception to the 
Section 1113 process for workers covered by Title II of the 
Railway Labor Act (i.e., airline employees.) The Subcommittee 
forwarded the bill to full Committee by an 8-4 vote.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4677 during the 111th 
Congress.

H.R. 5043, the ``Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2010''

    Summary.--Under Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code, 
educational debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy unless the 
debtor seeking discharge of such debt demonstrates, through an 
adversary proceeding, that repayment of his or her educational 
debt would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the 
debtor's dependents.\64\ This conditional dischargeability 
applies to debt resulting from federally issued loans, 
federally guaranteed loans, and private loans issued by 
nonprofit and for-profit institutions.\65\ This provision also 
applies to debt resulting from obligations to repay funds 
received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or 
stipend.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(8) (2006). Some commentators have 
questioned whether there is any justification for the ``undue 
hardship'' test or have raised concerns about how courts apply the 
test. See, e.g., Rafael I. Pardo and Michelle R. Lacey, The Real 
Student-Loan Scandal: Undue Hardship Discharge Litigation, 83 Am. 
Bankr. L.J. 179 (2009); John A.E. Pottow, The Nondischargability of 
Student Loans in Personal Bankruptcy Proceedings: The Search for a 
Theory, Canadian Bus. L. J. 44, no. 2 (2007): 245-278. H.R. 5043, 
however, does not address the ``undue hardship'' test except to the 
extent that it exempts for-profit educational loan debt from that test.
    \65\11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(8) (2006).
    \66\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress first made student loan debt conditionally 
dischargeable in 1976 in an amendment to the Higher Education 
Act.\67\ That provision was limited to debt from direct federal 
student loans and federally insured and guaranteed loans.\68\ 
In 1978, Congress added this conditional dischargeability 
provision to the Bankruptcy Code as Section 523(a)(8).\69\ As 
originally enacted in 1978, Section 523(a)(8) allowed a debtor 
to discharge his or her educational debt either by showing 
undue hardship or if her loan had been in repayment for more 
than five years at the time of her bankruptcy filing.\70\ 
Congress perceived that federal student loan debtors were 
abusing the bankruptcy system by seeking to discharge student 
loan debt soon after graduation without attempting repayment 
and in the absence of extenuating circumstances.\71\ Congress 
was also seeking to protect the financial viability of the 
federal student loan program and, ultimately, to safeguard 
taxpayer money.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\20 U.S.C. Sec. 1087-3 (1976) (repealed by Bankruptcy Reform Act 
of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-598, Sec. 316, 92 Stat. 2549, 2678 (effective 
Oct. 1, 1979)).
    \68\Id.
    \69\Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-598, Sec. 316, 92 
Stat. 2549, 2678 (effective Oct. 1, 1979).
    \70\Id.
    \71\Rafael I. Pardo, Michelle R. Lacey, Undue Hardship in the 
Bankruptcy Courts: An Empirical Assessment of the Discharge of 
Educational Debt, 74 U. Cin. L. Rev. 405 (2005). Whether Congress's 
belief was warranted is debatable, given a lack of empirical evidence 
to support the perception that there was rampant abuse of the 
bankruptcy system by student loan debtors. Id.
    \72\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although student loans issued by private, for-profit 
institutions do not involve protecting the financial integrity 
of a government program, Congress nonetheless extended Section 
523(a)(8) to cover debt resulting from such loans as part of 
the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 
2005 (BAPCPA).\73\ BAPCPA's legislative history sheds little 
light regarding the particular rationale for extending this 
kind of protection to loans issued by for-profit educational 
lenders.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, 59 (2005). Pursuant to section 
1501 of the Act, most of its provisions became effective on October 17, 
2005.
    \74\H.R. Rep. No. 109-031 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 523(a)(8) may pose a particularly difficult burden 
on debtors seeking to discharge private student loans because 
such debtors are more likely to become financially distressed 
and are more likely to need bankruptcy relief when they become 
financially distressed than debtors with federal student loans. 
This greater risk of bankruptcy stems from certain 
characteristics of private loans that federal loans do not 
have, but which are similar to other types of consumer loans 
like credit cards or subprime mortgages.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\Deanne Loonin, Too Small to Help: The Plight of Financially 
Distressed Private Student Loan Borrowers, National Consumer Law 
Center, April 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal student loans offer certain protections to minimize 
the risk that a financially distressed debtor will need 
bankruptcy relief, whereas private student loans are not 
required to have, and often do not have, such consumer 
protections.\76\ For example, federal loans have fixed interest 
rates (currently 5.6% for subsidized Stafford loans, 6.8% for 
unsubsidized loans\77\), whereas private loans often have 
variable rates that can be as high as 19%.\78\ Federal loans 
have 1.5% origination fees\79\, where as private loans have no 
limits on origination fees and can have fees of up to 10%.\80\ 
Private lenders often charge additional fees such as late fees 
or fees for any deferments or forbearance, and half of the 
private loans in one survey had no forbearance option at 
all.\81\ Federal loans also provide flexible options for 
distressed debtors, such as income-based repayment plans and 
partial or complete loan forgiveness in some circumstances, 
whereas private lenders are not required to offer such 
options.\82\ Finally, in contrast to federal loans, most 
private loans do not have any limits on loan amounts, 
increasing the risk that a borrower will become financially 
overextended.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\Deanne Loonin and Alys Cohen, Paying the Price: The High Cost 
of Private Student Loans and the Dangers for Student Borrowers, 
National Consumer Law Center, March 2008.
    \77\Federal Student Loan Amounts and Terms for 2009-10, The Project 
on Student Debt, June 2009, available at http://
projectonstudentdebt.org/files/pub/2009-10_loan_terms.pdf.
    \78\Deanne Loonin, Too Small to Help: The Plight of Financially 
Distressed Private Student Loan Borrowers, National Consumer Law 
Center, April 2009; Deanne Loonin and Alys Cohen, Paying the Price: The 
High Cost of Private Student Loans and the Dangers for Student 
Borrowers, National Consumer Law Center, March 2008.
    \79\Federal Student Loan Amounts and Terms for 2009-10, The Project 
on Student Debt, June 2009, available at http://
projectonstudentdebt.org/files/pub/2009-10_loan_terms.pdf. The 
origination fees for PLUS loans are 4%. Id.
    \80\Deanne Loonin, Too Small to Help: The Plight of Financially 
Distressed Private Student Loan Borrowers, National Consumer Law 
Center, April 2009; Deanne Loonin and Alys Cohen, Paying the Price: The 
High Cost of Private Student Loans and the Dangers for Student 
Borrowers, National Consumer Law Center, March 2008.
    \81\Id.
    \82\Id. There is some evidence that some private lenders have begun 
to offer some flexible repayment options, but not income-based 
repayment. Id. Moreover, cancellations and settlements are rare. Id.
    \83\Deanne Loonin, Too Small to Help: The Plight of Financially 
Distressed Private Student Loan Borrowers, National Consumer Law 
Center, April 2009; Thomas Harnisch, The Public Realities of Private 
Student Loans, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 
April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--On September 23, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held an 
oversight hearing on ``An Undue Hardship? Discharging 
Educational Debt in Bankruptcy.'' Representative Danny Davis 
testified on the first witness panel on behalf of the 
Congressional Black Caucus Community Reinvestment Task Force. 
On the second panel, the witnesses were: Lauren Asher, 
President, The Institute for College Access and Success; Rafael 
I. Pardo, Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School 
of Law; J. Douglas Cuthbertson, Miles & Stockbridge PC; and 
Brett Weiss, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA, on behalf of the 
National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
    Rep. Steve Cohen and Rep. Danny Davis introduced H.R. 5043, 
the ``Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act,'' on April 
15, 2010. The bill would make dischargeable in bankruptcy debt 
from private student loans issued by for-profit lenders. The 
current treatment of debt from student loans issued by 
governmental units or nonprofit institutions and obligations to 
repay funds for educational benefits, scholarships, and 
stipends under bankruptcy law would remain largely unchanged.
    The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5043 on 
April 22, 2010. The witnesses were Deanne Loonin, National 
Consumer Law Center; John Hupalo, Ramirez Capital Advisors; 
Valisha Cooks, a private student loan borrower; and Adrian 
Lapas, on behalf of the National Association of Consumer 
Bankruptcy Attorneys.
    On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee held a markup of 
H.R. 5043. The Subcommittee forwarded the bill to full 
Committee by a vote of 6-3.
    No further action was taken on this bill during the 111th 
Congress.

                          Oversight Activities


DOJ Civil Division Oversight

    Summary.--On June 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law held its first oversight hearing of the 
Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice since 
the Obama Administration took office. Moreover, it was the 
first oversight hearing on the Civil Division since 2003.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\See Reauthorization of the U.S. Department of Justice: 
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Civil Division, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, and 
Office of the Solicitor General, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on 
Commercial and Administrative Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 
108th Cong. (2003) (conducting oversight of multiple Justice Department 
components, including Civil Division).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Civil Division is responsible for a broad range of 
litigation activity that includes defending the 
constitutionality of federal legislation, recovering money for 
the United States that was lost through fraud, enforcing 
federal consumer protection laws, defending immigration 
enforcement actions, and representing the United States in 
habeas cases. The vast majority of the Civil Division's work is 
defensive in nature.
    Among the issues discussed during the hearing were the 
implementation of new Freedom of Information Act guidelines, 
Guantanamo detainee habeas defense; the government's response 
to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; state 
legal challenges to health care reform legislation; potential 
federal government legal challenge to an Arizona immigration 
law; the status of litigation concerning the storage of spent 
nuclear waste; and the Division's role in response to mortgage 
fraud and the financial crisis; and abusive debt collection 
practices.

Credit Cards and Bankruptcy

    Summary.--Holding credit card debt may be a particularly 
strong factor in pushing many people into bankruptcy. Professor 
Ronald Mann of Columbia University Law School conducted a study 
of several industrialized nations showing that high-interest-
rate consumer debt strongly correlates with bankruptcy 
filings.\85\ Moreover, a consumer with credit card debt is more 
likely to file for bankruptcy than a consumer with any other 
form of debt.\86\ While many factors explain why credit card 
debt is a particularly difficult burden for many borrowers, 
that burden may be unnecessarily exacerbated by certain credit 
card lending practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\See Abusive Credit Card Practices and Bankruptcy: Hearing on S. 
257 Before the Subcomm. On Admin. Oversight and the Courts of the S. 
Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 3 (2009) (statement of Adam J. 
Levitin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center) 
(citing Ronald J. Mann, Charging Ahead: The Growth and Regulation of 
Payment Card Markets (2006)).
    \86\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The substantial increase in the number and amount of fees 
charged by credit card issuers has been a significant cause of 
unsustainable credit card debt.\87\ For instance, the average 
late payment fee more than doubled from $12.83 in 1995 to 
$33.64 in 2005.\88\ Some commentators believe that issuers 
impose these fees in higher amounts, impose them more quickly, 
and assess them more often than previously because issuers now 
rely on these fees as a major source of revenue, rather than as 
a way to deter bad borrowing behavior.\89\ Over time, the 
amount accumulated penalty fees can exceed the amount of the 
underlying credit card purchases or cash advances, trapping a 
borrower in debt even after he or she has paid off the amount 
owed for the purchases or advances.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\Examples of fees include cash advance, balance transfer, 
overseas transfer, late-payment, and over-limit fees. Lucy Lazarony, 
Credit card penalties get more severe, bankrate.com, available at 
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20010514a.asp.
    \88\U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Credit Cards: Increased Complexity 
in Rates and Fees Heighten Need for More Effective Disclosures to 
Consumers 18 (2006).
    \89\See, e.g., Legislative Hearing Regarding H.R. 627, The Credit 
Cardholders' Bill of Rights of 2009 and H.R. 1456, The Consumer 
Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act of 2009 Before the Subcomm. on 
Financial Inst. and Consumer Credit of the H. Comm. on Fin. Servs., 
111th Cong. 14 (2009) (statement of Travis B. Plunkett, Legislative 
Director, Consumer Federation of America and Edmund Mierzwinski, 
Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group); 
Hearing on Credit Cards and Bankruptcy: Opportunities for Reform Before 
the Subcomm. on Admin. Oversight and the Courts of the S. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 110th Cong. 3 (2008) (statement of John Rao, Director, 
National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys).
    \90\See, e.g., Discover Bank v. Owens, 822 N.E.2d 869 (Ohio Mun. 
2004) (finding that credit card lender was not entitled to collect 
unpaid balance from debtor because accumulation of $1518 in over-limit 
fees, $1,160 in late fees, $369.62 in credit insurance fees, and 
$6,008.66 in interest and other fees based on $1,963 principal debt 
where debtor had already paid $3,492 was unconscionable); In re Blair, 
No. 02-1140 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. filed Feb. 10, 2004) (finding that a 
majority of credit card company's claims against bankruptcy debtor 
consisted of interest and fees rather than principal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, credit card issuers have been imposing high 
penalty interest rates. A penalty interest rate is an increased 
interest rate imposed on a borrower for making a late payment, 
exceeding his or her credit limit, or based on some other 
triggering event.\91\ Additionally, issuers sometimes apply 
penalty interest rates retroactively to debts that were already 
paid at a lower rate.\92\ Penalty rate provisions were 
contained in 94% of new credit card solicitations in 2008.\93\ 
Almost 11% of all balances borrowed on credit cards carry 
penalty pricing and most borrowers are unaware they are being 
charged the penalty rate.\94\ The average penalty rate in 2008 
is 16.9 percentage points higher than the average purchase 
rate.\95\ Sometimes, penalty interest rates can be as high as 
30% to 40%.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\Joshua M. Frank, Priceless or Just Expensive? The Use of 
Penalty Rates in the Credit Card Industry, Center For Responsible 
Lending, Dec. 16, 2008, at 4, available at http://
responsiblelending.org/pdfs/priceless-or-just-expensive.pdf.
    \92\Hearing on Financial Services Issues: A Consumer's Perspective 
Before the Subcomm. On Financial Inst. and Consumer Credit, Sept. 15, 
2004, at 16-17 (statement of Tamara Draut, Director of Economic 
Opportunity Program, Demos).
    \93\Joshua M. Frank, Priceless or Just Expensive? The Use of 
Penalty Rates in the Credit Card Industry, Center For Responsible 
Lending, Dec. 16, 2008, at 1, available at http://
responsiblelending.org/pdfs/priceless-or-just-expensive.pdf.
    \94\Id.
    \95\Id.
    \96\Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer, Credit Card Penalties, Fees 
Bury Debtors, Wash. Post, March 6, 2005, available at http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A10361-2005Mar5.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Universal default provisions in credit card contracts allow 
credit card companies to raise interest rates for debtors who 
are late with payments, exceed credit limits, or otherwise have 
troubles with other creditors.\97\ Some critics contend that it 
is unfair and abusive for credit card issuers to charge a 
higher interest rate when the borrower has met his or her 
obligations to that issuer.\98\ Card issuers respond that 
interest rate penalties that increase because of universal 
default are related to the credit risk of the borrower.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\Bill Burt, Universal Default Rules Explained, bankrate.com, 
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/credit-management/20040120a1.asp.
    \98\See, e.g., Legislative Hearing Regarding H.R. 627, The Credit 
Cardholders' Bill of Rights of 2009 and H.R. 1456, The Consumer 
Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act of 2009 Before the Subcomm. on 
Financial Inst. and Consumer Credit of the H. Comm. on Fin. Servs., 
111th Cong. 17 (2009) (statement of Travis B. Plunkett, Legislative 
Director, Consumer Federation of America and Edmund Mierzwinski, 
Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group) 
(contending that it ``is fundamentally unfair to impose a penalty 
interest rate on a consumer who has not made a late payment or 
defaulted on an obligation'').
    \99\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the last two decades, credit card issuers marketed 
aggressively to groups of borrowers that did not previously 
have much access to consumer credit, including moderate and 
low-income, financially troubled, college-age, elderly, and 
minority borrowers. On the one hand, these efforts gave many 
consumers a degree of purchasing power that they were once 
denied. On the other hand, whether because of a lack of 
extensive experience with consumer credit products or because 
of a lack of sufficient financial wherewithal, these types of 
borrowers were particularly vulnerable to being trapped by 
credit card debt, a problem exacerbated by the fact that such 
borrowers were also more likely to miss payments or exceed 
credit limits, thereby triggering the penalty fees and interest 
rates that significantly increase their debt.\100\ Lower income 
borrowers are more likely to rely on the credit cards for 
borrowing rather than simply for convenience.\101\ They are 
also more likely to carry a monthly balance.\102\ Arguably, the 
onus should be on the lender to foresee the financial trouble 
that such types of borrowers could end up in, rather than 
encouraging the most vulnerable consumers to accrue 
unsustainable debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer, Credit Card Penalties, 
Fees Bury Debtors, Washington Post, March 6, 2005, available at http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10361-2005Mar5.html; Jennifer 
Wheary and Tamara Draut, Who Pays? The Winners and Losers of Credit 
Card Deregulation, Demos, August 1, 2007, p. 1 (finding that 
cardholders earning less than $50,000 a year were twice as likely to 
pay interest rates above 20 percent and that African-American and 
Latino card holders were more likely than whites to pay interest rates 
higher than 20 percent].
    \101\See Gallup Poll News Service, Average American Owes $2900 in 
Credit Card Debt, April 16, 2004 (showing that households earning less 
than $40,000 per year owed between 11% and 14.3% of their income in 
credit card debt, in contrast to households earning more than $100,000 
owing 2.3%).
    \102\See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, ``Report 
to the Congress on Practices of the Consumer Credit Industry in 
Soliciting and Extending Credit and their Effects on Consumer Debt and 
Insolvency,'' June 2006 at 9 (stating that 61% of lowest income 
households with a credit card carry balances).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Credit card lenders also often market aggressively to those 
exiting bankruptcy.\103\ Lenders do so because consumers 
exiting bankruptcy because such consumers have had their debts 
wiped and cannot have any new debts discharged for several 
years.\104\ Some bankruptcy attorneys and consumer advocates 
worry that this practice irresponsibly tempts desperate 
consumers.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\Caroline E. Mayer, Bankrupt and Swamped with Credit Offers, 
Washington Post, April 15, 2005, available at http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54745-2005Apr14.html.
    \104\Id.
    \105\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 2, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on ``Consumer Debt: Are 
Credit Cards Bankrupting Americans?'' The witnesses were Adam 
Levitin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law 
Center; David John of the Heritage Foundation; Edmund 
Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest 
Research Group; and Brett Weiss, a consumer bankruptcy attorney 
with the firm of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA, on behalf of 
the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

The Continuing Home Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis

    Summary.--The most recent statistics continue to paint a 
grim picture of the Nation's home foreclosure crisis. Between 
December 2007 and September 2010, more than 2.3 million homes 
were lost to foreclosure. One in every 78 households received 
at least one foreclosure filing in the first 6 months of this 
year. Sales of new and existing homes fell to the lowest levels 
on record in July 2010. Seven to 8 million U.S. homes are 
vacant or in the foreclosure process. Owners of about 11 
million homes, or 23 percent of households with a mortgage, 
owed more than their property was worth as of June 30, 2010. 
Nearly 8% of both African Americans and Latinos have lost their 
homes to foreclosure as compared to 4.5% of whites. Analysts 
project that between 10 and 13 million foreclosures will have 
occurred by the time the crisis abates, as reported by the 
Center for Responsible Lending.
    Bank repossessions of foreclosed homes increased 38% in the 
second quarter of 2010, for a record total of 269,952 for the 
quarter, and the number of repossessions of foreclosed homes is 
expected to top 1 million by year's end.\106\ This was a 5% 
jump from the previous quarter.\107\ Foreclosure filings--
including default and auction notices and bank repossessions--
were reported on 932,234 properties in the first quarter of 
2010, a 7 percent increase from the previous quarter and a 16 
percent increase from the first quarter of 2009.\108\ In the 
first quarter of 2010, one in 138 U.S. households received a 
foreclosure filing.\109\ In 2009, a record 3 million homeowners 
received foreclosure notices.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\Alejandro Lazo, U.S. Home Foreclosures Reach Record High in 
Second Quarter, L.A. Times, July 15, 2010, available at http://
www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-foreclosures-
20100715,0,5786857.story.
    \107\Id.
    \108\David M. Kinchen, Realty Trac: Foreclosures Up 7% in First 
Quarter 2010, huntingtonnews.net, April 15, 2010, available at http://
www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100415-kinchen-columnsforeclosures.html.
    \109\Id.
    \110\Janet Morrissey, Still Hunting for a Bottom in Housing, Time, 
Jan. 7, 2010, available at http://www.time.com/time/business/article/
0,8599,1952132,00.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The dramatic growth in the number of home foreclosures 
began four years ago. In 2006, there were 1.2 million 
foreclosures in the United States, representing an increase of 
42 percent over the prior year.\111\ From 2007 through 2008, 
mortgage foreclosures were estimated to result in ``a whopping 
$400 billion worth of defaults and $100 billion in losses to 
investors in mortgage securities,''\112\ translating into 
``roughly one per 62 American households . . . .''\113\ For 
example, the Mortgage Bankers Association issued a report in 
2007 stating that the ``number of Americans who fell behind on 
their mortgage payments rose to a 20-year high in the third 
quarter'' of the prior year.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\Nelson D. Schwartz, Can the Mortgage Crisis Swallow a Town?, 
N.Y. Times, Sept. 4, 2007.
    \112\Op-ed, Mark Zandi, The Mortgage Mess, Boston Globe, July 22, 
2007. Similarly, the Center for Responsible Lending, estimated that 20 
percent of subprime home loans made between 2005 and 2006 could end in 
foreclosure. Geraldine Fabrikant, After Foreclosure, a Big Tax Bill 
From the I.R.S., N.Y. Times, Aug. 20, 2007.
    In 2007, up to 2 million households were at risk of losing their 
homes through foreclosure. See, e.g., Steve Lohr, Loan by Loan, the 
Making of a Credit Squeeze, N.Y. Times, Aug. 19, 2007, at 1 Bus. Sec.; 
Evolution of an Economic Crisis? The Subprime Lending Disaster and the 
Threat to the Broader Economy: Hearing Before the Joint Economic 
Committee, 110th Cong. (2007) (prepared testimony of Martin Eakes, CEO 
of the Center for Responsible Lending) (citing a range of projected 
foreclosures with the highest at 1.7 million); Roger Lowenstein, 
Subprime Time--How Did Homeownership Become So Rickety, N.Y. Times 
Magazine, Sept. 2, 2007, at 11.
    \113\Nelson D. Schwartz, Can the Mortgage Crisis Swallow a Town?, 
N.Y. Times, Sept. 4, 2007.
    \114\Brian Louis, Paulson Mortgage Plan Surfaces Too Late to Stem 
Housing Slide, Bloomberg.com (Dec. 7, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The glut of foreclosures has adversely affected new home 
sales and depressed home values generally. Federal Reserve 
Chairman Ben Bernanke in January 2008 acknowledged that 
``housing starts and new home sales have both fallen by about 
50 percent from their respective peaks.''\115\ The Wall Street 
Journal reported in October 2008, ``The relentless slide in 
home prices has left nearly one in six U.S. homeowners owing 
more on a mortgage than the home is worth, raising the 
possibility of a rise in defaults--the very misfortune that 
touched off the credit crisis [in 2007].''\116\ The Journal 
explained that more foreclosures are likely ``because it is 
hard for borrowers in financial trouble to refinance or sell 
their homes and pay off their mortgage if their debt exceeds 
the home's value.''\117\ As a result, home values nationwide 
have fallen an average of 19% from their peak in 2006 and this 
``price plunge has wiped out trillions of dollars in home 
equity.''\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Speech at the Women 
in Housing and Finance and Exchequer Club Joint Luncheon, Washington, 
DC (Jan. 10, 2008), at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/
bernanke20080110a.htm; see, e.g., Brian Louis, Paulson Mortgage Plan 
Surfaces Too Late to Stem Housing Slide, Bloomberg.com (Dec. 7, 2007) 
(reporting 48 percent drop in new home sales since 2005).
    \116\James R. Hagerty & Ruth Simon, Housing Pain Gauge: Nearly 1 in 
6 Owners ``Under Water''--More Defaults and Foreclosures Are Likely as 
Borrowers with Greater Debt Than Value in Their Homes Are Put in a 
Tight Spot, Wall St. J., Oct. 8, 2008, at A5.
    \117\Id.
    \118\Dennis Cauchon, Why Home Values May Take Decades To Recover, 
U.S.A. Today, Dec. 12, 2008, at 1A; see also Bob Willis & Shobhana 
Chandra, U.S. Economy: Housing Prices Collapse at Near-Depression Pace, 
Bloomberg.com (Dec. 23, 2008) (``Sales of single-family houses in the 
U.S. dropped in November [2008] by the most in two decades and resale 
prices collapsed at a pace reminiscent of the Great Depression, dashing 
hopes that the market was close to a bottom.''); Shobhana Chandra, U.S. 
Home Resales Fall; Prices Drop by Record 13.2%, Bloomberg.com (Dec. 23, 
2008); Kathleen M. Howley, Mortgage Delinquencies, Foreclosures Rise to 
Record, Bloomberg.com (Dec. 5, 2008) (reporting that the median home 
price in the fourth quarter of 2008 will be 19% lower from the record 
in 2006's second quarter, according to a November 24, 2008 forecast by 
Fannie Mae, the world's largest mortgage buyer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are substantial societal and economic costs of home 
foreclosures that adversely impact American families, their 
neighbors, communities and municipalities. Foreclosures depress 
home values across entire communities. A single foreclosure 
``could impose direct costs on local government agencies 
totaling more than $34,000.''\119\ Federal Reserve Chairman Ben 
Bernanke noted, ``At the level of the individual community, 
increases in foreclosed-upon and vacant properties tend to 
reduce house prices in the local area, affecting other 
homeowners and municipal tax bases.''\120\ As a consequence of 
nearby foreclosures on subprime loans, forty million homeowners 
may see their property values decline as by more than $350 
billion.\121\ Last year, home equity losses totaled $7 
trillion.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\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).
    \120\Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, Remarks at the 
Independent Community Bankers Conference (Mar. 4, 2008) (reprinted by 
Bloomberg.com, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=20601068&sid=apeU.0IaETdM&refer=economy).
    \121\See Center for Responsible Lending, Updated Projections of 
Subprime Foreclosures in the United States and Their Impact on Home 
Values and Communities, Aug. 2008, available at http://
www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/updated-foreclosure-and-spillover-
brief-8-18.pdf.
    \122\Janet Morrissey, Still Hunting for a Bottom in Housing, Time, 
Jan. 7, 2010, available at http://www.time.com/time/business/article/
0,8599,1952132,00.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law held two oversight hearings on the 
Treasury Department's Home Affordable Modification Program. On 
July 9, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing on ``Home 
Foreclosures: Will Voluntary Mortgage Modification Help 
Families Save Their Homes.'' The witnesses were: Alan M. White, 
Assistant Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of 
Law; James H. Carr, Chief Operating Officer, National Community 
Reinvestment Coalition; Mark Calabria, Ph.D., Director of 
Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute; and Irwin Trauss, 
Philadelphia Legal Assistance. On December 11, 2009, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on ``Home Foreclosures: Will 
Voluntary Mortgage Modification Help Families Save Their Homes? 
Part II.'' The witnesses were: Adam Levitin, Georgetown 
University Law Center; Faith Schwartz, HOPE NOW; Margery 
Golant, Golant & Golant, P.A.; and Henry H. Hildebrand, III, 
National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees.
    The Subcommittee also held a hearing on ``The Role of the 
Lending Industry in the Home Foreclosure Crisis'' on September 
9, 2009. The witnesses were: the Hon. Elizabeth Magner, United 
States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana; 
Lewis D. Wrobel, Attorney at Law; Joseph Mason, Ph.D., 
Associate Professor, Department of Finance, E.J. Ourso College 
of Business, Louisiana State University; and Suzanne Sangree, 
Chief Solicitor, Baltimore City Department of Law.
    On July 19, 2010, the Committee held a briefing at the 
Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis. 
There were three witness panels. Panel I consisted of: the 
Honorable A C Wharton, Mayor, City of Memphis and Webb Brewer, 
Brewer & Barlow PLC. Panel II consisted of the Honorable David 
Kennedy, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the 
Western District of Tennessee and the Honorable Jennie Latta, 
Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District 
of Tennessee. Panel III consisted of Dr. Phyllis Betts, 
Director, Center for Community Building and Neighborhood 
Action, University of Memphis; Sapna Raj, Attorney, Memphis 
Area Legal Services; Steve Lockwood, Executive Director, 
Frayser Community Development Corporation; Beverly Anderson, 
Community Development Council of Greater Memphis; and Scott 
Bernstein, Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Auto Industry Bankruptcies

    Summary.--The Committee devoted substantial efforts at 
examining the repercussions of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy 
filings by Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corporation in 2009 
on American jobs, consumers, and the Nation's bankruptcy 
system. Over the course of three hearings, the Committee and 
its Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law heard 
from a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the automobile 
industry as well as the government officials tasked with 
overseeing the industry's restructuring.
    Among the issues that the Committee and its Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law examined were: the impact of 
the termination of numerous G.M. and Chrysler automobile 
dealerships; the risk that the asset sales involving the viable 
assets of G.M. and Chrysler may have constituted impermissible 
sub rosa plans that undermined chapter 11's reorganization plan 
requirements; the treatment of those with tort claims against 
Old G.M. and Old Chrysler; the treatment of future asbestos 
claims; and the impact of the G.M. and Chrysler bankruptcies on 
auto parts suppliers.
    The full Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on 
``Ramifications of Auto Industry Bankruptcies'' on May 21, 
2009. The witnesses were: Professor Lynn LoPucki, UCLA Law 
School; Damon Lester, President, National Association of 
Minority Auto Dealers; Randy Henderson, Owner, Webster Chrysler 
Jeep Inc, appearing on behalf of National Automobile Dealers 
Association; Andrew Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, 
Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation; 
Clarence Ditlow, President, Center for Auto Safety; Ralph 
Nader, Consumer Advocate; Joan Claybrook President Emeritus, 
Public Citizen; Bruce Fein, Principal, The Lichfield Group; and 
Professor David Arthur Skeel, University of Pennsylvania Law 
School.
    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held 
a hearing on ``Ramifications of Auto Industry Bankruptcies, 
Part II'' on Tuesday, July 21, 2009. The sole witness at the 
hearing was Ron Bloom, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held 
a hearing on ``Ramifications of Auto Industry Bankruptcies, 
Part III'' on Wednesday, July 22, 2009. Witnesses on the first 
panel of that hearing included Louann Van Der Wiele, Vice 
President and Associate General Counsel, Chrysler Group LLC; 
Kevyn D. Orr, Jones Day, bankruptcy counsel for Chrysler LLC; 
Michael J. Robinson, Vice-President and General Counsel of 
North America, General Motors Company; and Harvey Miller, Weil 
Gotshal, bankruptcy counsel for General Motors Corporation. 
Witnesses on the second panel included Professor Douglas Baird, 
University of Chicago Law School; Daniel J. Ikenson, Associate 
Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, CATO Institute; 
Richard Mourdock, Indiana State Treasurer; Jeremy Warriner, 
claimant against Chrysler LLC; John J. Fitzgerald, President, 
Fitzgerald Auto Malls; Jim Tarbox, President, Tarbox Motors, 
Inc.; Greg Williams, formerly of Huntington Chevrolet; and 
Robert G. Knapp, Knapp Chevrolet.

Legal Services Corporation

    Summary.--The Judiciary Committee has oversight 
jurisdiction over the Legal Services Corporation. Established 
in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a private, 
nonprofit, federally funded corporation that helps provide 
legal assistance to low-income individuals and families in 
civil matters by distributing congressionally appropriated 
federal funds in the form of grants to local legal services 
providers.\123\ These providers offer legal assistance to low-
income clients in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 
the United States territories. Although Congress has not 
authorized Federal funds for LSC since FY1980, Congress 
continues to appropriate LSC funds annually. Legal aid 
advocates contend that the funding is inadequate to meet the 
growing need for legal assistance to the poor and contains 
onerous restrictions. Many of the restrictions exist due to the 
controversial nature of LSC and its mission. Further, recent 
critical audits and reports have kept LSC and its grantees in 
the spotlight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-355, 88 
Stat. 378, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2996 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hearings.--On October 27, 2009, the CAL Subcommittee held a 
hearing on the Legal Services Corporation.\124\ The hearing 
consisted of two witness panels. The first panel included 
Helaine Barnett, the President of the Legal Services 
Corporation and Michael D. McKay, Vice Chairman of the Board of 
the Legal Services Corporation. The second witness panel 
included: H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Immediate Past President of the 
American Bar Association and a partner at Maynard, Cooper & 
Gale, P.C.; Harrison McIver, Executive Director and CEO of 
Memphis Area Legal Services, Inc.; Don Saunders, Director of 
the Civil Legal Services Division at the National Legal Aid and 
Defender Association; and Susan Ragland, Director, Financial 
Management and Assurance Team, Government Accountability 
Office. The hearing allowed the Members to receive testimony 
from LSC regarding the criticisms of its activities and 
internal controls, and its recently released report on the 
unmet civil legal needs of low-income persons, and from 
witnesses who advocate increased funding for LSC and 
eliminating the restrictions placed on the spending of LSC 
grantee programs. The witnesses also discussed legislation to 
re-authorize LSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\The Legal Services Corporation: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on 
Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 
(2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal Arbitration Act

    Summary.--The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the 
Federal Arbitration Act, Title 9 of the United States Code. On 
February 12, 1925 Congress codified the use of arbitration 
through the Federal Arbitration Act.\125\ Title 9 was adopted 
as a means to put arbitration agreements in commercial and 
admiralty contracts\126\ on the same footing as other 
contracts, and as a way to avoid the costly and time consuming 
litigation process.\127\ Arbitration law establishes 
alternative dispute resolution procedures for certain types of 
disputes\128\ with an eye towards keeping those disputes out of 
court, thereby facilitating efficient adjudication.\129\ The 
Supreme Court has interpreted the Act to supersede all state 
laws that conflict with the spirit of the Act.\130\ In order to 
facilitate settlements by arbitration, Title 9 provides a 
strong presumption that courts will enforce determinations 
arrived at under this process.\131\ Though avenues for judicial 
review of arbitration determinations exist and have been 
utilized by parties, the title itself has rarely been amended. 
The Supreme Court has upheld arbitration clauses in a wide 
array of contracts by recognizing Congress' expansive powers 
under the Commerce Clause.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. For an analysis of the legislative history 
of the Federal Arbitration Act, see Margaret L. Moses, Statutory 
Misconstruction: How the Supreme Court Created a Federal Arbitration 
Law Never Enacted by Congress, 34 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 99, 101-114 (Fall 
2006).
    \126\As Representative Graham noted in the House floor debate in 
1924, ``[t]his bill simply provides for one thing, and that is to give 
an opportunity to enforce an agreement in commercial contracts and 
admiralty contracts--an agreement to arbitrate, when voluntarily placed 
in the document by the parties to it.'' 68 Cong. Rec. 1931 (1924).
    \127\See H.R. Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1924).
    \128\Legislative history reveals that Congress intended the Federal 
Arbitration Act to cover disputes between merchants of approximately 
equal strength, Arbitration of Interstate Commercial Disputes: Hearing 
of S. 1005 and H.R. 646 Before the J. Comm. of Subcomms. on the 
Judiciary, 68th Cong. 10 (1924), but not involving disputes with 
workers, Sales and Contracts to Sell in Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, and Federal Commercial Arbitration: Hearing on S. 4213 and S. 
4214 Before a Subcomm. of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 67th Cong. 9, 
14 (1923), or disputes where the arbitration agreement could be 
considered an adhesion contract, Arbitration of Interstate Commercial 
Disputes: Hearing of S. 1005 and H.R. 646 Before the J. Comm. of 
Subcomms. on the Judiciary, 68th Cong. 15 (1924).
    \129\Matthew Parrott, Is Compulsory Court-Annexed Medical 
Malpractice Arbitration Constitutional? How the Debate Reflects a Trend 
Towards Compulsion in Alternative Dispute Resolution, 75 Fordham L. 
Rev. 2685, 2692. (Apr. 2007).
    \130\Preston v. Ferrer, 128 S. Ct. 978, 987 (2008) (``When parties 
agree to arbitrate all questions arising under a contract, the [Federal 
Arbitration Act] supersedes state laws . . .'').
    \131\See 68 Cong. Rec. 1931 (1924).
    \132\See, e.g., Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 
513 U.S. 265 (1995); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 
20 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although arbitration was initially conceived as a 
privately-run, voluntary process for resolving disputes, mainly 
between businesses, written and oral testimony from 
Congressional hearings during the 110th Congress indicated that 
the use of arbitration had expanded in the last twenty years. 
Many businesses are now requiring arbitration of disputes in 
their consumer, employment, and franchise relationships. 
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.\133\ The secret nature of arbitration, the 
ability of the drafter to dictate the terms of the arbitration 
process, and the apparent loss of civil protections when 
compared to a court proceeding have created controversy among 
consumer and employee advocates and small business owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\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. Several 
recent developments necessitated the CAL Subcommittee to hold 
hearings generally on arbitration.
    Legislative History.--On May 5, 2009, the CAL Subcommittee 
held a hearing entitled ``The Federal Arbitration Act: Is the 
Credit Card Industry Using the Act to Quash Legal 
Claims?''\134\ The witnesses who testified at the hearing 
included: Michael Donovan, a principal of Donovan Searles, LLC; 
Professor Richard Frankel, Drexel University Law School; 
Professor Christopher R. Drahozal, the University of Kansas 
School of Law; and David Arkush, Director of Congress Watch. 
The hearing provided CAL Subcommittee members the opportunity 
to hear testimony on mandatory binding arbitration clauses in 
credit card contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\The Federal Arbitration Act: Is the Credit Card Industry Using 
the Act to Quash Legal Claims: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Com. and 
Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 15, 2009, the CAL Subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``Mandatory Binding Arbitration: Is It Fair and 
Voluntary?''\135\ The hearing consisted of two witness panels. 
The first panel included Representative Linda Sanchez (CA-39) 
and Representative Hank Johnson (GA-4), who each discussed 
their respective legislation amending the Federal Arbitration 
Act.\136\ The second witness panel included: Alison Hirschel, a 
professor at the University of Michigan Law School and speaking 
on behalf of NCCNHR: The National Consumer Voice for Long-Term 
Care; Cliff Palefsky, a principal with McGuinn, Hillsman & 
Palefsky, P.C., who spoke on behalf of the National Employment 
Lawyers Association; Stuart Rossman, an attorney with the 
National Consumer Law Center; and Stephen Ware, a professor at 
the University of Kansas School of Law. The hearing provided 
CAL Subcommittee members the opportunity to hear testimony on 
mandatory binding arbitration clauses generally and 
specifically about each introduced bill on arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\Mandatory Binding Arbitration: Is It Fair and Voluntary: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on 
the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2009).
    \136\On February 26, 2009, Representative Linda T. Sanchez 
introduced H.R. 1237, the ``Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 
2009''. On February 12, 2009, Representative Hank Johnson introduced 
H.R. 1020, the ``Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Taxation Affecting Interstate Commerce

    Summary.--The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over 
state taxation affecting interstate commerce. The CAL 
Subcommittee held a series of hearings to discuss the major 
principles underlying several of the legislative proposals 
before Congress and the Committee. These principles include 
nexus and apportionment, and the impact of each on State and 
local government revenues. Specifically, States currently levy 
a tax on income earned or on a transaction occurring in part 
within its borders. States may levy and the taxpayer is liable 
only if there exists a nexus, or connection, between the State 
and the taxpayer. Several individuals and businesses have 
approached Congress to contend that some states have imposed 
taxes without sufficient nexus over the individuals or 
businesses. Some states have urged Congress to grant the States 
the authority to require remote sellers, with whom the States 
do not have sufficient nexus, to collect and remit taxes for 
certain transactions. Many legislative proposals, introduced or 
discussed in response to taxpayers' or States' concerns, would 
limit or expand the ability of states to levy a tax or a fee by 
establishing or solidifying what constitutes sufficient nexus.
    Once a state establishes nexus over the income, property, 
or activity of the taxpayer, the taxpayer is liable to pay the 
tax. But how do states determine what portion of the total 
value of a multi-state taxpayer's property, income, and 
receipts that each state is entitled to tax and the taxpayer is 
liable to remit? Currently, states attribute the amount of 
property, income, and receipts for tax purposes based on 
different methods. Some contend that these methods burden 
interstate commerce.
    Legislative History.--On February 4, 2010, the CAL 
Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``State Taxation: The Role 
of Congress in Defining Nexus.''\137\ The witnesses who 
testified at the hearing included: Professor Walter 
Hellerstein, University of Georgia Law School; Joseph Crosby, 
Chief Operating Officer and Senior Director of Policy for the 
Council on State Taxation; and Commissioner R. Bruce Johnson, 
Utah Tax Commission. The hearing provided CAL Subcommittee 
members the opportunity to review the intricacies of nexus and 
its impact on state taxation. The hearing also provided CAL 
Subcommittee members the opportunity to examine the pending 
legislation and legislative proposals before the CAL 
Subcommittee concerning state taxation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\State Taxation: The Role of Congress in Defining Nexus: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on 
the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 15, 2010, the CAL Subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``State Taxation: The Impact of Congressional 
Legislation on State and Local Government Revenues.''\138\ The 
hearing consisted of two witness panels. The first panel 
included Vermont Governor James Douglas and Judge B. Glen 
Whitney, County Judge of Tarrant County, Texas, and President-
Elect of the National Association of Counties. The second 
witness panel included: Robert Ward, Deputy Director of the 
Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government; Joseph Henchman, 
Tax Counsel and Director of State Projects for the Tax 
Foundation; Kerri Korpi, Director of Research and Collective 
Bargaining Services at the American Federation of State, County 
and Municipal Employees; and Scott Pattison, Executive Director 
of the National Association of State Budget Officers. The 
hearing provided CAL Subcommittee members the opportunity to 
receive testimony concerning the current financial situation of 
state and local governments. The hearing also provided a 
platform to discuss the impact of federal legislative proposals 
affecting state taxation and revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\State Taxation: The Impact of Congressional Legislation on 
State and Local Government Revenues: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on 
Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 6, 2010, the CAL Subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``State Taxation: The Role of Congress in Developing 
Apportionment Standards.''\139\ The witnesses who testified at 
the hearing included: Professor John Swain, University of 
Arizona College of Law; Daniel De Jong, Tax Counsel for Tax 
Executives Institute; and Jim Eads, Executive Director of the 
Federation of Tax Administrators. The hearing provided CAL 
Subcommittee members the opportunity to review the intricacies 
of the division of tax bases for multi-state enterprises and 
how the methods impact interstate commerce and state taxation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\State Taxation: The Role of Congress in Developing 
Apportionment Standards: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Com. and Admin. 
Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voice over Internet Protocol

    Summary.--Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is both a 
communication technology and service which allows users to 
communicate with others across the country or internationally 
over the Internet inexpensively and virtually simultaneous. The 
pricing and ease of use have led to the rapid growth of VoIP. 
In fact, from 2004 to October 2008, the number of VoIP 
subscribers within the United States increased from fewer than 
1 million to over 18.5 million. However, this expansion and 
predicted explosion in use have overwhelmed state and local 
taxing authorities and VoIP service providers because there 
exists no clear and Constitutional taxing model. Further, 
because VoIP offers advantages over traditional analog voice 
services, some estimate that VoIP could completely supplant 
traditional voice services in less than 15 years.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\Jim Nason, VoIP: New Technology Versus Legacy Tax Policy, 
(February 2005), available at http://www.tmcnet.com/voip/0205/VoIP-New-
Technology-Versus-Legacy-Tax-Policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    History.--On March 31, 2009, the CAL Subcommittee held a 
hearing entitled ``VoIP: Who Has Jurisdiction to Tax It?''\141\ 
Witnesses who testified at the hearing included: John Barnes, 
Director of Product Management and Development for Verizon; 
Robert Cole, Tax Research Manager for Sprint Nextel; Wisconsin 
Representative Phil Montgomery, Chair of the National Council 
of State Legislators Committee on Communications, Financial 
Services & Interstate Commerce; and James R. Eads, Jr., 
Executive Director of the Federation of Tax Administrators. The 
hearing afforded the Members of the CAL Subcommittee an 
opportunity to review the issues concerning State and local 
taxation of VoIP and to discuss potential legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\VoIP: Who Has Jurisdiction to Tax It?: Hearing Before the 
Subcomm. on Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th 
Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS)

    Summary.--The Administrative Conference of the United 
States (ACUS) is an independent, non-partisan agency devoted to 
analyzing the administrative law process and providing guidance 
to Congress. ACUS began operations with the appointment and 
confirmation of its first Chairman in 1968. ACUS ceased 
operations on October 31, 1995, due to termination of funding 
by Congress, but the statutory provisions establishing ACUS 
were not repealed. Subsequently, Congress reauthorized ACUS in 
2004, but no funds were appropriated. Congress reauthorized 
ACUS again in 2008, and in 2009 authorized $3.2 million for 
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011 for ACUS. ACUS was 
officially re-established in March 2010, when the Senate 
confirmed President Obama's nominee as Chairman, Paul Verkuil.
    Legislative History.--On May 20, 2010, after Chairman 
Verkuil's nomination was confirmed by the Senate, the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (``CAL'') 
held a hearing on the Administrative Conference of the United 
States. The hearing consisted of two panels. The first panel 
included two witnesses: The Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, 
Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, DC; and, The 
Honorable Antonin G. Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme 
Court, Washington, DC. The second panel included testimony from 
four witnesses: Mr. Paul R. Verkuil, Chairman, Administrative 
Conference of the United States; Ms. Sally Katzen, Executive 
Managing Director, Podesta Group; Mr. Jeffrey S. Lubbers, 
Professor of Practice in Administrative Law, American 
University Washington College of Law; and, Curtis W. Copeland, 
Ph.D., Specialist in American National Government, 
Congressional Research Service.
    No further action on ACUS was taken in the 111th Congress.

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

    Summary.--The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA) is a Federal office established by Congress in the 1980 
Paperwork Reduction Act, and is part of the Office of 
Management and Budget, within the Executive Office of the 
President. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA reviews all 
collections of information by the Federal Government. OIRA also 
develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide 
policies in several areas, including information quality and 
statistical standards. In addition, OIRA reviews draft 
regulations under Executive Order 12866.
    The Office of the Administrator within OIRA was created by 
Congress as part of the establishment of OIRA in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980. The Senate confirmed President Obama's 
nomination for Administrator, Cass R. Sunstein, on September 
10, 2009.
    Legislative History.--On July 27, 2010, the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL) held a hearing on 
Federal Rulemaking and the Regulatory Process. The hearing 
consisted of two panels. The first panel included Cass R. 
Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Executive Office of the President, 
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. The second 
panel included four witnesses: Sally Katzen, Senior Advisor/
Consultant, Podesta Group, and former Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA''), 
Washington, DC; Gary D. Bass, Ph.D., Executive Director, OMB 
Watch, Washington, DC; Richard A. Williams, Ph.D., Managing 
Director, Regulatory Studies Program and Government 
Accountability Project, Mercatus Center at George Mason 
University, Arlington, VA; and, Curtis W. Copeland, Ph.D., 
Specialist in American National Government--Government and 
Finance Division, Congressional Research Service, Washington, 
DC. No further action was taken on OIRA in the 111th Congress.
 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES\1\

JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WisconsinELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
TOM ROONEY, Florida                  ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
STEVE KING, Iowa                     Virginia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     Georgia
                                     TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
                                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
                                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
                                     SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
                                     JUDY CHU, California

--------------------
\1\Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 22, 2009.

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.........................   174
Legislation on which hearings were held..........................     6
Legislation reported favorably to the full Committee.............     2
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....................     1
Legislation reported to the House................................     2
Legislation discharged from the Committee........................     2
Legislation pending in the House.................................     1
Legislation failed passage by the House..........................     1
Legislation passed by the House (including suspensions)..........    20
Legislation pending in the Senate................................     0
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).............     0
Legislation enacted into Public Law..............................     1
Days of legislative hearings.....................................     5
Days of oversight hearings.......................................    23

                         Legislative Activities


H.R. 157, the ``District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 157, the ``District of Columbia House Voting 
Rights Act of 2009,'' would treat the District of Columbia as a 
single Congressional District for the purpose of granting 
voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 
legislation would increase the size of the House of 
Representatives by two seats, proving one voting seat for the 
District of Columbia and one other state, which would be Utah, 
the state next in line to receive a seat based on the 2000 
Census. Following the 2012 Census, one of the additional seats 
would be allocated based on that Census, and one would be 
retained by the District of Columbia.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 157 was introduced by Delegate 
Eleanor Holmes Norton on January 6, 2009, and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On January 27, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties held a hearing on H.R. 157 the ``District of Columbia 
House Voting Rights Act of 2009.'' In examining this 
legislative approach to securing voting representation in the 
U.S. House of Representatives for residents of the District of 
Columbia, witnesses provided testimony on the constitutionality 
of this approach. Some witnesses also discussed the experiences 
of residents of the District of Columbia, who do not have 
voting representation in Congress, but who are treated like 
U.S. citizens in every other regard, such as taxation and 
military service.
    The hearing consisted of two witness panels. Testifying on 
the first panel were House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, former 
Representative Tom Davis, Representative Jason Chaffetz, and 
Representative Louie Gohmert. Testifying on the second panel 
were Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights; Captain Yolanda Lee, of the 
District of Columbia Army National Guard; Professor Viet Dinh, 
Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, 
former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy at the 
U.S. Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003; and Professor 
Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice Shapiro Professor of Public 
Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
    On February 25, 2009, the Judiciary Committee met to 
consider H.R. 157. the Committee approved an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Nadler and Mr. Conyers by 
a vote of 24 to 5. The Committee also considered the following 
amendments: An amendment offered by Mr. Smith, to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Nadler and Mr. 
Conyers, providing for intervention and standing by Members of 
Congress in any action challenging the constitutionality of 
H.R. 157. The amendment failed by a vote of 15 to 15. An 
amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, requiring Utah to redistrict into four 
single-member districts. The amendment failed by a vote of 9 to 
19. A motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair 
that an amendment offered by Mr. Chaffetz to amend the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, repealing the Office 
of the District of Columbia Delegate, is non-germane. The 
motion to table was agreed to by a vote of 17 to 11. An 
amendment offered by Mr. Issa to the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, increasing the U.S. House of Representatives to 
436, providing a seat only for the District of Columbia, and 
eliminating the additional seat for Utah. The amendment failed 
by a vote of 12 to 20. An amendment offered by Mr. Chaffetz to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, providing that 
H.R. 157 cannot be construed to suggest that the District of 
Columbia should have Senate representation. The amendment 
failed by a vote of 12 to 18. The Committee reported H.R. 157 
favorably, as amended, by a vote of 20 to 12. H. Rept. 111-22. 
The bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 8.

H.R. 847, the ``James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 
        2009''

    Summary.--This legislation would establish both a health 
care and health monitoring program for first responders and 
other individuals suffering serious health problems caused by 
exposure to toxic materials in the wake of the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001. It would also reopen the Victim 
Compensation Fund (VCF) established after the attacks, to 
provide compensation to, and to resolve outstanding legal 
claims of, those individuals suffering the latent effects of 
that exposure. These individuals were unable to file for relief 
from the first VCF solely because their injuries had not become 
manifest before the Fund went out of existence. The VCF portion 
of the bill is within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committee.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 847 was introduced on February 
4, 2009, and was referred to the Committees on Energy and 
Commerce and Judiciary. On March 31, 2009, the Subcommittee 
held a hearing jointly with the Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, Refugees, and Border Security on H.R. 847, the 
``James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009'' (the 
Zadroga Act).
    Testifying were Kenneth Feinberg, Former Special Master, 
Victim Compensation Fund; Barbara Burnette, Detective, New York 
Police Department; Christine LaSala, Chief Executive Officer, 
World Trade Center Captive Insurance Fund; James Melius, MD, 
Administrator, N.Y.S. Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund; 
Michael Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, City of New York; Ted 
Frank, American Enterprise Institute; Rich Wood, President, 
Plaza Construction Corporation.
    The witnesses discussed the health impact of the attacks 
and its aftermath, the exposure to the toxic materials, the 
assurances received by governmental officials concerning the 
safety of the working environment, the legal status of the 
pending cases, and the economic impact on construction 
contractors who now have significant legal exposure as a result 
of having responded to the World Trade Center site, first as a 
rescue mission, then as a recovery operation. Mr. Feinberg 
discussed his experience with the first VCF, and discussed 
possible strategies for addressing the current situation.
    On July 29, 2010, it was ordered reported, as amended, by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and by the Committee on 
the Judiciary. H.Rpt. 111-560.
    It was considered by the House on July 29, 2010. A motion 
to suspend the rules and pass failed on a vote of 255-159. The 
House subsequently considered the legislation on September 29, 
2010. It passed on a vote of 268-160. Cloture on the motion to 
proceed to the bill was not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote 
of 57-42.

H.R. 984, the ``State Secret Protection Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 984, the State Secret Protection Act of 
2009, 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. 984 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 
Freedom of Information Act and Classified Information 
Procedures Act (CIPA)--legislation passed by Congress in 1980 
to govern court handling of secret information in criminal 
cases--and adjusted for civil litigation, H.R. 984 protects 
legitimate secrets from harmful disclosure while preventing 
abuse and maximizing the ability of litigants to achieve 
justice in the courts.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Nadler (D-NY) introduced H.R. 
984, the State Secret Protection Act of 2009, on February 11, 
2009. On June 4, 2009, the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing on H.R. 984, at 
which the following witnesses testified: Honorable Patricia 
Wald, retired Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia; Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Senior Partner, 
AH Law Group and former member of Congress (1997-2001), DEA 
Administrator (2001-2003), and DHS Undersecretary (2003-2005); 
Ben Wizner, Security Project Staff Attorney, American Civil 
Liberties Union; Andrew Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, 
The Heritage Foundation. Letters in support of H.R. 984 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; Lou Fisher, Specialist in 
Constitutional Law, Law Library of the Library of Congress; The 
Constitution Project; Human Rights First; American Association 
of Law Libraries et al.; the American Civil Liberties Union; 
and Public Citizen.
    Taken as a whole, witness testimony and additional 
materials submitted for this hearing established that:
    (1) Congress has the constitutional authority to codify the 
state secrets privilege and should exercise this authority in a 
way that ensures judicial review of the privilege that is both 
independent and meaningful.
    (2) Judges are well-qualified to handle and review 
sensitive national security information and have done so in 
other contexts, including under the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA), the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), and 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
    (3) Currently, there is little uniformity in how courts 
handle state secret privilege claims, and court dismissal of 
cases at the pleadings stage based on the prospective assertion 
from the Government that litigation inevitably will require 
disclosure of state secrets raises valid concern that such 
dismissals are not necessary or just.
    (4) H.R. 984 incorporates useful techniques that would 
prevent harmful disclosure of valid secrets while allowing 
cases to go forward whenever possible, including requiring 
courts to consider appointment of independent experts or 
special masters, requiring pre-hearing conferences to narrow 
the disputed issues and ensure that any necessary protective 
orders are in place, allowing the parties to conduct 
nonprivileged discovery, and requiring courts to consider 
whether substitutes are possible for privileged information.
    (5) H.R. 984 sets an appropriate standard of judicial 
review by requiring an independent assessment of the 
Government's claim and directing courts to weigh testimony of 
Government experts as they do other expert testimony. This 
necessarily requires consideration of the Government's unique 
expertise in national security or diplomatic affairs and its 
likely superior access to factual information relevant to its 
claim as well as its potential bias or conflict of interest, as 
appropriate or necessary based on the facts of the particular 
case.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\See, e.g., Legislative Hearing 111th Congress, tr. at 28 
(statement of Hon. Patricia M. Wald) (``H.R. 984 provides that the 
judge make his independent evaluation of the harm in a manner that 
weights the testimony of Government experts like those of other 
experts. Judges are confronted every day with expert testimony of all 
kinds and are accustomed to evaluating it on the basis of the expert's 
background, firsthand knowledge of the subject, and inherent 
credibility, as well as the consistency and persuasiveness of his 
testimony''); id., tr. at 32-3 (statement of Hon. Asa Hutchinson) (``I 
do not believe it is appropriate, as the companion Senate bill does, to 
include language requiring that executive branch assertions of the 
privilege be given `substantial weight.' The standard of review in H.R. 
984 provides proper respect for executive branch experts, whereas a 
`substantial weight' standard would unfairly tip the scales in favor of 
executive branch claims before the judge's evaluation occurs, and would 
undermine the thoroughness of the judge's own review.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 11, 2009, the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Civil Liberties reported the bill favorably, as 
amended, by a voice vote. On November 5, 2009, the Judiciary 
Committee ordered H.R. 984 favorably reported, as amended, by a 
roll call vote of 18 to 12.

H.R. 1843, the ``John Hope Franklin Tulsa-Greenwood Race Riot Claims 
        Accountability Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 1843 was introduced on April 1, 2009, by 
Rep. John Conyers. The legislation provides that any Greenwood, 
Oklahoma, claimant (survivors of the Tulsa, Oklahoma, Race Riot 
of 1921 or their descendants) who has not previously obtained a 
determination on the merits of a Greenwood claim may, in a 
civil action commenced within five years after the date of 
enactment, obtain that determination. On April 2, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties held markup of the legislation. The bill passed the 
subcommittee by voice vote, without amendment, and was referred 
to the full Committee for action.
    The Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma, was one of 
the nation's most prosperous African-American communities 
entering the decade of the Nineteen Twenties. Serving over 8000 
residents, the community boasted a commercial district known 
nationally as the ``Negro Wall Street.'' In May 1921, the 
community was burned to the ground and up to 300 of its 
residents were killed by a racist mob. In the wake of the 
violence, the State and local governments quashed claims for 
redress and effectively erased the incident from official 
memory. The suits were ultimately dismissed as time barred in 
Alexander v. State of Oklahoma 382 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2004). 
This legislation is named in honor of the late Dr. John Hope 
Franklin, the noted historian, who was a first-hand witness to 
the destructive impact that the riot had on the African-
American community of Tulsa.
    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. 3335, the ``Democracy Restoration Act of 2009''

    Summary.--On March 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing 
on the ``Democracy Restoration Act of 2009'' (H.R. 3335). An 
estimated 5.3 million American citizens are not permitted to 
vote because of a felony conviction, with the impact of voting 
prohibitions falling disproportionately on the minority 
community. As many as 4 million of these people have completed 
their sentences and lead normal, mainstream lives but remain 
unable to vote due to a past felony conviction. This 
legislation is designed to clarify and, in some cases, expand 
the voting rights of people with felony convictions.
    The hearing explored the history and impact of felony 
disenfranchisement on state and Federal voting systems and the 
legal basis for action by the Federal government. The following 
witnesses offered testimony on the legislation: Hilary O. 
Shelton, Director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau; Roger 
Clegg, President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal 
Opportunity; Burt Neuborn, Inez Milholland Professor of Civil 
Liberties at NYU School of Law; Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior 
Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation; Ion Sancho: Supervisor 
of Elections for Leon County, Florida; Carl Wicklund; Executive 
Director of the American Probation and Parole Association; and 
Andres Idarraga: a third year student at Yale Law School, and a 
person who was disenfranchised due to a prior felony 
conviction.
    Prior Congressional Consideration.--On October 21, 1999, 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the H.R. 
906, the ``Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act,'' the 
predecessor legislation to the ``Democracy Restoration Act.''

H.R. 3721, the ``Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act''

    Summary.--On June 10, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to examine the Supreme Court's decisions in Gross v. FBL 
Financial Services, Inc., where the Court ruled that a 
plaintiff cannot bring admixed-motive claim under the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and to consider H.R. 
3721, the bill introduced by Representative George Miller in 
response to Gross. Testimony was received from: Jocelyn 
Samuels, Senior Counselor, Civil Rights Division, Department of 
Justice; Jack Gross, plaintiff in Gross v. FBL Financial 
Services, Inc., Des Moines, Iowa; Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones 
Day, Washington, D.C.; and Helen Norton, Professor, University 
of Colorado Law School, Boulder, CO.
    In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme 
Court ruled in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. that a 
plaintiff cannot bring a mixed-motive claim under the ADEA and, 
instead, must always allege and prove that age was a ``but 
for'' cause of a challenged employment decision. In refusing to 
apply the statutory framework and precedent from Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment 
decisions motivated in whole or in part by a protected 
characteristic, the Gross majority departed from the widely 
accepted presumption that Title VII's framework and standards 
apply to related federal statutes.
    In October 2009, Representative George Miller, Chairman of 
the House Education and Labor Committee introduced H.R. 3721, 
the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act in 
response to Gross. H.R. 3721 seeks to ensure uniformity by 
amending the ADEA, and other federal laws, to make clear that 
Title VII's standards and framework apply and that unlawful 
discrimination is established when it is shown that a protected 
characteristic was a determinative (``but for'') factor or was 
a motivating factor in an adverse employment decision, even if 
other factors also motivated that decision.
    At the June 10, 2010 hearing, Ms. Samuels testified that, 
by rejecting ``its prior construction of identical language in 
Title VII,'' the Supreme Court raised the burden of proof for 
ADEA plaintiffs and ``effectively reduced the protections 
available to older workers.'' Ms. Samuels testified that lower 
courts already had begun to apply the Gross decision beyond the 
ADEA to claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
1990 (ADA), Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 
Family and Medical Leave Act and other laws, and that ``Gross 
has and will continue to create confusion and unpredictability 
in the law.'' Ms. Samuels supported legislation like H.R. 3721 
to ``create unity in the law, renew the ability of older 
workers and others to effectively challenge discrimination 
against them, and move us closer to realizing the law's promise 
of equal employment opportunity.''
    Plaintiff Jack Gross testified that he filed an age 
discrimination complaint after he was demoted despite 13 
consecutive years of performance reviews in the top 3 to 5 
percent of his company. A jury ruled in his favor, finding that 
Mr. Gross had shown that age was a motivating factor in the 
decision to demote him and that his employer did not prove that 
it would have demoted him regardless of his age. After the 
Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit overturned that verdict--
ruling that Mr. Gross needed direct evidence of 
discrimination--Mr. Gross appealed to the Supreme Court. Rather 
than ruling on the issue presented, whether or not a plaintiff 
needs direct evidence of discrimination to obtain a mixed-
motive jury instruction, the Supreme Court decided instead that 
shifting the burden of proof in age discrimination is never 
appropriate. Describing the Supreme Court's decision as a 
``bait and switch,'' Mr. Gross urged Congress to pass H.R. 3721 
to overturn the Gross decision.
    Mr. Dreiband agreed that the Supreme Court decision removed 
the availability of mixed-motive claims for ADEA plaintiffs, 
but testified that this was a benefit to older workers as it 
deprived employers of asserting and proving the ``same 
decision'' defense (i.e., that the employer would have made the 
same decision regardless of the plaintiff's age), which allows 
a successful employer to avoid money damages. Professor Norton 
disagreed with Mr. Dreiband's position that the removal of 
mixed-motive claims benefits plaintiff-employees, pointing to 
Mr. Gross's case as one example of a plaintiff who had been 
harmed--by having his jury verdict overturned--by the Court's 
decision. Professor Norton further testified that H.R. 3721 
would restore the longstanding rule for proving unlawful 
discrimination developed under Title VII, and that previously 
had governed claims under other civil rights laws like the 
ADEA.

H.R. 5751, the ``Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 5751 was introduced by Representative Mary 
Jo Kilroy to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to 
require registrants to pay an annual fee of $50, to impose a 
penalty of $500 for failure to file timely reports required by 
that Act, to provide for the use of the funds from such fees 
and penalties for reviewing and auditing filings by 
registrants, and for other purposes.
    Legislative History.--Representative Mary Jo Kilroy 
introduced H.R. 5751 on July 7, 2010 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On July 28, 2010 Representative 
Robert ``Bobby'' Scott moved to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill as amended and the resolution passed the U.S. House of 
Representatives by voice vote. On July 29, 2010 the bill was 
received by the U.S. Senate. On August 5, 2010 the bill was 
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

H.J. Res. 21, A Constitutional Amendment Concerning Senate Vacancies

    Summary.--H.J. Res. 21 would amend the U.S. Constitution to 
require that Senate vacancies be filled only by elections, and 
not by gubernatorial appointments. Under the XVIIth Amendment 
to the Constitution, states may elect to hold elections or to 
empower the executive of the state to make temporary 
appointments until the next general election.
    Legislative History.--H.J. Res. 21 was introduced on 
February 11, 2009 and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
    On March 11, 2009, the Subcommittee held a joint hearing 
with the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to 
examine proposed constitutional amendment, and its Senate 
companion, S.J. Res. 7.
    Testifying at the hearing were Senator Mark Begich; 
Representative David Dreier; Representative Aaron Schock; 
Vikram D. Amar, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and 
Professor of Law, University of California, Davis; Robert 
Edgar, President and CEO, Common Cause; Pamela S. Karlan, 
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, 
Stanford Law School; Kevin J. Kennedy, Director and General 
Counsel, Wisconsin Government Accountability Board; Thomas H. 
Neale, Specialist in American National Government, 
Congressional Research Service; David Segal, Analyst, FairVote 
and Rhode Island State Representative; Matthew Spalding, Ph.D, 
Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, The 
Heritage Foundation.

H. Res. 73, Observing the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and 
        encouraging the people of the United States to observe the 
        birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the life and legacy of 
        Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for other purposes

    Summary.--H. Res. 73 was introduced by Representative John 
Lewis to observe the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and 
encourage the people of the United States to observe the 
birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. In the face of hatred and 
violence, Dr. King preached a doctrine of nonviolence and civil 
disobedience to combat segregation, discrimination, and racial 
injustice, and believed that people have the moral capacity to 
care for other people. In 1968, Representative John Conyers 
introduced legislation to establish the birthday of Martin 
Luther King, Jr. as a Federal holiday. In 1983, Congress passed 
and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation creating the 
birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Lewis introduced 
H. Res. 73 on January 16, 2009 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On January 21, 2009, Representative 
John Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and the bill 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 134, Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther 
        King, Jr.'s visit to India, and the positive influence that the 
        teachings of Mahatma Gandhi had on Dr. King's work during the 
        Civil Rights Movement

    Summary.--H. Res. 134 was introduced by Representative John 
Lewis to recognize the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr.'s visit to India, and the positive influence that the 
teachings of Mahatma Gandhi had on Dr. King's work during the 
Civil Rights Movement. Dr. King, his wife Coretta Scott King, 
and Lawrence Reddick, then-chairman of the history department 
at Alabama State College, arrived in Bombay, India, on February 
10, 1959 and stayed until March 10, 1959. Dr. King was warmly 
welcomed by members of Indian society throughout his visit, and 
met with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, land reform leader 
Vinoba Bhave, and other influential Indian leaders to discuss 
issues of poverty, economic policy, and race relations. The 
trip to India had a profound impact on Dr. King, and inspired 
him to use nonviolence as an instrument of social change to end 
segregation and racial discrimination in America throughout the 
rest of his work during the Civil Rights Movement.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Lewis introduced 
H. Res. 134 on February 4, 2009 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On February 10, 2009, 
Representative Henry ``Hank'' Johnson moved to suspend the 
rules and the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by 
a roll call vote of 406-0.

H. Res. 150, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 
        A. Philip Randolph should be recognized for his lifelong 
        leadership and work to end discrimination and secure equal 
        employment and labor opportunities for all Americans

    Summary.--H. Res. 150 was introduced by Representative 
Charles Rangel to express the sense of the House of 
Representatives that A. Philip Randolph should be recognized 
for his lifelong leadership and work to end discrimination and 
secure equal employment and labor opportunities for all 
Americans. A. Philip Randolph was the leader of the successful 
movement to organize the Pullman Company which led to the 
formation of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, an 
organization that advanced the claims of African-American 
railway workers to dignity, respect, and a decent livelihood. 
He was one of the central figures speaking out for African-
American rights during the 1930s and 1940s and focused on labor 
and employment issues. Mr. Randolph was one of the leading 
forces behind the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and 
worked with many old friends and foes of his earlier labor 
struggles to ensure the success of the event, which took place 
on August 28, 1963, drew a crowd of over 250,000 people, and 
was the occasion of a meeting with President Kennedy and Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. A. Philip Randolph died in 1979 as an 
elder statesman of the civil rights movement, a much admired 
figure and role model for the young people of this Nation.
    Legislative History.--Representative Charles Rangel 
introduced H. Res. 150 on February 10, 2009 and it was referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
Education and Labor, where it was further referred to the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protection. On December 15, 2009, 
Representative John Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and 
the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a roll 
call vote of 395-23.

H. Res. 505, Condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot 
        to death at his church on May 31, 2009

    Summary.--H. Res. 505 was introduced by Representative 
Louise McIntosh Slaughter to condemn the murder of Dr. George 
Tiller, who was shot to death at his church. Dr. Tiller was 
murdered in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31, 2009 at his place of 
worship, a place intended for peace and refuge that in a moment 
became a place for violence and murder. The resolution stated 
that places of worship should be sanctuaries, but have 
increasingly borne witness to reprehensible acts of violence, 
with 38 people in the United States killed in their place of 
worship in the past 10 years and 30 people wounded in those 
same incidents. Violence is deplorable, and never an acceptable 
avenue for expressing opposing viewpoints and H. Res. 505 
commits to the American principle that tolerance must always be 
superior to intolerance, and that violence is never an 
appropriate response to a difference in beliefs.
    Legislative History.--On June 4, 2009, Representative 
Louise McIntosh Slaughter introduced H. Res. 505 and it was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On June 9, 2009, 
Representative Jerrold Nadler moved to suspend the rules and 
the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a roll 
call vote of 423-0.

H. Res. 530, Commending the purpose of the third annual Civil Rights 
        Baseball Game and recognizing the historical significance of 
        the location of the game in Cincinnati, Ohio

    Summary.--H. Res. 530 was introduced by Representative 
Steve Driehaus to commend the purpose of the third annual Civil 
Rights Baseball Game and recognize the historical significance 
of the location of the game in Cincinnati, Ohio. Baseball was 
at the forefront of the civil rights movement and was 
integrated before either the Armed Forces or the public 
schools. The Major League Baseball Civil Rights Game was 
created to honor those who fought both on and off the field for 
the equal treatment of all people. Civil Rights Baseball Game 
was held in Cincinnati, Ohio, at the Great American Ballpark on 
June 20, 2009 which is historically significant because 
Cincinnati was an integral stop along the Underground Railroad 
as one of the first free `stations' slaves would encounter when 
escaping north.
    Legislative History.--On June 11, 2009, Representative 
Steve Driehaus introduced H. Res. 530 and it was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. On June 15, 2009, 
Representative Robert ``Bobby'' Scott moved to suspend the 
rules and the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by 
voice vote.

H. Res. 901, Recognizing November 14, 2009, as the 49th anniversary of 
        the first day of integrated schools in New Orleans, Louisiana

    Summary.--Representative Gwen Moore introduced H. Res. 901 
to recognize November 14, 2009, as the 49th anniversary of the 
first day of integrated schools in New Orleans, Louisiana. Six 
years after the Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483) 
decision, on November 14, 1960, Ruby Bridges, at the age of 6, 
became the first African-American student to attend the all-
white William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans, 
Louisiana. Ruby Bridges had the courage to attend the William 
Frantz Elementary School every day during the 1960-61 school 
year despite ongoing riots and protests in New Orleans, having 
to be escorted to school by Federal marshals, and having no 
other students in her classroom. H. Res. 901 commends Ruby 
Bridges for her bravery and courage 49 years ago, and for her 
lifetime commitment to raising awareness of diversity through 
improved educational opportunities for all children.
    Legislative History.--On November 6, 2009, Representative 
Gwen Moore introduced H. Res. 901 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Education and 
Labor. On January 4, 2010 the Committee on Education and Labor 
referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Elementary, and Secondary Education and the Committee on the 
Judiciary referred it to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. On February 2, 2010 
Representative Marcia Fudge moved to suspend the rules agree to 
the resolution, as amended. On February 3, 2010, the bill was 
considered as unfinished business and on motion to suspend the 
rules the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a 
roll call vote of 416-0.

H. Res. 1010, Celebrating the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, 
        Jr. during the 30th anniversary of the Stevie Wonder song 
        tribute to Dr. King, ``Happy Birthday,'' and for other purposes

    Summary.--H. Res. 1010 was introduced by Representative 
John Conyers, Jr. to celebrate the life and work of Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr. during the 30th anniversary of the Stevie 
Wonder song tribute to Dr. King, ``Happy Birthday.'' The 
campaign to secure a Federal holiday in honor of Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr. lasted 15 years. The 1980 Stevie Wonder song 
tribute to Dr. King, ``Happy Birthday,'' solidified the 
campaign's success. The first Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 
Federal holiday was observed on January 20, 1986, and 
celebrated with a concert headlined by Stevie Wonder, who has, 
in the years since, continued his commitment to promoting peace 
and equality, for which he has been recognized with a Lifetime 
Achievement Award from the National Civil Rights Museum in 
Memphis, Tennessee.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Conyers, Jr. 
introduced H. Res. 1010 on January 13, 2010 and it was referred 
to the Committee on Judiciary. On January 20, 2010 
Representative John Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and 
the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice 
vote.

H. Res. 1271, Honoring the life and achievements of Rev. Benjamin 
        Lawson Hooks

    Summary.--Representative John Conyers, Jr. introduced H. 
Res. 1271 to honor the life and achievements of Rev. Benjamin 
Lawson Hooks. Dr. Hooks studied prelaw at LeMoyne College in 
Memphis and continued his studies at Howard University in 
Washington, DC, and at DePaul University Law School in Chicago, 
Illinois. After college, he served in the United States Army 
during World War II and had the job of guarding Italian 
prisoners who were able to eat in restaurants that were off 
limits to him, an experience that he found humiliating and that 
deepened his determination to do something about bigotry in the 
South. In 1954, Dr. Hooks served on a roundtable with Thurgood 
Marshall and other Southern African-American attorneys to 
formulate a possible litigation strategy days before the 
Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 
was handed down. In 1965, he was appointed by Tennessee 
Governor Frank G. Clement to serve as a criminal judge in 
Shelby County, becoming the first African-American criminal 
court judge in the State of Tennessee. Later in his life, Rev. 
Hooks also served as the Executive Director and CEO of the 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and 
under his leadership, the NAACP fought for affirmative action, 
led efforts to end apartheid in South Africa, and addressed 
racism in sports. The House of Representatives honored the life 
and achievements of Dr. Benjamin Lawson Hooks, for his 
commitment to justice on the bench in Memphis, Tennessee, for 
his strong work with the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People to formulate strategies for 
eliminating barriers to civil rights, and for his leadership in 
promoting equal opportunity for all.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Conyers, Jr. 
introduced H. Res. 1271 on April 20, 2010 and it was referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary. On April 20, 2010 
Representative Steve Cohen moved to suspend the rules and the 
bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a roll call 
vote of 407-0.

H. Res. 1281, Celebrating the life and achievements of Dr. Dorothy 
        Irene Height and recognizing her life-long dedication and 
        leadership in the struggle for human rights and equality for 
        all people until her death at age 98 on April 20, 2010

    Summary.--Representative Marcia Fudge introduced H. Res. 
1281 to celebrate the life and achievements of Dr. Dorothy 
Irene Height and recognizing her life-long dedication and 
leadership in the struggle for human rights and equality for 
all people. Dr. Height led many national organizations, 
including 33 years of service on the staff of the National 
Board of the Young Women's Christian Association, director of 
the National YWCA School for Professional Workers, and became 
the first director of the Center for Racial Justice, served as 
president of the National Council of Negro Women for four 
decades, as president of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, and 
continued to provide guidance as chair and president emerita of 
NCNW until her death on April 20, 2010.
    Legislative History.--On April 21, 2010 Representative 
Marcia Fudge introduced H. Res. 1281 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On April 21, 2010, Representative 
John Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and the bill 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 1375, Recognizing the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment

    Summary.--Representative Jim Cooper introduced H. Res. 1375 
to recognize the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Women 
were denied the right to vote in many states for 144 years 
after the Declaration of Independence was signed. In 1919, the 
66th Congress of the United States passed a resolution 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution extending the right 
of suffrage to women. On August 18, 1920, the Tennessee House 
of Representatives voted for ratification by a one-vote margin, 
passing the amendment in Nashville, Tennessee, becoming the 
36th and final of the three-fourths of States needed to ratify 
the amendment, entering it into the Constitution.
    Legislative History.--On May 19, 2010 Representative Jim 
Cooper introduced H. Res. 1375 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On July 26, 2010 the bill was 
further referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Civil Liberties. On September 15, 2010, Mr. Cohen 
moved to suspend the rules and the bill passed the U.S. House 
of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 1470, Honoring the life, achievements, and distinguished career 
        of Chief Justice William S. Richardson

    Summary.--Representative Charles Djou introduced H. Res. 
1470 to honor the life, achievements, and distinguished career 
of Chief Justice William S. Richardson. H. Res. 1470 emphasizes 
that, among his judicial accomplishments, Chief Justice William 
S. Richardson changed the face of higher education in Hawaii by 
opening avenues for the Islands' most disadvantaged groups and 
by building a more equitable society for the people of Hawaii.
    Legislative History.--On June 23, 2010 Representative 
Charles Djou introduced H. Res. 1470 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On July 20, 2010 Representative 
Robert ``Bobby'' Scott moved to suspend the rules and the bill 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote.

H. Res. 1504, Recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the 
        enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

    Summary.--Representative Steny Hoyer introduced H. Res. 
1504 to recognize and honor the 20th anniversary of the 
enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Prior 
to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, people 
with disabilities faced significantly lower employment rates, 
lower graduation rates, and higher rates of poverty than people 
without disabilities, and were too often denied the opportunity 
to fully participate in society due to intolerance and unfair 
stereotypes. H. Res. 1504 recognizes and honors the 20th 
anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act of 1990 and salutes all people whose efforts contributed to 
the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. H. Res. 
1504 encourages all Americans to celebrate the advance of 
freedom and the opening of opportunity made possible by the 
enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act and pledges 
the Congress to continue to work on a bipartisan basis to 
identify and address the remaining barriers that undermine the 
Nation's goals of equality of opportunity, independent living, 
economic self-sufficiency, and full participation for Americans 
with disabilities.
    Legislative History.--On July 1, 2010, Representative Steny 
Hoyer introduced H. Res. 1504 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Education and 
Labor, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On July 2, 2010 the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure referred it to 
the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and the Subcommittee 
on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. On July 26, 
2010, the Committee on the Judiciary referred it to the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties. On July 26, 2010, Representative Jared Polis moved 
to suspend the rules and the bill passed the U.S. House of 
Representatives by a roll call vote of 377-0.

H. Res. 1566, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Student 
        Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the pioneering 
        college students whose determination and nonviolent resistance 
        led to the desegregation of lunch counters and places of public 
        accommodation over a 5-year period

    Summary.--Representative John Lewis introduced H. Res. 1566 
to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Student Nonviolent 
Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the pioneering college 
students whose determination and nonviolent resistance led to 
the desegregation of lunch counters and places of public 
accommodation over a 5-year period. The enthusiasm of the 
students and the support they garnered for their pacifism in 
the face of hatred, led to the beginning of integration within 
the United States and the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965. H. Res. 1566 recognizes the 50th anniversary of the 
founding of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and 
commemorates the significance and importance of the SNCC and 
its role in organizing the national sit-in movement and the 
role that they played in the desegregation of United States 
society and for creating the political climate necessary to 
pass legislation to expand civil rights and voting rights for 
all people in the United States
    Legislative History.--On July 28, 2010, Representative John 
Lewis introduced H. Res. 1566 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On July 30, 2010, Representative 
Steve Cohen moved to suspend the rules and the bill passed the 
U.S. House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 410-0.

H. Res. 1713, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges 
        desegregating a previously all-White public elementary school

    Summary.--Representative John Lewis introduced H. Res. 1713 
to recognize the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges desegregating 
a previously all-White public elementary school. Six years 
after the Brown decision, on November 14, 1960, Ruby Bridges, 
at the age of six, was the first African-American child to 
integrate the previously all-White William Frantz Elementary 
School. She was the only student in her class for an entire 
year, taught by the only remaining teacher, Mrs. Barbara Henry, 
after the other teachers and students withdrew from the school 
in a gesture of disapproval of desegregation. Ruby Bridges was 
among the first in a line of civil rights pioneers that paved 
the way for the eventual desegregation of all public schools in 
the United States.
    Legislative History.--On November 15, 2010, Representative 
John Lewis introduced H. Res. 1713 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On November 15, 2010, 
representative John Conyers, Jr. moved to suspend the rules and 
the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a roll 
call vote of 376-0.

H. Con. Res. 35, Honoring and praising the National Association for the 
        Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 100th 
        anniversary

    Summary.--H. Con. Res. 35 was introduced by Representative 
Al Green to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the founding 
of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People (NAACP). The NAACP is the 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. 35 on January 28, 2009 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On February 10, 2009 Representative 
Henry ``Hank'' Johnson moved to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution. On February 12, 2009 the resolution passed the 
U.S. House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 424-0. On 
February 13, 2009 the bill was received in the U.S. Senate, 
considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble 
by Unanimous Consent.

H. Con. Res. 242, Honoring and praising the National Association for 
        the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 101st 
        anniversary

    Summary.--H. Con. Res. 242 was introduced by Representative 
Al Green to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the founding 
of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People (NAACP). The NAACP is the 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. 242 on February 25, 2010 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On June 16, 2010 Representative 
Steve Cohen moved to suspend the rules and the resolution 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 
421-0. On June 17, 2009 the bill was received in the U.S. 
Senate. On June 18, 2010, the U.S. Senate agreed to the 
resolution without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous 
Consent.

H. Con. Res. 249, Commemorating the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday 
        and the role that it played in ensuring the passage of the 
        Voting Rights Act of 1965

    Summary.--H. Con. Res. 249 was introduced by Representative 
John Lewis to commemorate the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday 
and the role that it played in ensuring the passage of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965. The historic struggle for equal 
voting rights led nonviolent civil rights marchers to gather on 
the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on March 7, 1965, a 
day that would come to be known as ``Bloody Sunday.'' John 
Lewis and the late Hosea Williams led these marchers across the 
Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where they were 
attacked with billy clubs and tear gas by State and local 
lawmen. Eight days after Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon B. 
Johnson called for a comprehensive and effective voting rights 
bill as a necessary response by Congress and the President to 
the interference and violence, in violation of the 14th and 
15th Amendments, encountered by African-American citizens when 
attempting to protect and exercise the right to vote. A 
bipartisan Congress approved the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and 
on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed this 
landmark legislation into law.
    Legislative History.--Representative John Lewis introduced 
H. Con. Res. 249 on March 4, 2010 and it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. On March 10, 2010, Representative 
Steve Cohen moved to suspend the rules and the bill passed the 
U.S. House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 409-0. On 
March 16, 2010, the bill was received in the U.S. Senate which 
agreed to the resolution without amendment and with a preamble 
by Unanimous Consent.

S. Con. Res. 29, A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the 
        Congress that John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson should receive a 
        posthumous pardon for the racially motivated conviction in 1913 
        that diminished the athletic, cultural, and historic 
        significance of Jack Johnson and unduly tarnished his 
        reputation

    Summary.--Senator John McCain introduced S. Con. Res. 29 to 
express the sense of Congress that John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson 
should receive a posthumous pardon for the racially motivated 
conviction in 1913 that diminished the athletic, cultural, and 
historic significance of Jack Johnson and unduly tarnished his 
reputation. Jack Johnson was a professional boxer and traveled 
throughout the United States, fighting White and African-
American heavyweights. He was a flamboyant, defiant, and 
controversial figure who challenged racial biases. In 1908, 
Jack Johnson defeated reigning White title-holder Tommy Burns 
to become the first African-American to hold the title of 
Heavyweight Champion of the World. In October 1912, Jack 
Johnson became involved with a White woman whose mother 
disapproved of their relationship and sought action from the 
Department of Justice, claiming that Jack Johnson had abducted 
her daughter. He was arrested by Federal marshals on October 
18, 1912, for transporting the woman across State lines for an 
``immoral purpose'' in violation of the Mann Act. Charges 
against Jack Johnson were dropped when the woman refused to 
cooperate with Federal authorities, and then married him, but 
Federal authorities persisted and summoned a White woman named 
Belle Schreiber, who testified that Jack Johnson had 
transported her across State lines for the purpose of 
``prostitution and debauchery.'' In 1913, he was convicted of 
violating the Mann Act and sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in 
Federal prison. S. Con. Res. 29 expresses the sense of Congress 
that Jack Johnson should receive a posthumous pardon to expunge 
a racially motivated abuse of the prosecutorial authority of 
the Federal Government from the annals of criminal justice in 
the United States and in recognition of the athletic and 
cultural contributions of Jack Johnson to society.
    Legislative History.--On June 16, 2009, Senator John McCain 
introduced S. Con. Res. 29 and it was referred to the U.S. 
Senate Judiciary Committee. On June 24, 2009, the U.S. Senate 
Judiciary Committee discharged the bill by Unanimous Consent 
and the bill was agreed to in the U.S. Senate without amendment 
and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. On June 25, 2009, the 
bill was received in the U.S. House of Representatives and it 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On July 23, 
2009 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. On July 29, 
2009, Representative Henry ``Hank'' Johnson asked unanimous 
consent to discharge the bill from committee and for the bill 
to be considered. On July 29, 2009 the bill passed the U.S. 
House of Representatives by voice vote.

                          Oversight Activities


Lessons Learned from the 2008 Election

    Summary.--On March 19, 2009, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties convened a 
hearing on ``Lessons Learned From the 2008 Election.'' The 
hearing focused on the administration of elections in 2008 and 
the election system failures that need to be addressed in order 
to ensure that all eligible voters have a meaningful 
opportunity to participate in the political process. This 
hearing provided an opportunity for Members to examine the best 
practices and the shortcomings of the past election and to 
discuss policy recommendations for addressing unresolved issues 
for future elections. The hearing witnesses were Barbara 
Arnwine, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 
Under Law; Matthew Segal, Executive Director, Student 
Association for Voter Empowerment; James Tucker, Consulting 
Attorney, Native American Rights Fund; Hilary Shelton, 
Director, Washington Bureau of the NAACP; James Terry, Chief 
Public Advocate, Consumers Rights League; Glenn D. Magpantay, 
Staff Attorney, Asian American Legal Defense Fund; and Tova 
Wang, Vice President for Research, Common Cause.
    Related Legislation.--On January 6, 2009, Judiciary 
Chairman John Conyers introduced H.R. 97, the ``Deceptive 
Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2009'', 
which would afford voters greater protections again deceptive 
practices and intimidation in voting. On January 6, 2009, 
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers introduced H.R. 103, 
the ``Caging Prohibition Act of 2009,'' which would afford a 
voter greater protections when his or her right to vote has 
been challenged. On January 6, 2009, Judiciary Committee 
Chairman John Conyers introduced H.R. 105, the ``Voting 
Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights of 2009,'' which 
would provide for substantial election reform on issues ranging 
from absentee ballots to provisional ballots, and from voter 
caging to deceptive practices.

Hearing on: the Public Safety and Civil Rights Implications of State 
        and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. (Serial No. 
        111-19)

    On April, 2, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing jointly 
with the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, 
Border Security, and International Law on the Public Safety and 
Civil Rights Implications of State and Local Enforcement of 
Federal Immigration Laws.
    The following witnesses testified: Julio Cesar Mora, 
Avondale, AZ; Antonio Ramirez, Frederick, Maryland Community 
Advocate; Deborah Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished 
Professor of Law, Director of Clinical Programs, University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law; Ray Tranchant, 
Operations Director, Advanced Technology Center, Virginia 
Beach, VA, Adjunct Professor at Cambridge College, Cambridge, 
MA, Chesapeake Campus, and Bryant and Stratton College; David 
Harris, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of 
Law; Hubert Williams, President, Police Foundation; George 
Gascon, Chief, Mesa Arizona Police Department; Kris Kobach, 
Professor of Law, University of Missouri--Kansas City School of 
Law.
    The hearing focused on the public safety and civil rights 
concerns that arise when state and local law enforcement get 
involved in immigration enforcement, most commonly through an 
agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) under 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 
subcommittees received testimony concerning incidents of racial 
profiling and the erosion of trust between the police and local 
communities that can occur when states and localities attempt 
to enforce immigration laws without appropriate and necessary 
safeguards.
    Witnesses also described how some localities with 287(g) 
agreements are conducting large-scale ``sweeps'' in which 
hundreds of law enforcement officers and/or deputized 
``posses'' enter predominantly Latino neighborhoods to 
interrogate, issue citations, and/or arrest people, set up 
roadblocks and check the identification of individuals.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\Hearing on the Public Safety and Civil Rights Implications of 
State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws, before the H. 
Judiciary Subcomm. on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 
Security and International Law and the Subcomm. on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, 105th Cong. 11 (2009) (Testimony of Julio Cesar Mora).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Issues Surrounding the Military Commissions System

    Summary.--On July 8, 2009, the Subcommittee held the first 
of two hearings focusing on the adequacy of military 
commissions and the effectiveness and necessity of possible 
reforms. Testimony was received from: the Honorable Adam B. 
Schiff; Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, former prosecutor, 
Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions; Deborah Pearlstein, 
Associate Research Scholar, Princeton University; Thomas 
Joscelyn, Senior Fellow and Executive Director, Center for Law 
and Counterterrorism, Foundation for Defense of Democracies; 
and Denny LeBoeuf, Director, John Adams Project, ACLU.
    Shortly after taking office, President Obama announced his 
intention to close the Guantanamo Bay facility and temporarily 
halted use of military commissions to try detainees currently 
held at the facility pending the outcome of his 
Administration's review and an examination of the adequacy of 
the military commission process itself. In his remarks on 
national security a few months later, the President confirmed 
that, whenever possible, the Administration would use the 
federal courts to prosecute Guantanamo detainees who have 
violated criminal laws, but also indicated that military 
commissions remain an appropriate and necessary venue for the 
prosecution of others. The President acknowledged that the 
existing military commission system fails to provide a 
legitimate legal framework for convictions, but expressed his 
belief that, with sufficient reform, a military commission 
system could do so. The Subcommittee's July 8, 2009 hearing 
provided an opportunity to explore concerns regarding the need 
for and legal adequacy of the existing military commission 
system and to consider the range of reforms that might be 
necessary.
    Representative Adam Schiff testified that ``the commission 
system has proved so flawed and its due process so inadequate 
and discredited that in the case of the detainees at 
Guantanamo, it should be completely junked.'' Representative 
Schiff further explained how H.R. 1315, the ``Terrorist 
Detainees Procedures Act of 2009,'' which he had introduced 
that year, provided an alternative to the existing military 
commission system that would establish a mechanism for 
designating detainees as ``unlawful combatants'' and make use 
of the existing military justice and courts martial system to 
prosecute such detainees.
    Lt. Col. Vandeveld and Ms. Leboeuf agreed that the military 
commissions system was fatally flawed and should be abandoned 
rather than reformed. Lt. Col. Vandeveld testified that he 
asked for reassignment from his post as a military prosecutor 
at Guantanamo because--after discovering a ``confession 
obtained through torture'' and the withholding of exculpatory 
evidence from the defense--he determined that he ``could not 
ethically or legally prosecute the defendant within the 
military commission system at Guantanamo.'' Lt. Col. Vandeveld 
cited three specific concerns that he felt would not be 
adequately addressed through reform of the existing military 
commission system: (1) admissibility of evidence obtained 
through torture or coercion; (2) the gathering and handling of 
information, including classified or sensitive information 
withheld from the defense; and (3) institutional deficiencies, 
including inexperienced judges and insufficiently funded 
defense teams.
    Echoing these concerns, Ms. Leboeuf cautioned that military 
commission trials would never be deemed fair or competent and 
that they ``cannot produce reliable verdicts. Perhaps, worst of 
all, no judgments under military commission will ever truly be 
final.'' While expressing ``doubt that the use of a new 
military commission system going forward is a wise or necessary 
course of policy,'' Ms. Pearlstein took the position that such 
a system would be legally adequate if certain reforms were 
made, including: (1) assuring that statements made under 
torture are inadmissible and that commission rules reflect the 
standards for voluntariness required for admissibility in 
criminal court; and (2) ensuring an adequate review process 
that considers questions of fact as well as law. Mr. Joscelyn 
testified that ``the commissions have been far from perfect,'' 
and that ``it will take some work to make the commissions 
function properly,'' but offered no opinion on possible reforms 
but, instead, testified that--whether the Administration chose 
to try terrorists in the courts or military commissions--it 
should make sure to protect the intelligence-gathering function 
of detention.

Hearing on Continuity of Congress in the Wake of a Catastrophic Attack 
        (Serial No. 111-17)

    Summary.--On July 23, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on the Continuity of Congress in the Wake of a Catastrophic 
Attack. The hearing examined the impact of an attack that would 
kill or incapacitate a significant number of Representatives 
and Senators, and the options under the Constitution for 
reconstituting the institution and ensuring the continuation of 
the legislative branch in a time of crisis.
    Witnesses at the hearing were Rep. Brian Baird; Rep. Dana 
Rohrabacher; John C. Fortier, Research Fellow, American 
Enterprise Institute; R. Eric Petersen, Analyst in American 
National Government, Congressional Research Service; Harold 
Relyea, Former Analyst, Congressional Research Service.

Hearing on Proposals for Reform of the Military Commission System 
        (Serial No. 111-26)

    Summary.--On July 30, 2009, the Subcommittee held its 
second hearing focusing on the military commission system, 
which provided a further opportunity to consider the specific 
reforms passed by the Senate as part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and to explore 
additional changes that might be warranted or necessary. 
Testimony was received from: David Kris, Assistant Attorney 
General, Department of Justice; Jeh Charles Johnson, General 
Counsel, Department of Defense; Maj. David J.R. Frakt, USAFR, 
Lead Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions; Col. 
Peter R. Masciola, USAFG, Chief Defense Counsel, Office of 
Military Commissions; Steven A. Engel, Dechert LLP; Eugene R. 
Fidell, Senior Research Scholar in Law and Florence Rogatz 
Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School.
    On July 23, 2009 the Senate passed S. 1390, the ``National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010'' (NDAA FY 2010) 
with a section amending the Military Commission Act of 2006. 
Assistant Attorney General David Kris and Department of Defense 
General Counsel Jeh Johnson testified in support of the 
proposed Senate reforms but also suggested others. For example, 
while Assistant AG Kris and Mr. Johnson noted with approval the 
Senate's proposal to ban admission of statements obtained by 
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, Assistant AG Kris 
testified that the Administration believed that the bill needed 
to adopt a voluntariness standard for the admission of other 
statements of the accused. This standard should take into 
account ``challenges and realities of the battlefield and armed 
conflict'' and that, without such a standard, ``there is a 
serious likelihood that courts would hold that admission of 
involuntary statements of the accused in military commission 
proceedings is unconstitutional.'' Assistant AG Kris also 
recommended that Congress: (1) remove the offense of material 
support for terrorism because this ``is not a traditional law 
of war offense, thereby threatening to reverse hard-won 
convictions and leading to questions about the [military 
commission] system's legitimacy;'' and (2) include a sunset 
provision.
    Col. Masciola testified of the need to ensure learned 
counsel with experience in capital cases for any death-penalty 
eligible cases, and suggested several specific reforms to 
ensure adequate and equitable discovery and resources for the 
defense. Major Frakt similarly provided several specific 
recommendations for reform and also identified offenses, 
including material support of terrorism and criminal 
conspiracy, that he believed do not qualify as ``law of war'' 
offenses and, therefore, not be triable in any military 
commission system. Mr. Engel, who served in the Office of Legal 
Counsel during the Bush Administration and worked on the 
military commission system established under the Military 
Commission Act of 2006, agreed with the Administration's 
proposal for adopting a voluntariness standard and urged that 
this standard set out sufficient guidance ``to ensure its 
proper application in the wartime context.'' He disagreed, 
however, with the Administration recommendation to remove 
material support for terrorism as a triable offense. Mr. 
Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military 
Justice, also agreed that voluntariness was the proper standard 
for admissibility of detainee statements and endorsed the 
Senate changes to provisions ensuring appellate review of 
military commission decisions.

Hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act (Serial No. 111-35)

    Summary.--On September 22, 2009, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act, focusing on three provisions 
that were set to expire at the end of 2009. These provisions 
included the so-called ``roving'' Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretaps,\144\ FISA Section 215 
business record orders,\145\ and the so-called FISA ``lone 
wolf'' provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Protection Act (IRTPA).\146\ The hearing provided the 
Subcommittee the opportunity to question and explore the 
efficacy of these expiring provisions and begin to determine 
whether or not they should be reauthorized and/or modified. 
Five witnesses testified at this hearing: Todd Hinnen, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, United 
States Department of Justice; Suzanne Spaulding, Esq., former 
Staff Director, House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence; The Honorable Thomas B. Evans, Jr., former Member 
of Congress (R-DE); Kenneth L. Wainstein, former Assistant 
Attorney General, National Security Division, United States 
Department of Justice and; Michael German, Policy Counsel, 
American Civil Liberties Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\Pub. L. 107-56, 206.
    \145\Pub. L. 107-56, 215.
    \146\Pub. L. 108-456 6001(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit 
multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps, which permit the government 
to include multiple surveillance sites associated with a 
facility authorized in an order of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court (FISC) if it can show that the target was 
taking steps to thwart surveillance. FISA roving authority 
allows the government to follow a target that switches 
communication facilities without having to return to court and 
obtain a new order, thus avoiding the risk of losing valuable 
foreign intelligence information during the time required to 
obtain and serve a new court order. While there was general 
support for the need to renew FISA roving authority, various 
experts including Suzanne Spaulding raised concerns that FISA 
roving warrants could increase the prospect the government may 
intercept communications between individuals who are not FISA 
targets. This potential exists, according to Ms. Spaulding, 
because of the generally ``less rigorous'' statutory standards 
for FISA roving warrants than those governing issuance of 
roving wiretap warrants in criminal investigations under Title 
III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 
as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 
1986.
    Section 6001(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Protection Act (IRTPA), commonly referred to as the ``Lone 
Wolf'' provision, broadened the definition of individuals who 
could be FISA targets. It permits surveillance of non-U.S. 
persons preparing to engage in or engaging in international 
terrorism, without requiring evidence linking those persons to 
an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. This 
provision was created in response to the FBI's attempt to 
obtain a FISA order to search the laptop of Zacarias Moussaoui 
in October, 2001. The FBI believed it had insufficient 
information to demonstrate that Moussaoui was an agent of a 
foreign power, as required by FISA at the time, although the 
term ``foreign power'' included international terrorist groups. 
Critics of the Lone Wolf provision argued generally that it 
undermines constitutional justification for the entire FISA 
statute: that the extraordinary FISA powers used by our 
government are constitutional only because they are used 
against our most serious adversaries, foreign governments and 
organized foreign powers. Accordingly, these witnesses asserted 
that expanding the reach of the statute to individuals acting 
alone puts the whole FISA regime at risk. Todd Hinnen, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's National 
Security Division, testified that the Lone Wolf provision has 
never been used, but that the Justice Department believes it is 
essential to have the tool available for the rare situation in 
which it might become necessary.
    Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to 
obtain a FISA order requiring private parties to produce 
``tangible things'' such as business records that are relevant 
to foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, or 
counterintelligence investigations. In support of 
reauthorization, the Justice Department represented that, based 
on its operational experience, there will continue to be 
instances in which FBI investigators need to obtain 
transactional information that does not fall within scope of 
authorities relating to National Security Letters (NSLs), and 
where they must operate in an environment that precludes the 
use of less secure criminal authorities. Critics of this 
provision generally objected to its permissive ``relevance to 
an authorized investigation'' standard. This broad standard is 
seen as, among other things, having a chilling effect on the 
exercise of First Amendment Rights when applied to libraries 
and/or businesses that sell books and periodicals

The Impact of Recent Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Rights 
        Jurisprudence

    Summary.--On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held an 
oversight hearing on the Impact of Recent Supreme Court 
Decisions on Civil Rights Jurisprudence. A careful review of 
the Supreme Court's most recent opinions show steady movement 
toward rolling back the Warren and Burger Court era precedents 
that conservatives have long viewed as the significant 
overreaching of Congress and the Judiciary. While the Court did 
not overrule any major constitutional precedents, it left many 
areas of civil rights jurisprudence in a confused state. Years 
of settled law on issues involving race, religion, speech, 
abortion, and the standing to bring suits have all been 
unsettled by recent Supreme Court rulings. The effect of these 
decisions has resulted in an incremental narrowing of many 
individual rights and governmental powers granted under the 
Constitution.
    This hearing was intended to provide an opportunity for 
members of the Subcommittee to explore the current state of 
civil rights laws in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. 
The following witnesses offered testimony: Armand Derfner, 
Partner, Derfner Altman & Wilborn; Aderson B. Francois, 
Associate Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law; 
Debo P. Adegbile, Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, Inc. and Ms. Dahlia Lithwick, Senior 
Editor, Slate Magazine.

Access to Justice Denied: An Oversight Hearing on Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    Summary.--On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties convened a 
hearing entitled ``Access to Justice Denied: An Oversight 
Hearing on Ashcroft v. Iqbal.'' The purpose of this hearing was 
to examine the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Ashcroft 
v. Iqbal and its impact on civil litigation. The Court's May 
18, 2009, decision in Iqbal substantially altered longstanding 
notice pleading standards to require courts to determine the 
``plausibility'' of allegations in pleadings in advance of any 
discovery. The hearing witnesses were Arthur Miller, University 
Professor, New York University School of Law; John Vail, Vice 
President and Senior Counsel, Center for Constitutional 
Litigation; Debo Adegbile, Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund; and Gregory Katsas, Partner, 
Jones Day.
    Related Legislation.--On November 19, 2009, Subcommittee 
Chairman Jerrold Nadler introduced H.R. 4115, the ``Open Access 
to Courts Act of 2009.'' The legislation would restore the 
notice pleading standard to that articulated by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41 (1957).

Oversight Hearing on the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 
        Justice

    Summary.--On December 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held an 
oversight hearing on the Civil Rights Division of the 
Department of Justice. The Civil Rights Division is the primary 
federal entity responsible for enforcing federal statutes 
prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, 
disability, religion, and national origin. Established in 1957, 
the Division has grown in size and scope over the decades, and 
has been instrumental in many of our nation's battles to 
advance civil rights. Reports from the Citizens Commission on 
Civil Rights and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in 
2006-07 suggested concerns about Division enforcement 
priorities and actions in such areas as voting, employment, and 
housing. Reports and allegations of politicized hiring and 
other improprieties in the Division also occurred during this 
period, culminating in a July 2, 2008 report by the DOJ Office 
of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility 
entitled An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring 
and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights 
Division.
    On June 14, 2007, based upon concerns raised by Committee 
oversight hearings and nonpartisan reports, Chairman Conyers 
and Chairman Nadler asked the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to undertake a report concerning the enforcement 
priorities, data collection, and case management information 
system of the Division. This hearing provided an opportunity 
for members of the Subcommittee to raise questions in response 
to the recently completed two reports in response to that 
request, and to ask the newly-confirmed head of the Civil 
Rights Division about his response to the reports and his plans 
for the future of the Division. The following witnesses offered 
testimony: Hon. Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, 
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division; Eileen Regen 
Larence, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; Grace Chung Becker, former 
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division and 
Joseph Rich, Director, Fair Housing Project, Lawyers' Committee 
for Civil Rights Under Law.

The Impact of Federal Habeas Corpus Limitations on Death Penalty 
        Appeals

    Summary.--On December 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held an 
oversight hearing on the Impact of Federal Habeas Corpus 
Limitations on Death Penalty Appeals. Congress passed the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 in 
response to the concern that the then-existing habeas process 
provided death row inmates an excessive number of opportunities 
to postpone their sentence. As expected, this streamlined 
procedure had the effect of expediting the pace of executions 
and increasing their number. Since the passage of the 
legislation, however, there have been concerns about the equity 
of the process in the context of the death penalty. Although 
more than a decade has elapsed since its enactment, there has 
been a dearth of research examining the processing of cases 
under the Act's provisions.
    This hearing was intended to provide an opportunity for the 
Subcommittee to explore the impact of Federal habeas 
limitations on death penalty appeals and analyze proposals 
designed to address any perceived injustice caused by existing 
legals standards. The following witnesses offered testimony: 
Stephen Hanlon, American Bar Association Death Penalty 
Moratorium Project; Justice Gerald Kogan, former Chief Justice, 
Florida Supreme Court (1987-1998); Michael O'Hare, Supervisory 
Assistant State's Attorney, Connecticut State's Attorney 
Office; Prof. John H. Bloom, Cornell Law School.
    Related Legislation.--The Effective Death Penalty Appeals 
Act (H.R. 3986) was introduced on November 3, 2009, by Rep. 
Hank Johnson. The bill was designed to create a procedural 
remedy for a person on death row to petition for appeal on the 
basis of newly discovered evidence of innocence.

Hearing on the First Amendment and Campaign Finance Reform After 
        Citizens United (Serial No. 111-71)

    Summary.--On February 3, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. 
Federal Election Commission.\147\ The following witnesses 
presented testimony: Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University 
Professor, Harvard Law School; Monica Y. Youn, Counsel and 
Director of the Campaign Finance Reform Project, Brennan Center 
for Justice, New York University School of Law; Sean Parnell, 
President, Center for Competitive Politics; Donald J. Simon, 
Partner, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\130 S.Ct. 876 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down 
limitations on direct spending by corporations and unions on 
campaign-related communications, specifically, advertisements 
occurring during a certain period of time before an election 
that advocate voting for or against a named candidate, which 
are called ``electioneering communications,'' imposed by the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-
Feingold Act.\148\ The Court overruled its prior decision 
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce,\149\ which had upheld 
regulations on corporate speech based on the principle that 
corporations are different than individuals and that such 
restrictions were necessary to maintain the integrity of the 
electoral process. On that basis, the Court overruled the parts 
of its prior decision McConnell v. Federal Election 
Commission\150\ that relied on Austin's premise that 
corporations receive a lesser degree of free speech protection 
than individuals do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\Pub. L. No. 107-155.
    \149\494 U.S. 652 (1990).
    \150\540 U.S. 93, 203-209 (2003) (upholding limits on 
electioneering communications in a facial challenge).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Witnesses discussed the impact of the Citizens United 
decision, and options available to Congress to address issues 
raised by the decision.
    Related Legislation.--Rep. Chris Van Hollen introduced H.R. 
5175, the ``Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on 
Spending in Elections Act'' on April 29, 2010. It passed the 
House on June 24, 2010 by a vote of 219-206, and was placed on 
the Senate Calendar. It received no further action in the 
Senate.

Hearing on Protecting the American Dream: A Look at the Fair Housing 
        Act (Serial No. 111-88)

    Summary.--On March 11, 2010, Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold 
Nadler convened the first in a series of hearings on the Fair 
Housing Act entitled Protecting the American Dream: A Look at 
the Fair Housing Act. This hearing examined Fair Housing Act 
education, investigation, and enforcement, both past and 
present, particularly in the context of the current housing 
crisis. The hearing witnesses were National Fair Housing 
Alliance President Shanna Smith, Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
Rights Under Law Executive Director Barbara Arnwine, John 
Relman of the firm Relman & Dane, National Gay & Lesbian Task 
Force Action Fund Executive Director Rea Carey, Howard 
University School of Law Associate Dean Okianer Christian Dark, 
and Baruch College Professor Kenneth Marcus.

Oversight ``Report by the Office of the Inspector General of the 
        Department of Justice on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 
        Use of Exigent Letters and Other Informal Requests for 
        Telephone Records''

    Summary.--On April 14, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing to examine the report by the Office of the Inspector 
General of the Department of Justice (OIG) on the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation's use of exigent letters and other 
informal requests for telephone records.\151\ Testifying at the 
hearing were the Glenn Fine, Inspector General, U.S. Department 
of Justice; and Valerie Caproni, General Counsel, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\Oversight and Review Section, Office of the Inspector General, 
U.S. Department of Justice, A Review of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's Use of Exigent Letters and Other Informal Requests for 
Telephone Records (January 2010) http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/
101440p.pdf (Last Visited Jan. 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The OIG report was initiated in response to two earlier OIG 
reports in March 2007 and March 2008 which ``focused on the 
misuses of national security letters [which] noted the FBI's 
practice of issuing exigent letters, instead of national 
security letters or other legal process, to obtain telephone 
records from three communications service providers.''\152\ Mr. 
Fine discussed the findings of the report which traced the 
development of exigent letters, reviewed the manner in which 
applicable laws and procedures were violated in their use, and 
steps the FBI had taken to address OIG concerns. Valerie 
Caproni further discussed the response by the FBI to the OIG's 
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \152\Report by the Office of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of 
Exigent Letters and Other Informal Requests for Telephone Records, 
Hearing before the Subcomm. on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 
Civil Liberties of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 11 (2010) 
(Testimony of Glenn Fine).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hearing on Achieving the Promises of the Americans with Disabilities 
        Act in the Digital Age--Current Issues, Challenges, and 
        Opportunities

    Summary.--On April 22, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing to explore advances in technology and accessibility 
design that have taken place since passage of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and to gain a greater 
understanding of how the ADA is achieving its promise of equal 
opportunity and full participation for people with disabilities 
with regard to new and advancing technologies. Testimony was 
received from: the Honorable Samuel R. Bagenstos, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Mark D. Richert, Esq., Director, Public Policy, American 
Foundation for the Blind; Judy Brewer, Director, Web 
Accessibility Initiative, World Wide Web Consortium; Steven I. 
Jacobs, President, Ideal Group, Inc.; Daniel F. Goldstein, 
Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP.
    Testifying that ``access to the Internet and emerging 
technologies is not simply a technical matter, it's a 
fundamental issue of civil rights,'' Principal Deputy Assistant 
AG Bagenstos confirmed the Department of Justice's longstanding 
position that websites operated by private or public entities 
are covered by the ADA and must be fully accessible to 
individuals with disabilities. He also described recent DOJ 
settlements with various universities to ensure that new 
technologies used as part of the curricula, such as electronic 
book readers, would be accessible to students with 
disabilities, and indicated that the DOJ plans to issue updated 
regulations and guidance addressing accessibility issues for 
new and emerging technologies.
    Mr. Richert and Mr. Goldstein testified that the ADA, 
through Titles II and III, applies to the Internet and other 
emerging technologies and requires that such technologies are 
equally accessible to persons with disabilities. Mr. Richert 
urged the DOJ to ``clarify that accessibility obligations under 
the ADA also extend to high-tech equipment,'' and urged 
Congress to pass H.R. 3101, the Twenty-first Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act to ensure that 
mobile and other Internet-equipped devices and video 
technologies are accessible to people with disabilities. Mr. 
Goldstein further testified that ``[i]n the field of 
technology, the ADA has been instrumental in making some Web 
sites, workplace software applications, ATMs, point of sale 
machines, cell phones, and e-book reading devices accessible to 
people with disabilities. However, as we stand here today, we 
are not even halfway there . . . .'' Focusing on the technical 
aspects of accessibility, Ms. Brewer and Mr. Jacobs testified 
regarding available accessibility resources and guidelines. Ms. 
Brewer, director of the Web Accessibility Initiative at the 
World Wide Web Consortium who testified before the Subcommittee 
on this issue ten years earlier, explained that ``in the 
intervening years, we've shown that businesses can flourish 
while producing accessible Web sites and services.''

Hearing on Protecting the American Dream Part II: Combating Predatory 
        Lending Under the Fair Housing Act (Serial No. 111-95)

    Summary.--On April 29, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on ``Protecting the American Dream Part II: Combating 
Predatory Lending Under the Fair Housing Act.'' The hearing 
examined predatory and discriminatory lending practices, as 
well as existing and proposed enforcement mechanisms. Assistant 
Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez 
discussed the Department of Justice's new fair lending unit in 
the Civil Rights Division's Housing and Civil Enforcement 
Section. Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton, Jr. discussed the impact 
of predatory lending on the City of Memphis. Predatory lending 
victim, Gillian Miller, discussed her experience. Consumer 
attorney Gary Klein, and Center for Equal Opportunity President 
Roger Clegg also testified.

Hearing on Electronic Communication Privacy Act Reform (Serial No. 111-
        98)

    Summary.--On May 5, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)\153\ Reform. 
ECPA is a series of statutes governing law enforcement access 
to various types of wire and electronic communications, and to 
transactional records associated with these communications. The 
purpose of the hearing was to consider reforms to ECPA 
potentially necessitated by advances in technology and the 
resulting availability of remarkable new technology-based 
services. Such technological advances include cloud computing, 
social networking and location-based services. Four witnesses 
testified at this hearing: Jim Dempsey, Vice President for 
Public Policy, Center of Democracy and Technology; Albert 
Gidari, partner at Perkins Coie LLP; and Annmarie Levins, 
Associate General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation and; Orin 
Kerr, Professor, George Washington University Law School.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \153\Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (codified in Title 18 
U.S.C. including 2510-21, 2701-10, 3121-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally enacted in 1986, ECPA was intended to 
reestablish the balance of interests between privacy and law 
enforcement, which Congress found had been upset--to the 
detriment of privacy--by the development of wireless 
communications and computer technologies, and by attendant 
changes to the structure of the telecommunications industry. In 
addition to the goal of balancing privacy interests with the 
needs of law enforcement, recognizing that consumers may not 
trust new technologies if privacy interests were not 
appropriately protected, Congress also intended ECPA to advance 
and encourage the development of new technologies and services 
by strengthening consumer privacy.
    The Subcommittee's hearing explored several areas where 
ECPA may need updating because technology growth has ``outpaced 
the law.'' Subcommittee members were educated about these new 
technologies and how ECPA's application to them is creating 
confusion for magistrate judges, private industry and law 
enforcement. Witnesses representing the views of privacy 
advocacy groups and private industry explained how, for 
example, a single e-mail can be subject to different legal 
standards in its lifecycle depending on how old it is, where it 
is stored, and whether or not it has been opened. Equally 
problematic for industry, privacy and law enforcement 
stakeholders is ECPA's lack of clarity regarding historical and 
prospective location information generated by cell phones and 
other hand-held devices. Witnesses explained how magistrate 
judges in the same district disagree on the legal standard for 
government access to location information. This hearing was the 
first in a series of three educational hearings held by the 
Subcommittee to study key technology and legal issues 
associated with ECPA reform.

Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications in Law 
        Enforcement Policy (Serial No. 111-131)

    Summary.--On June 17, 2010, the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing 
on Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications in 
Law Enforcement Policy. In response to concerns about the issue 
of racial profiling, the Department of Justice under the past 
two presidents, along with members of Congress, have introduced 
a series of executive orders and legislative proposals designed 
to address the practice. This hearing was intended to provide 
an opportunity for the Subcommittee to explore the impact of 
racial profiling and of the use of suspect classifications in 
law enforcement policy, with the aim of improving the current 
administrative and legislative proposals. The hearing witnesses 
included, Hilary O. Shelton, NAACP Washington Bureau; Chief 
Christopher Burbank, Salt Lake City Police Department; Brian L. 
Withrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Texas 
State University; Professor Deborah Ramirez, Northeastern 
University Law School; Amardeep Singh, Sikh Coalition; David 
Harris, Professor of Law, Pittsburgh University School of Law; 
Farhana Khera, President and Executive Director, Muslim 
Advocates.
    Related Legislation.--Representative John Conyers, Jr. 
introduced H.R. 5748, the ``End Racial Profiling Act of 2010,'' 
(ERPA) on July 15, 2010, and the bill was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. ERPA was also introduced as H.R. 
4611 and S. 2481 in the 110th Congress. ERPA prohibits the use 
of racial profiling in law enforcement, and mandates policy 
changes and the undertaking of studies, overseen by the 
Attorney General, to ensure racial profiling does not take 
place. The bill creates a civil cause of action as the remedy 
for those who have experienced racial profiling. ERPA was also 
introduced in the Senate during the 109th Congress as S. 2138.
    The Border Security Search Accountability Act of 2009, 
introduced as H.R. 1726, sets the guidelines for electronic 
device searches at U.S. border crossings, and requires the 
submission of reports that detail the presence or absence of 
racial profiling in such searches. The Act was also introduced 
in 2008 as H.R. 6869. The Surface Transportation Act of 2009, 
H.R. 3617, passed the House with a provision for a grant to 
prevent racial profiling on federal roads and interstate 
highways. The ``No More Tulias: Drug Enforcement Evidentiary 
Standards Improvement Act of 2009,'' H.R. 68, sought to 
eliminate Byrne grants to state anti-drug task forces that 
engaged in racial profiling. It was previously introduced in 
2007 as H.R. 253, and in 2005 as H.R. 2620.

Hearing on ECPA Reform and the Revolution in Location-Based 
        Technologies and Services (Serial No. 111-109)

    Summary.--On June 24, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on ECPA reform focusing specifically on location-based 
technologies and services. This hearing was the second in a 
series of educational hearings held by the Subcommittee to 
study key technology and legal issues associated with ECPA 
reform. Five witnesses testified at this hearing: Professor 
Matt Blaze, Associate Professor of Computer and Information 
Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mike 
Amarosa, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs, 
TruePosition; Hon. Stephen Wm. Smith, United States Magistrate 
Judge, Southern District of Texas; Marc J. Zwillinger, 
Zwillinger Genetski LLP; and Richard Littlehale, Assistant 
Special Agent-in-Charge of the Tennessee Bureau of 
Investigation, Technical Services Unit.
    With the advent of ``smart phones'' and other sophisticated 
hand-held devices, more and more data is generated and 
available concerning the ``location'' of cell phones and their 
users. The hearing began with Professor Blaze educating the 
Subcommittee on location technologies--specifically how 
different technologies interface with cell phones and locate 
their positions with varying degrees of specificity and 
precision in various types of environments, both indoors and 
out. Professor Blaze explained how, even if a network only 
records cell tower data (as opposed to GPS), the precision of 
that data will vary widely for any given customer over the 
course of a day and, for a typical user over time, some of that 
data will likely have locational precision similar to that of 
GPS. Indeed, in urban areas where providers are using microcell 
technology, the level of precision for cell tower location data 
can include individual floors and rooms within buildings.
    Marc Zwillinger explained how the government currently 
applies ECPA to obtain both historical and prospective 
location-based data. For prospective cell tower data, the 
government is currently seeking ``hybrid'' orders from 
magistrate judges that combine pen register trap and traces 
orders with 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) orders. Magistrate Judge Smith 
testified how, because ECPA is unclear as to the standard 
Congress intended for prospective cell site data, many 
magistrate judges (including himself) are requiring search 
warrants for all prospective cell cite data. Some magistrates 
are also requiring search warrants for historical cell cite 
data. Magistrate Judge Smith and other witnesses urged the 
Subcommittee to reform ECPA by, among other things, creating 
clear standards for law enforcement access to location-based 
data.

Hearing on Americans with Disabilities Act at 20--Celebrating Our 
        Progress, Affirming Our Commitment (Serial No. 111-110)

    Summary.--On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to commemorate the 20th anniversary of passage of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990 and to provide an opportunity to 
reflect on the progress that has been made by virtue of the ADA 
and to explore ways to fulfill the full promise of the ADA. 
Testimony was received from: the Honorable Steny Hoyer, 
Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland; the 
Honorable James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress from 
the State of Rhode Island; the Honorable Thomas E. Perez, 
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United 
States Department of Justice; the Honorable Richard Thornburgh, 
former Governor of Pennsylvania, Attorney General of the United 
States under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and 
Under Secretary General of the United Nations; Cheryl 
Sensenbrenner, Immediate Past Board Chair, American Association 
of People with Disabilities; Lt. Col. Gregory D. Gadson, 
Director, U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program; Jonathan M. Young, 
Chairman, National Council on Disability; and Casandra Cox, 
Member, Policy Committee, Coalition of Institutionalized Aged 
and Disabled.
    Hailed by many as the most significant and comprehensive 
civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. In signing the ADA into law, 
President Bush characterized the law as an ``emancipation 
proclamation for people with disabilities'' and called for 
``the shameful wall of exclusion [of people with disabilities 
from mainstream American life to] finally come tumbling down.'' 
The basic framework and language of the ADA places an 
affirmative obligation on employers, governmental entities, and 
places of public accommodations to ensure that people with 
disabilities have an equal chance to participate in mainstream 
American life. Through its requirements of reasonable 
accommodation and modification, the ADA requires that steps be 
taken to remove barriers that prevent full participation by 
people with disabilities, unless doing so causes undue burden 
or hardship.
    At the July 22, 2010 hearing, the witnesses noted the 
tremendous progress made as a result of the ADA with, for 
example, Representative Langevin testifying that the ADA 
``codified the collective ideal that no one should suffer 
discrimination because of a disability. It shattered barriers, 
opening schools, sidewalks, public transportation, public 
accommodations and workplaces to millions of individuals.'' 
While applauding progress made to date, the witnesses also 
focused on challenges that remained. Several witnesses, 
including Representatives Hoyer and Langevin, Mr. Thornburgh, 
and Ms. Sensenbrenner testified regarding the continued 
difficulties that people with disability face in finding and 
keeping jobs and emphasized the need to focus on increasing 
employment opportunities and greater accessibility in the areas 
of transportation and emerging technology.
    Assistant AG Perez testified about the continued, 
unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities 
and highlighted recent DOJ work to ensure that states meet 
their obligation, under the Supreme Court's decision in 
Olmstead v. L.C., to ensure that individuals are placed in the 
most integrated and least restrictive environment possible. Ms. 
Cox, a former resident of an adult home, testified that 
``living in an adult home was one of the most dehumanizing 
experiences that I have gone through in my life.'' Ms. Cox 
testified about the lack of support provided to those seeking 
to leave the adult home setting and how, having been fortunate 
enough to be chosen to participate in a small statewide 
initiative to move residents from adult homes, she is now 
thriving in a supported housing community. Citing to DAI v. 
Patterson, a recent court ruling requiring New York state to 
move residents from adult homes to less restrictive settings, 
Ms. Cox noted that the case represented ``a perfect application 
of the ADA as it was meant to protect those who need it most. 
[The ADA] certainly has given me back my life.''
    Mr. Villalobos, who was paralyzed as the result of a car 
accident in 1993 when he was just eight years old, testified 
about how ADA-required accommodations were essential to his 
continued participation in educational and other opportunities 
and emphasized the importance ``for policy makers to be 
proactive about inclusion of all people with disabilities.''

Protecting the American Dream Part III: Advancing and Improving the 
        Fair Housing Act on the 5-Year Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina 
        (Serial No. 111-145)

    Summary.--The third fair housing hearing, entitled 
Protecting the American Dream Part III: Advancing and Improving 
the Fair Housing Act on the 5-Year Anniversary of hurricane 
Katrina, occurred on July 29, 2010, and examined fair housing 
issues in the context of Hurricane Katrina, both in the 
immediate aftermath of the Hurricane and today. The hearing 
witnesses were Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center 
Executive Director James Perry, Mississippi Center for Justice 
Senior Attorney Reilly Morse, Tulane University Law School 
Professor Stacy Seicshnaydre, and Mercatus Center Gulf Coast 
Recovery Project Managing Director Daniel Rothschild.
    Related Legislation.--Subcommittee Chair Jerrold Nadler 
introduced two bills. H.R. 4820, the ``Fair and Inclusive 
Housing Rights Act of 2010,'' on March 11, 2010, which would 
amend the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the 
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. On December 8, 
2010, Subcommittee Chair Jerrold Nadler introduced H.R. 6500, 
the ``Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) Act,'' which 
amends the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination in the 
sale or rental of housing, the financing of housing, and in 
brokerage services on the basis of sexual orientation, gender 
identity, source of income, and marital status; to make clear 
that discriminatory actions prohibited under the Fair Housing 
Act are unlawful during both pre- and post-acquisition of 
housing; to make the failure to affirmatively further fair 
housing a discriminatory housing practice, which allows such a 
practice to be remedied through a private right of action; to 
improve the definition of ``familial status'' so that it more 
accurately reflects contemporary family arrangements; to 
provide the Department of Justice with the same authority that 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development has to compel 
production of documents from an entity during an investigation, 
prior to the commencement of formal litigation; to require that 
reasonable accommodations be made for a person with a 
disability seeking housing financing; and to deem that a design 
and construction violation continues until it has been 
remedied.

Hearing on ECPA Reform and the Revolution in Cloud Computing (Serial 
        No. 111-149)

    Summary.--On September 23, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on ECPA reform focusing on cloud computing and how the 
growth of cloud computing technologies and services may require 
reforms to ECPA to ensure that, among other things, standards 
governing law enforcement access to e-mail and other electronic 
content are applied consistently under the law, regardless of 
where such content is stored. This hearing was the third in a 
series of educational hearings held by the Subcommittee to 
study key technology and legal issues associated with ECPA 
reform. Representatives from five major cloud computing 
companies testified on the first panel of witnesses: Google 
(Richard Salgado, Senior Counsel, Law Enforcement and 
Information Security); Microsoft (Mike Hintze, Associate 
General Counsel); Salesforce (David Schellhase, Executive Vice 
President and General Counsel); Rackspace (Perry Robinson, 
Associate General Counsel) and; Amazon (Paul Misener, Vice 
President for Global Public Policy). Edward Felten, Professor 
of Computer Science and Public Affairs and Director of the 
Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University, 
also testified on the first panel. Witnesses for the second 
panel included: Kevin Werbach, Associate Professor of Legal 
Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of 
Pennsylvania; Fred H. Cate, Professor of Law and Director of 
Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, Indiana University 
Maurer School of Law; Marc J. Zwillinger, Zwillinger Genetski 
LLP.; Thomas B. Hurbanek, Senior Investigator, Computer Crime 
Unit, New York State Police and; Kurt F. Schmid, Executive 
Director, Chicago High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program.
    Cloud computing is a general term for an Internet-based 
service that remotely ``hosts'' or stores data and allows the 
user to access her data from multiple types of devices and 
locations. Professor Edward W. Felten educated the Subcommittee 
about the many types of services that are provided ``in the 
cloud.'' Common examples he cited included e-mail, document 
management, investment tracking, photo-sharing, project 
management and hard-drive backup. Services provided via the 
cloud often substitute for traditional packaged software. 
Rather than buying a software product and installing it on a 
computer, consumers can subscribe to a service that provides 
similar functionality via the cloud. Businesses also benefit 
from outsourcing their information management. A business can 
put its back-office (i.e., payroll, sales, inventory, etc.) and 
customer-facing computing infrastructures ``in the cloud'' by 
contracting with a service provider to lease access to 
resources in the provider's data center.
    Witnesses observed that Congress, when enacting ECPA in 
1986, may not have anticipated our current world where storage 
of content on third-party cloud servers would be so cost 
efficient that neither individuals nor businesses need ever 
delete an e-mail or other electronic records or documents. 
Professor Cate and Marc Zwillinger explained, however, that 
Internet companies are struggling to apply the existing and 
somewhat outdated categories of information protected by ECPA 
to their products and services. Moreover, the resulting 
application of ECPA to cloud based services creates disparities 
in privacy protections for information stored ``in the cloud'' 
verses information stored on local servers or computers. 
Whereas a ``probable cause'' search warrant is generally 
required for law enforcement to access content stored on an 
individual's computer or local network, content stored in the 
cloud can be obtained through the use of an 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2703(d) order (requiring less than a probable cause 
showing) or a mere administrative or grand jury subpoena 
(requiring no court approval). Because of disparate and lower 
standards governing law enforcement access to content in the 
cloud, industry witnesses from SalesForce and Rackspace 
explained that their foreign customers often have concerns 
about undue government access to information stored in the 
cloud. For U.S. cloud computing companies to expand to the 
fullest extent possible, potential customers of U.S. cloud 
companies want assurances that the U.S. government will not get 
access to their data without deliberate due process. Industry 
witnesses from Salesforce and Rackspaces, as well as Google, 
Microsoft and Amazon all urged the Subcommittee to reform ECPA 
to provide a neutral, uniform standard for law enforcement 
access to content, no matter where it is stored.
    Professor Werbach supported this industry argument by 
reminding the Subcommittee that government action to promote 
trust in electronic commerce and legislation creating safe 
harbors for digital intermediaries played an important role in 
the growth of the Internet over the past fifteen years. He also 
argued there can be little doubt that the Internet has been a 
major boon to innovation, investment, freedom, and other 
national goals. Professor Werbach therefore urged Congress to 
consider how to ensure that outdated legislative and regulatory 
regimes do not undermine those benefits in the coming years.

Hearing on Faith-Based Initiatives: Recommendations of the President's 
        Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Community Partnerships and 
        Other Current Issues (Serial No. 111-156)

    Summary.--On November 18, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing to examine the recommendations for improving and 
strengthening social service partnerships between the 
government and nongovernmental organizations that were issued 
in March 2010 by President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-
Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (Advisory Council), as well 
as other legal or policy issues related to government 
partnerships with faith-based organizations. Testimony was 
received from: Melissa Rogers, Director, Center for Religion 
and Public Affairs, Wake Forest University Divinity School; 
Douglas Laycock, Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law, Horace W. 
Goldsmith Research Professor of Law, Professor of Religious 
Studies, University of Virginia School of Law; and Barry W. 
Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of 
Church and State.
    The federal government often partners with nongovernmental 
organizations to provide a broad array of social services. When 
these nongovernmental partners are faith-based organizations, 
care must be taken to ensure that constitutional commitments 
guaranteeing equal protection of the laws and the free exercise 
of religion and forbidding government establishment of religion 
are met. Questions of whether and how government partnerships 
comply with these requirements, along with the adequacy of 
safeguards to monitor and ensure government compliance, have 
been the subject of considerable debate and concern.
    By executive order issued shortly after he took office, 
President Obama established the Advisory Council to, among 
other things, make recommendations for improving and 
strengthening social service partnerships between the 
government and non-governmental organizations. In its March 
2010 report, the Advisory Council's Taskforce on Reform of the 
Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships made 
several recommendations regarding church-state issues, 
including a recommendation for enhanced guidance on permissible 
versus prohibited use of federal funds, improved monitoring of 
constitutional and other legal requirements accompanying 
federal funds, and greater safeguards for the religious liberty 
rights of the beneficiaries of federally funded programs. 
Consideration of the legal and policy issues related to 
religion-based employment decisions--including whether and when 
a faith-based organization can base employment decisions on 
matters of religious faith in jobs paid for with taxpayer 
dollars--was not within the Council's mandate, and there was no 
recommendation on this issue. On November 17, 2010, the day 
before the hearing, President Obama issued an executive order, 
Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria for 
Partnerships with Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood 
Organizations, that addressed many of the Advisory Council's 
recommendations.
    At the Subcommittee hearing on November 18, 2010, Professor 
Rogers highlighted six elements of the executive order: (1) 
requiring that beneficiaries have the right to an alternative 
provider if they object to their providers religious character 
and that beneficiaries are advised of this in writing; (2) 
clarifying prohibitions on the use of direct government aid for 
explicitly religious activities, ``meaning activities that 
contain overt religious content, like prayer, worship, and 
proselytizing,'' and requiring additional guidance on this and 
the need for entities to separate privately-funded religious 
services from programs subsidized by federal funds; (3) 
requiring monitoring of government-funded programs to ensure 
that church-state rules are being followed; (4) requiring 
agencies to post guidance and lists of entities receiving funds 
online; (5) requiring that awards of federal funds be made free 
from political interference (or the appearance of such 
interference), and based on merit and not on religious 
affiliation or lack thereof; (6) creating an interagency 
working group to create uniform regulations and guidance around 
these and other issues. Professor Rogers also testified that 
the executive order ``doesn't call for churches to form 
separate corporations if they wish to receive direct government 
aid, and that is a change that 13 council members, including 
me, advocated as a way of insulating churches from government 
oversight.''
    With regard to religion-based employment decisions by 
faith-based groups in government-funded jobs, an issue that was 
not considered by the Advisory Council, Professor Rogers said 
``[i]n my view, it is wrong to allow any religious group, 
including my own, to place a religious test on a job that is 
funded by government grant. Because current rules and policies 
permit this in some instances, I believe this matter must be 
addressed.'' Professor Rogers testified that the DOJ Office of 
Legal Counsel opinion, interpreting the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act (RFRA) to exempt a faith-based organization 
from complying with a Congressionally-mandated 
nondiscrimination provision in a federal grant program, should 
be reconsidered and withdrawn.
    Testifying that President Obama's executive order embodied 
several core ``charitable choice'' rules--that there should be 
``no discrimination between religious and secular providers, no 
surrender of religious identity for the religious providers, no 
discrimination on the basis of religion against the recipients 
of the services, no coercion to participate in religious 
activities, the guarantee of an alternative secular provider to 
any recipient who asks for one, audit of the government money 
only as long as it was segregated from the religious provider's 
money, no use of government funds to support the religious 
activities''--Professor Laycock testified that the remaining 
question in dispute is whether religious providers may take 
religion into account when making employment decisions. Taking 
the opposite view from Professor Rogers and Reverend Lynn, 
Professor Laycock testified that requiring religious 
organizations to ``surrender [their] right to hire people who 
support [their] mission'' interfered with First Amendment 
rights of assembly and free exercise.
    Noting that 73% of Americans surveyed are opposed to 
religious discrimination in federally funded jobs, Reverend 
Lynn testified that religious organizations should follow the 
same nondiscrimination requirements as others when receiving 
federal funds. ``[T]he free exercise of religion is not 
burdened when a group voluntarily accepts government funds 
knowing that it contains constraints on certain religiously-
motivated conduct like hiring only your own followers. The 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution is not an 
excuse to refuse to play by American rules when you are playing 
with Americans' dollars.''

Hearing on National Security and Civil Liberties (Serial No. 111-159)

    Summary.--On Thursday, December 9, 2010, the Subcommittee 
held a hearing to examine the relationship between national 
security and civil liberties, and to assess the extent to which 
executive branch national security actions have affected 
freedom and civil liberties in the United States. Witnesses 
included: Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering; Laura W. Murphy of 
the American Civil Liberties Union; Jamil N. Jaffer of Kellogg, 
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.; Michael W. Lewis 
of the Ohio Northern University Claude W. Pettit College of 
Law; investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill; Mary Ellen 
O'Connell of the University of Notre Dame Law School; and Bruce 
E. Fein of the Litchfield Group. Testimony addressed the legal 
and constitutional issues raised by executive branch policies 
in the area of detention, interrogation, targeted killings, and 
related matters.
            SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND COMPETITION POLICY\1\

 HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
         Georgia, Chairman

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WisconsinHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
                                     DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
                                     JARED POLIS, Colorado

--------------------
\1\Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 22, 2009.

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Public:..........................................................
Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.........................    72
Legislation on which hearings were held..........................     5
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.....................     2
Legislation pending before the full Committee....................     0
Legislation reported to the House................................     4
Legislation discharged from the Committee........................     0
Legislation pending in the House.................................     4
Legislation passed by the House..................................     4
Legislation pending in the Senate................................     2
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).............     1
Legislation enacted into Public Law..............................     0
Legislation enacted into Public Law as part of other legislation.     0
Days of legislative hearings.....................................     5
Days of oversight hearings.......................................    16

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy has 
jurisdiction over: antitrust law, monopolies, and restraints of 
trade, administration of U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of 
Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, other 
appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant 
oversight.

                         Legislative Activities


H.R. 233, the ``Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Tammy Baldwin, H.R. 
233, Amends the Clayton Act (the Act) to make federal antitrust 
laws applicable to all common carriers subject to the Surface 
Transportation Board (STB), regardless of whether the carrier 
filed a rail carrier rate or whether a complaint challenging a 
rate is filed. Subjects to antitrust review agreements among 
rail carriers to pool or divide traffic, services, or earnings. 
Authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce 
certain provisions of the Act against STB-approved agreements 
or combinations, including those related to rates.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on January 7, 2009, H.R. 
233 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, On February 
9, 2009, H.R. 233 was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts 
and Competition Policy. On May 19, 2009, the Subcommittee held 
a legislative hearing. The following witnesses appeared and 
submitted a written statement for the record: The Honorable 
Rodney Alexander, Member of Congress, 5th district of Louisiana 
, M. Howard Morse, Chair, Exemptions and Immunities Committee, 
American Bar Association Sector of Antitrust Law, J. Michael 
Hemmer, Vice Chairman, Policy and Advocacy Committee, 
Association of American Railroads, Terry Huval, Director, 
Lafayette Utilities System, and Dr. Mark Cooper, Director of 
Research, Consumer Federation of America. On July 30, 2009, the 
Subcommittee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
H.R. 233, amended by voice vote. On June 1, 2009, related bill 
S. 146 Motion to proceed withdrawn by unanimous consent in 
Senate. (S. Rept. 111-9)

H.R. 569, the ``Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2010''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Susan Davis, H.R. 
569, amends titles 28 and 10, United States 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.--Introduced on January 15, 2009, H.R. 
569 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
May, 29, 2009, H.R. 569, was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Courts and Competition. On June 11, 2009, the Subcommittee held 
a legislative hearing H.R. 569, the Equal Justice for Our 
Military Act of 2010 pursuant to notice. The following 
witnesses appeared and submitted statements for the record: The 
Honorable Susan Davis, Member of Congress, 53rd District, State 
of California; Dwight H. Sullivan, Civilian Appellate Defense 
Counsel, United States Air Force Appellate Defense Division, 
Major General (Ret.) John D. Altenburg Jr., of Counsel, 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP. On July 30, 2009, the Subcommittee held 
a markup to consider H.R. 569 and reported the bill favorable 
to Full Committee by voice vote. On January 27, 2010, the Full 
Committee considered and ordered reported favorably (amended) 
by voice vote. H. Rept. 111-547. (Senate version) S. 357. No 
further action.

H.R. 628, To establishes a pilot program in certain United States 
        district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent 
        cases among district court judges.

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Darrell E. Issa, 
H.R. 628 establishes a pilot program in certain United States 
district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent 
cases among district court judges.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on January 22, 2009, H.R. 
628 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
March 17, 2009, Representative Henry ``Hank'' C. Johnson, Jr. 
moved to suspend the rules on the floor and pass the bill under 
suspension of the rules. The House proceeded with forty minutes 
of debate on H.R. 628. At the conclusion of debate, the Chair 
put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. 
Representative Issa objected to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were 
postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn. On motion to 
suspend the rules. The House passed H.R. 628 and agreed to the 
bill by recorded vote (409-7). On March 18, 2009, H.R. 628 was 
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. On December 
13, 2010, H.R. 628 was passed by the Senate with amendment by 
Unanimous Consent. On December 17, 2010, as amended by the 
Senate, the House passed the bill, H.R. 628, by a vote of (371-
1).

H.R. 1626, the ``Statutory Time-Periods Technical Amendments Act of 
        2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Henry ``Hank'' C. 
Johnson, Jr., to make technical amendments to laws containing 
time periods affecting judicial proceedings.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on March 19, 2009, H.R. 
1626, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition, to the 
Subcommittee on Health 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. On April 22, 2009, Representative Anthony 
Weiner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. H.R. 1626, 
was agreed to by voice vote. On April 27, 2009, H.R. 1626, 
passed the Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. On 
May 7, 2009, H.R. 1626 became Public Law 111-16.

H.R. 3190, the ``Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act of 2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Henry C. ``Hank'' C. 
Johnson, Jr., H.R. 3190, restores the rule that agreements 
between manufacturers and retailers, distributors, or 
wholesalers to set the price below which the manufacturer's 
product or service cannot be sold violates the Sherman Act.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on July 13, 2009, H.R. 
3190, was referred to the Committee. On July 29, 2009, H.R. 
3190, was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy. On July 30, 2009, the Subcommittee met in 
open session and ordered the bill favorably reported by voice 
vote. On January 13, 2010, the Committee considered and ordered 
reported the bill by voice vote. No further action. S. 148, the 
``Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act'' (Senate Rept. 111-
227) introduced by Senator Kohl, January 6, 2009.

H.R. 3596, the ``Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 
        2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., 
H.R. 3596, ensures that health insurance issuers and medical 
malpractice insurance issuers cannot engage in price fixing, 
bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of 
competition and consumers.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on September 17, 2009, 
H.R. 3596, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
October 2, 2009, H.R. 3596 was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Courts and Competition Policy. On October 8, 2009, the 
Subcommittee held a legislative hearing. The following 
witnesses appeared and submitted written statements for the 
record: James D. Hurley, Member, Medical Professional Liability 
Subcommittee, American Academy of Actuaries, Dr. Peter J. 
Mandell, Former President, California Orthopaedic Association, 
and Ilene Knable Gotts, Chair, Section of Antitrust Law, 
American Bar Association. On October 21, 2009, the Committee 
met in open session, and ordered the bill reported amended by 
roll call vote of 20-9. (H. Rept. 111-322) The bill was 
incorporated into H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for 
America Act, which passed the House on November 7, 2009, by a 
vote of 220-215. S. 1681

H.R. 3632, the ``Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 
        2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Henry ``Hank'' C. 
Johnson, Jr., to provide improvements for the operations of the 
Federal courts.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on September 23, 2009, 
H.R. 3632, was referred to the House Committee on the 
Judiciary. On October 19, 2009, H.R. was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. On October 28, 
2009, Representative Steve Cohen, moved to suspend under the 
rule and pass H.R. 3632 on the House floor. The House agreed 
and passed H.R. 3632 by voice vote. The Senate companion bill, 
S. 1782, the Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvement Act 
of 2010, was introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on 
October 14, 2009. On March 16, 2010, the Senate Committee on 
the Judiciary discharged S. 1782 by Unanimous Consent. S. 1782 
was amended by Senator Kaufman for Senator Whitehouse in the 
nature of a substitute. On March 16, 2010 S. 1782 passed the 
Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. On May 18, 2010, 
Representative Henry ``Hank'' C. Johnson, Jr., moved to suspend 
the rules and pass S. 1782. The House proceeded with forty 
minutes of debate on S. 1782. On motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, S. 1782 was agreed to by voice vote. On May 
27, 2010, S. 1782 became Public Law No: 111-174.

H.R. 4113, the ``Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification 
        Act of 2010''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Lamar Smith, H.R. 
4113, amends Title 28, U.S.C. to clarify the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Courts.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on November 19, 2009, H.R. 
4113 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
January 4, 2010, H.R. 4113 was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Courts and Competition Policy. On September 28, 2009, 
Representative Bobby Scott, moved to suspend the rules on the 
House floor and pass the bill as amended. The bill, H.R. 4113, 
passed, as amended, by voice vote. No Senate action taken.

H.R. 4115, the ``Open Access to Courts Act of 2009''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Jerrold Nadler, H.R. 
4115, prohibits a U.S. district court from dismissing a 
complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 
prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would 
entitle the plaintiff to relief or on the basis of a 
determination by the judge that the factual contents of the 
complaint do not show the plaintiff's claim to be plausible or 
are insufficient to warrant a reasonable interference that the 
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on November 19, 2009, H.R. 
4115 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
December 11, 2009, H.R. 4115 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Courts and Competition Policy. On December 16, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 4115 pursuant to notice. The 
following witnesses appeared and submitted statements for the 
record: The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Member of Congress, 8th 
district of New York, Eric Schnapper, Professor of Law, 
University of Washington, School of Law, Gregory G. Katsas, 
Former Assistant General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Jonathan L. Rubin, Patton Boggs, Joshua P. Davis, 
Professor, Center for Law and Ethics, University of San 
Francisco, School of Law. No further action.

H.R. 5034, the ``Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 
        2010''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Bill Delahunt, to 
support state based alcohol regulation, to clarify evidentiary 
rules for alcohol matters, and to ensure the collection of all 
alcohol taxes.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on April 15, 2010, H.R. 
5034 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On 
June 15, 2010, H.R. 5034 was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Courts and Competition Policy. On September 22, 2010, the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition discharged. On September 
29, 2010, the Full Committee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 
5034. The following witnesses appeared and submitted statement 
for the record: Panel I, Representative Mike Thompson, 1st 
district of California, Representative Peter DeFazio, 4th 
district of Oregon, Representative Bruce Braley, 1st district 
of Iowa, Representative Edolphus Towns, 10th district of New 
York, Representative George Radanovich, 19th district of 
California, and Representative Gary Miler, 42nd district of 
California. Panel II, the Honorable Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney 
General for the State of Utah, Richard Doyle, Chairman and CEO, 
Harpoon Brewery, Nida Samona, Chairperson, Michigan Liquor 
Control Commission, Stephen M. Diamond, Professor of Law, 
University of Miami, Einer Richard Elhauge, Petrie Professor of 
Law, Harvard Law School, Tracy K. Genesen, Partner, Kirkland ` 
Ellis, LLP, and Michele Simon, Research and Policy Director, 
Marin Institute.

H.R. 5281, The ``Removal Clarification Act of 2010''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Henry C. ``Hank'' C. 
Johnson, Jr. amends title 28, United States code, with respect 
to removal to U.S. district court from a state court of: (1) 
any civil action against the United States or a federal agency 
or officer, or specified others; or (2) a criminal prosecution 
commenced in a state court against any of them.
    Legislative History.--Introduced on May 12, 2010, H.R. 5281 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On May 21, 
2010, H.R. 5281 was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy. On May 25, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
legislative hearing pursuant to notice. The following witnesses 
appeared and submitted statements for the record: Beth S. 
Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 
U.S. Department of Justice, Irvin B. Nathan, General Counsel, 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, 
Lonny Hoffman, George Butler Research Professor of Law, 
University of Houston Law Center, and Arthur D. Hellman, 
Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law. The 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy discharged. On 
July 27, 2010, the House considered H.R. 5281 under suspension 
of the rules and passed the bill, as amended by voice vote. On 
December 3, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 5281 with an amendment 
and sent the bill back to the House. On December 8, 2010, the 
House passed H.R. 5281, as amended by the Senate with the DREAM 
Act as a House amendment.

                           Oversight Hearings

    Pursuant to its obligations under Rule X of the House 
Rules, the Committee submitted the following subject matters as 
part of its oversight plan for the 111th Congress.

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 111th Congress, the Subcommittee also examined the 
state of judicial recusals after Caperton v. A.T. Massey. On 
December 10, 2009, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing 
on judicial recusals. The witnesses were: Judge M. Margaret 
McKeown, United States Courts of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 
District; Charles G. Geyh, Associate Dean of Research, John F. 
Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University, Maurer School 
of Law; Richard E. Flamm, Author of Judicial Disqualification: 
Recusal and Disqualification of Judges; Conflicts of Interest 
and Law Firm Disqualification; Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz, 
Professor of Law, University of California, Norman L. Reimer, 
Executive Director, National Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers; and Arthur D. Hellman, Professor of Law, University of 
Pittsburgh, Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair. In response to 
this hearing, Chairman Johnson commissioned a study by the 
Congressional Research Service to evaluate judicial recusal law 
in each state.
    The Subcommittee also considered a Government 
Accountability Office (``GAO'') report on federal courthouse 
construction and its effects on courts and access to justice. 
On September 29th, the Subcommittee held a hearing to examine 
the implications of the report and the need for courthouses to 
be adequately funded. The witnesses were: The Honorable Jim 
Cooper, Member of Congress, 5th District of Tennessee; Mark L. 
Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. 
District Judge, District of Massachusetts and Chairman of the 
Judicial Conference's Committee on Space and Facilities; Robert 
A. Peck, Commissioner of Public Buildings, U.S. General 
Services Administration; The Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr., 
Chief U.S. District Judge, Western District of North Carolina; 
and Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law 
School.
    The Subcommittee also considered a number of legislative 
items to ensure the proper functioning of the courts. These 
included annual evaluation of the Rules Package, passage of 
time computation legislation to harmonize the federal rules 
with amendments to the federal time-computation rules intended 
to provide predictability and uniformity to the current process 
of calculating court deadline, and passage of the ``Judicial 
Survivors Protection Act of 2009'' to authorize a six-month 
open enrollment period for a federal judicial official to opt 
into the Judicial Survivors' Annuities System.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Open Access to 
Courts Act of 2009'' which establishes a pleading standard 
following the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. 
The Subcommittee also held a hearing on and marked up the 
``Removal Clarification Act of 2010'' which will allow federal 
officers to properly remove to federal court when they are sued 
for actions undertaken in their official capacity.

Antitrust Law

    The Subcommittee on Courts and Competition has jurisdiction 
over competition policy and all laws relevant to antitrust. In 
addition, the Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the federal 
agencies empowered to enforce those laws, the Antitrust 
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice as well and the 
Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission.
    Chairman Johnson initiated a series of hearings entitled, 
``An Antitrust System for the 21st Century.'' The purpose of 
this series of hearings was to examine the findings and 
recommendations made by the Congressionally-mandated, 
bipartisan Antitrust Modernization Commission, in 2007. The 
Commission had been tasked by Congress with evaluating the 
nation's antitrust laws and offering recommendations for 
updating them.
    As part of this series, the Subcommittee held hearings 
examining whether there were entities in the banking industry 
that were''too big to fail,'' and if so, if their existence 
marked a failure of antitrust enforcement; the continuing need 
for the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for insurance 
companies; the impact of the Credit Suisse and Trinko decisions 
on antitrust enforcement in regulated industries.''
    The Subcommittee held hearings regarding consolidation in a 
number of industries, in the wake of prominent mergers in those 
industries. Some of the industries reviewed by the Committee 
included ticketing and concert promotion; online search; 
combined television and broadband providers; and newspaper.
    With respect to legislation, the Subcommittee held hearings 
examining the antitrust implications of major financial and 
health care reform legislation as it was debated by both 
Houses. Voted out of subcommittee were separate pieces of 
legislation that would have removed the antitrust exemption for 
health insurance companies; would have removed the antitrust 
exemption for railroad companies; and would have overturned a 
2004 Supreme Court decision, the net result of which would have 
been that threshold price agreements between manufacturers and 
retailers would once more be illegal. Passed into law was a 10-
year reauthorization of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty 
Enhancement and Reform Act, a statute designed to help uncover 
global price-fixing cartels.
    In addition, the Subcommittee exercised oversight over 
disproportionate enforcement of the antitrust laws against 
physicians; the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in 
American Needle v. NFL; and the enforcement records of the 
federal antitrust agencies.

List of Oversight Hearings

    Competition in the Ticketing and Promotion Industry, 
February 26, 2009 (Serial No. 111-62)
    ```Too Big To Fail?': The Role of Antitrust Law in 
Government-Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry, March 
17, 2009 (Serial No. 111-33)
    A New Age for Newspapers: Diversity of Voices, Competition 
and the Internet, April 21, 2009 (Serial No. 111-38)
    `Bye Bye Bargains?' ``Retail Price Fixing, the Leegin 
Decision, and Its Impact on Consumer Prices'', April 28, 2009 
(Serial No. 111-37)
    Pay to Delay: Are Patent Settlements That Delay Generic 
Drug Market Entry Anticompetitive?, June 3, 2009 (Serial No. 
111-105)
    Biologics and Biosimilars: Balancing Incentives for 
Innovation, June 14, 2009 (Serial No. 111-73)
    Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on 
Competition, September 23, 2009 (Serial No. 111-70)
    Too Big to Fail: The Role for Bankruptcy and Antitrust Law 
in Financial Regulation Reform, Part II, November 17, 2009 
(Serial No. 111-106)
    Examining the State of Judicial Recusals after Caperton v. 
A.T. Massey, December 10, 2009 (Serial No. 111-118)
    The Antitrust Implications of American Needle v. NFL, 
January 20, 2010 (Serial No. 111-126)
    Legal Issues Concerning State Alcohol Regulation, March 18, 
2010 (Serial No. 111-125)
    Design Patents and Auto Replacement, March 22, 2010 (Serial 
No. 111-112)
    The United States Patent and Trademark Office, May 5, 2010 
(Serial No. 111-)
    Is There Life After Trinko and Credit Suisse?: The Role of 
Antitrust in Regulated Industries'', June 15, 2010 (Serial No. 
111-119)
    Impact of China's Antitrust Law and other Competition 
Policies on U.S. Companies, July 13, 2010 (Serial No. 111-117)
    The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition and 
the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, July 27, 2010 
(Serial No. 111-133)
    Competition in the Evolving Digital Marketplace, September 
16, 2010 (Serial No. 111-)
    Courtroom Use: Access to Justice, Judicial Administration, 
and Courtroom Security, September 29, 2010 (Serial No. 111-153)
    Antitrust Laws and Their Effects on Healthcare Providers, 
Insurers and Patients, December 1, 2010 (Serial No. 111-)

Hearing on ``Competition in the Ticketing and Promotion Industry'' 
        (Serial No. 111-62)

    The hearing was held to examine the state of competition in 
the ticketing and promotion industry and to determine the 
effects of a merger between Live Nation and Ticketmaster on the 
industry. The hearing explored the procompetitive benefits and 
the anticompetitive effects of the proposed merger, including 
the effects upon competition as well as any efficiencies to be 
gained. Ticketmaster is a ticketing and marketing company that 
provides ticket sales, ticket resale services and ticket 
marketing and distribution services in domestic and global 
markets. Ticketmaster acts as the sales agent of more than 80% 
of the major arenas and stadiums in the United States, in what 
is referred to in the industry as the ``primary,'' or initial 
direct sale, ticket market. The company also participates in 
artist management through its acquisition of a majority share 
of Front Line Management. Front Line is one of the world's 
leading artist management companies with nearly 200 clients and 
more than 80 executive managers. It manages a wide range of 
talent including Aerosmith, Christina Aguilera, Jimmy Buffett, 
the Eagles, Chicago and Guns N' Roses. Ticketmaster acquired 
its majority share in Frontline in 2008 shortly before the 
expiration of its contract with Live Nation.
    The size of the deal and the merging companies 
automatically triggers review by one of the federal antitrust 
agencies under the Hart-Scott-Rodino amendments to the Clayton 
Act. The overarching goal of antitrust law enforcement is to 
promote competition. The reviewing agency identified the 
product markets in which the companies competed, and considered 
a number of factors, provided in detail below, in determining 
whether the procompetitive benefits of the merger outweighed 
its anticompetitive effects.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., 
Member of Congress, 8th District of New Jersey, Michael Rapino, 
President & Chief Executive Officer, Live Nation Worldwide, 
Incorporated, Irving Azoff, Chief Executive Officer, 
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Incorporated, Robert W. Doyle, Jr., 
Partner, Doyle, Barlow & Mazard, PLLC, Peter A. Luukko, 
President & Chief Operating Officer, Comcast-Spectacor, Luke 
Froeb, William C. and Margaret W. Oehmig Associate Professor of 
Management, Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt 
University, Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. 
PIRG, the Federation of Public Interest Research Groups,
    Adam B. Jaffe, Professor of Economics and Dean of Arts and 
Sciences, Brandeis University, Suzanne Michel, Chief 
Intellectual Property Counsel and Deputy Assistant Director for 
Policy Coordination, Federal Trade Commission, Mark Myers, Co-
Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Report Patent System 
for 21st Century, and Daniel B. Ravicher, Executive Director, 
Public Patent Foundation.

Hearing on `Too Big To Fail?': The Role of Antitrust Law in Government-
        Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry (Serial No. 111-
        33)

    The hearing examined whether the nation's recent economic 
downturn was worsened by the policies regarding the antitrust 
laws and the lessons that we should learn to prevent or limit 
systemic risk of ``too big to fail'' institutions. We explored 
the cause, antitrust enforcement to date, perceived problems, 
and possible remedies. The federal government investment of 
hundreds of billions of dollars into financial institutions. 
Some of these investments have been made directly into 
financial institutions that were colloquially termed ``too big 
to fail.'' Others were distributed to financial institutions 
through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (``TARP''). Although 
the stated goal of the TARP funding was to increase liquidity 
in the credit markets and stimulate lending, some of the funds 
were used by recipient banks to acquire competing banks that, 
in some cases, were denied TARP funding. These events raised 
two interrelated issues. First, are there institutions that are 
``too big to fail,'' and should antitrust law have prevented 
them from becoming embedded in the economy to such an extent 
that government intervention was required to prevent a failure? 
More than 5400 bank mergers occurred between 1990 and 2005. 
Those mergers included 74 ``mega-mergers'' where the buyer and 
seller each had more than $10 billion in assets.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Albert A. Foer, President, American 
Antitrust Institute, (AAI), C.R. ``Rusty'' Cloutier, President 
& Chief Executive Officer, MidSouth Bank, N.A., William Askew, 
Senior Policy Advisor, Financial Services Roundtable, Deborah 
A. Garza, Former Assistant Attorney General, Division of 
Antitrust, U.S. Department of Justice, Mark N. Cooper, Director 
of Research, Consumer Federation of America, Adam B. Jaffe, 
Professor of Economics and Dean of Arts and Sciences, Brandeis 
University, Suzanne Michel, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel 
and Deputy Assistant Director for Policy Coordination, Federal 
Trade Commission, Mark Myers, Co-Chair of the National Academy 
of Sciences Report Patent System for 21st Century, and Daniel 
B. Ravicher, Executive Director, Public Patent Foundation.

Hearing on ``A New Age for Newspapers: Diversity of Voices, Competition 
        and the Internet'' (Serial No. 111-38)

    The hearing addressed changes in the industry and 
continually decreasing revenues, newspapers have taken a number 
of steps to stay in business including consolidation, reduction 
in workforce, cutting back on quantity and quality of content, 
cutting back on frequency of content, and filing for bankruptcy 
protection. Others have been forced to close their doors 
forever. The hard times that print journalism is facing is 
illustrated by a list compiled by Time Magazine that ranks the 
country's ten most endangered papers from our nation's major 
cities; Specifically, the list included publications from 
Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Fort Worth, New York, Miami, 
Minneapolis, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Carl Shapiro, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General for Economics, Antitrust Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Brian Tierney, Chief Executive Officer, 
Philadelphia Media Holdings, John Nichols, American Journalist, 
Bernie Lunzer, President, The Newspaper Guild, Ben Scott, 
Policy Director, Free Press, C. Edwin Baker, Nicholas F. 
Gallicchio Professor, University of Pennsylvania, and Dan 
Gainor, Vice President, Business and Media Institute, Media 
Research Center.

Hearing on `Bye Bye Bargains?' ``Retail Price Fixing, the Leegin 
        Decision, and Its Impact on Consumer Prices'' (Serial No. 111-
        37)

    The purpose of this hearing was to examine the effect of 
the Supreme Court's July 2007 decision in Leegin Creative 
Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. on the competitiveness of 
retail prices. Leegin overturned the bright-line per se 
prohibition against minimum retail price agreements between 
manufacturers and retailers and instead now subjects all such 
agreements to a more evidence-intensive ``rule of reason'' 
analysis. The impact of this shift may be to eliminate sales 
and discounts in retail pricing. As a result, the decision has 
had the effect, in some instances, of eliminating competition 
among retailers selling the same manufacturer's product so-
called ``intrabrand competition.'' Should more manufacturers 
begin to fix a minimum price for their products, intrabrand 
competition could be drastically reduced, limiting the ability 
of retailers to vigorously undercut each other, the ability of 
consumers to price-shop, and the ability of retailers to move 
merchandise through sales, close-outs, and bargain bins. In his 
dissent in Leegin, Justice Breyer estimated that even if only 
10 percent of manufacturers engaged in minimum retail price 
fixing, the annual retail bills for the average family of four 
would increase by between $750 and $1,000.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Pamela Jones Harbour, Commissioner, 
Federal Trade Commission, Thomas G. Hungar, Partner, Gibson, 
Dunn ` Crutcher, LLP, Tod Cohen, Vice President, Deputy General 
Counsel for Government Relations eBay Incorporated, and Richard 
Brunell, Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust 
Institute.

Hearing on Pay to Delay: Are Patent Settlements That Delay Generic Drug 
        Market Entry Anticompetitive? (Serial No. 111-105)

    The hearing provided an opportunity to hear testimony 
related to whether or not settlements of patent infringement/
invalidation lawsuits between pharmaceutical companies that 
sell ``brand'' drugs and generic drug manufacturers that are 
attempting to enter the market with a less expensive generic 
equivalent drug are anticompetitive and do harm to consumers, 
or are an efficient way to avoid litigation expenses and 
ultimately benefit consumers.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Richard Feinstein, Director of the 
Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Heather 
Bresch, Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, 
Mylan Incorporated, William P. Kennedy, Chief Executive 
Officer, Orlando, Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Guy 
Donatiello, Vice President, Intellectual Property, Endo 
Pharmaceuticals, and William Vaughan, Senior Health Policy 
Analyst, Consumer Union, and Bret M. Dickey, Senior Vice 
President, Compass Lexecon.

Hearing on ``Biologics and Biosimilars: Balancing Incentives for 
        Innovation'' (Serial No. 111-73)

    The hearing examined proposals to establish an expedited 
regulatory pathway for generic versions of biological 
pharmaceutical products similar to the pathway for generic 
drugs established in the Hatch-Waxman Act, how such a pathway 
can benefit consumers, and what intellectual property 
protections are necessary to ensure such a pathway does not 
harm research and development investment in the biotechnology 
industry.
    The following witnesses gave testimony and submitted a 
written statement for the record: Panel I, The Honorable Anna 
G. Eshoo, Member of Congress, 14th Congressional District, 
State of California. Panel II, Bruce A. Leicher, Senior Vice 
President and General Counsel, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, 
Incorporated; Jeffrey P. Kushan, on behalf of the Biotechnology 
Industry Organization; Alex M. Brill, Research Fellow, American 
Enterprise Institute; Jack W. Lasersohn, General Partner, 
Verticle Group, on behalf of National Venture Capital 
Association; Larry McNeely, Healthcare Reform Advocate, United 
States Public Interest Research Groups; and Teresa Stanek Rea, 
President, American Intellectual Property Law Association.

Hearing on ``Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on 
        Competition'' (Serial No. 110-70)

    This hearing focused on the impact that the proposed 
expansion of generic Top Level Domain Names could have on 
consumer use and confidence in the Internet, whether companies 
will be forced to make huge investments in new domain names in 
order to prevent trademark infringing abuse by cybersquatters, 
and what will be the nature of the relationship between the 
United States government and the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) following expiration of the 
current agreement between the U.S. and ICANN.
    The following witnesses gave testimony and submitted a 
written statement for the record: Doug Brent, Chief Operating 
Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
(ICANN); Richard Heath, President, International Trademark 
Association; Paul Stahura, Chief Executive Officer, President, 
eNOM; and Steve DelBianco, Executive Director, NetChoice.

Hearing on ``Too Big to Fail: The Role for Bankruptcy and Antitrust Law 
        in Financial Regulation Reform, Part II'' (Serial No. 111-106)

    The purpose of the hearing was to provide an opportunity 
for Members to examine those portions of President Obama 
Administration's financial regulatory reform package that were 
within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, with a 
particular focus on the antitrust, courts, and bankruptcy 
implications of the Administration's proposal for enhanced 
resolution authority. The Administration had argued that a lack 
of proper regulation of large non-bank financial institutions 
that were highly interconnected with other actors in the 
Nation's financial system (i.e., those institutions that were 
said to be ``too big to fail''), coupled with an inability of 
the Bankruptcy Code to handle properly the insolvency of such 
institutions, contributed to the recent financial crisis and 
will continue to constrain the government's capacity to address 
future crises. Accordingly, the hearing focused on the 
Administration's proposals for an appropriate regulatory regime 
for large interconnected non-bank financial institutions as 
well as resolution authority to handle any future insolvencies 
of such institutions. The hearing allowed Members to consider 
whether the exemptions from antitrust oversight sought by the 
government under resolution authority would have a harmful 
effect on consumers by failing to properly safeguard 
competition in the market and inadvertently creating a new 
generation of ``too big to fail'' institutions. Members also 
had the opportunity to examine certain courts and bankruptcy 
concerns that the resolution authority proposal raises.
    The following witnesses submitted a written statement for 
the record: Christopher L. Sagers, Associate Professor of Law, 
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Edwin E. Smith, Bingham 
McCutchen, LLP, on behalf of the National Bankruptcy 
Conference, Michael A. Rosenthal, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 
and Charles Calomiris, Henry Kaufman Professor of Financial 
Institutions, Columbia Business School.

Hearing on ``Examining the State of Judicial Recusals after Caperton v. 
        A.T. Massey'' (Serial No. 111-118)

    This hearing explored: (1) the current state of judicial 
recusals in the federal and state court systems in light of 
Caperton; (2) whether reform to judicial recusal laws is ripe 
for review; and (3) the pros and cons of potential substantive 
and procedural reform to judicial recusal laws. An impartial 
judicial system is essential to effective law and order and 
overall public confidence in the judiciary. To ensure 
confidence, current federal laws impart an objective standard 
requiring judges to recuse themselves from a case where there 
exists an appearance of bias, or more severely, where actual 
bias exists. Judicial recusal laws are imperative to ensuring 
the public's Constitutional right to due process of law by 
demanding that judges remain neutral arbiters, free from 
influence or self-dealing. The question presented in light of 
recent case law, was whether the current federal judicial 
recusal laws do enough to ensure an impartial judiciary in 
which the public can place their trust. In June 2009, the 
United States Supreme Court decided Caperton v. A.T. Massey, a 
case which set a ceiling on campaign contributions for elected 
state judges. Caperton is the most recent case in a string of 
judicial recusal cases that bring the judicial recusal issue to 
the forefront and attention of media, academics and the public. 
Other recent cases include Cheney v. U.S. District Court for 
the District of Columbia and U.S. v. Siegelman. Responding to 
these decisions, there are those who suggest changing 
substantive and procedural aspects of federal judicial recusal 
laws so as to promote greater transparency to the public and 
within the judicial branch. Suggested substantive changes seek 
to resolve circuit splits on issues of timeliness and the 
definition of ``reasonable observer.'' Suggested procedural 
changes include: a system to prevent judges from deciding their 
own disqualification motions; mandatory disclosure rules 
revealing reasons for both recusal and denied disqualification 
motions; procedures for factual investigation into judicial 
conflicts; and a prescribed judicial replacement system for 
judges who do recuse. Proponents of such changes are primarily 
concerned with judicial recusals at the federal appellate and 
U.S. Supreme Court levels, as appealing disqualification 
motions is very difficult, if not nearly impossible at this 
stage.
    The following witnesses submitted a written statement for 
the record: Judge M. Margaret McKeown, United States Courts of 
Appeals, Ninth Circuit District, Charles G. Geyh, Associate 
Dean of Research, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana 
University, Maurer School of Law, Richard E. Flamm, Author of 
Judicial Disqualification: Recusal and Disqualification of 
Judges; Conflicts of Interest and Law Firm Disqualification, 
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz, Professor of Law, University 
of California, Norman L. Reimer, Executive Director, National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Arthur D. Hellman, 
Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Sally Ann Semenko 
Endowed, Chair.

Hearing on ``The Antitrust Implications of American Needle v. NFL'' 
        (Serial No. 111-126)

    The purpose of this hearing was to examine the competitive 
implications of the National Football League's (NFL) position 
in the case of American Needle v. National Football League that 
was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 13, 2010. In 
American Needle, the National Football League sought a 
declaration of its single-entity status by the Supreme Court. 
Single entities, under Copperweld et seq., are afforded special 
protections under antitrust law. Single entities are deemed 
incapable of forming illegal conspiracies with their wholly-
owned subsidiaries or their own employees, because the entities 
act with a unity of interest. As such, wholly-owned 
subsidiaries and employees are not treated as separate 
``persons.'' As a result, single entities are effectively 
immunized from suit by the antitrust enforcement agencies and 
private plaintiffs with respect to charges of illegal contracts 
and conspiracies under antitrust law.
    The case generated considerable speculation as to the 
implications of a pro-NFL decision. Supporters of the NFL's 
position argued that a pro-NFL decision in American Needle 
would be limited in effect, simply securing the NFL's ability 
to conduct the business of the league, staving off frivolous 
litigation, and providing clarity regarding the legal status of 
the NFL to courts of appeal that are unsettled on the issue. 
Detractors of the NFL's position cautioned that a pro-NFL 
decision could have a calamitous impact upon the personnel and 
fans of the NFL, allowing the league to eliminate the free 
agency system and impose a salary structure upon players, or 
transfer franchises to other locations more easily, among other 
actions.
    The following witnesses submitted a written statement for 
the record: Gary Gertzog, Senior Vice President, National 
Football League, Kevin Mawae, President, National Football 
League Players Association, William L. Daly, III, Deputy 
Commissioner, National Hockey League, and Stephen F. Ross, 
Lewis H. Vovakis Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Professor of 
Law and Director of Sports Law, Policy and Research, 
Pennsylvania State University.

Hearing on ``Legal Issues Concerning State Alcohol Regulation'' (Serial 
        No. 111-125)

    The purpose of the hearing was to examine whether the 
intent of Congress with the passage of select laws relating to 
state alcohol regulation and the Twenty-First Amendment has 
been thwarted by recent legal developments, and whether 
competition laws should apply to the alcoholic beverage 
industry or whether the nature of the product makes that 
industry a special case that should be afforded protection from 
the antitrust laws. In response to a 2005 Supreme Court 
decision, Granholm v. Heald, some state regulations of alcohol 
have been struck down or challenged as violating the 
Constitution's Commerce Clause. Proponents of these challenges 
claim that these regulations discriminate against out-of-state 
producers of alcohol in order to protect in-state businesses, 
resulting in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. 
Opponents claim that the regulations are protected by the 
Twenty-First Amendment, which gives states wide latitude to 
enact legislation regulating the importation and sale of 
alcoholic beverages. They also argue that these regulations are 
necessary to promote temperance, drinking age laws, and proper 
tax collection. Since Granholm, there have been at least twenty 
lawsuits challenging state regulations on these grounds. State 
regulation of alcohol has also been subject to challenges under 
the federal antitrust laws. State actions which violate Section 
1 of the Sherman Act and do not qualify for immunity under 
``state action'' doctrine are struck down under the Supremacy 
Clause. As with the Commerce Clause, critics argue that the 
Twenty-First Amendment should protect all state regulation of 
alcohol from antitrust challenge. Proponents point to recent 
court decisions which have held that the Sherman Act applies to 
state regulation of alcohol.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Panel I, the Honorable Bobby L. Rush, 
Member of Congress, 1st Congressional District, State of 
Illinois, the Honorable Mike Thompson, Member of Congress, 1st 
District, State of California, Representative Steve Cohen, 
Member of Congress, 9th District, State of Tennessee, and 
Representative George Radanovich, Member of Congress, 19th 
District, State of California. Panel II, James C. Ho, Solicitor 
General of Texas, Office of the Solicitor General, Ms. Nida 
Samona, Chairperson, Michigan Liquor Control Commission, Mr. 
Stephen Hindy, Chairman and President, Brooklyn Brewery, Ms. 
Pamela S. Erickson, Chief Executive Officer, Public Action 
Management, and Professor Darren Bush, Associate Professor of 
Law, University of Houston Law Center.

Hearing on ``Domestic and International Trademark Implications of 
        HAVANA CLUB and Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act 
        of 1999'' (Serial No. 111-69)

    This hearing examined Section 211 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 1999, which prevents recognition of 
ownership rights in trademarks nationalized and confiscated by 
the Cuban government, the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
decision that found the law to be in violation of WTO Agreement 
on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, and 
proposals to bring the U.S. into compliance with its treaty 
obligations.
    The following witnesses gave testimony and submitted 
written statements for the record: Mark Z. Orr, Vice President 
of North American Affairs, Pernod Ricard USA, Inc.; Bruce A. 
Lehman, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Expert 
Counsel for Bacardi, USA; Mark T. Esper, Ph.D., Executive Vice 
President, Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce; William A. Reinsch, President, National Foreign Trade 
Council; and John K. Veroneau, Partner, Covington & Burling, 
LLP.

Hearing on ``Design Patents and Auto Replacement Parts'' (Serial No. 
        111-112)

    This hearing examined the use of design patent protection 
for auto parts, whether an exception to this protection is 
needed for replacement auto parts, and what impact such an 
exception might have on the United States intellectual property 
system and United States treaty obligations related to 
intellectual property.
    The following witnesses gave testimony and submitted 
written statements for the record: Jack Gillis, Director of 
Public Affairs, Consumer Federation of America; Damian Porcari, 
Licensing and Enforcement, Ford Global Technologies, LLC; 
Robert C. Passmore, Senior Director, Personal Lines, Property 
Casualty Insurers Association of America; and Perry Saidman, 
Saidman Design Law Group.

Hearing on ``The United States Patent and Trademark Office'' (Serial 
        No. 111-135)

    This hearing took a close look at initiatives by the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to reduce the patent 
application backlog, improve examiner production and 
satisfaction, and strengthen the organization's information 
technology infrastructure. The hearing also focused on the role 
that inconsistent funding of the USPTO plays in its operational 
challenges.
    The following witnesses gave testimony and submitted a 
written statement for the record: Honorable David Kappos, Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Robert Budens, 
President, Patent Office Professional Association; James 
Johnson, Counsel, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and Board 
Member of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee; and Damon 
Matteo, Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Officer, 
Palo Alto Research Center and Chair of the Patent Public 
Advisory Committee.

Hearing on ``Is There Life After Trinko and Credit Suisse?: The Role of 
        Antitrust in Regulated Industries'' (Serial No. 111-119)

    The purpose of this hearing was to examine the 
ramifications of the Supreme Court's decisions in Verizon 
Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, LLP and 
Credit Suisse Securities, LLC et al. v. Billing, et al., which 
sharply limited the reach of the antitrust laws in the telecom 
and securities industries. Since the decisions were issued, 
legal experts have debated whether the holdings are fact-
specific and apply only to the telecom and securities 
industries, or more broadly to all regulated industries. 
Supporters of the broad interpretation argue that a limitation 
on antitrust is necessary to ensure that companies operating in 
regulated industries are not subject to potentially conflicting 
obligations arising from the antitrust laws and their industry-
specific regulatory schemes. Critics of this view argue that, 
absent an industry-specific exemption, Congress intended for 
industries to be subject to antitrust oversight, and that 
regulation is not an adequate substitute for antitrust. Critics 
further note that, in those rare cases where agency regulation 
imposes requirements that conflict with antitrust obligations, 
existing law allows the courts to find an implied immunity from 
antitrust. These critics go on to contend that irrespective of 
the merits of the actual results in the Trinko and Credit 
Suisse cases, the opinions should not be read as dramatically 
reworking the law governing the application of antitrust to 
regulated industry. Trinko and Credit Suisse also raised 
questions about the role of courts and juries in overseeing 
commercial business. Justice Scalia's Trinko opinion argues 
that generalist courts and citizen jurors are not equipped to 
decide complex antitrust matters and might make errors that 
would be unreasonably costly to business.
    Many commentators rejected this view, arguing that judges 
and juries routinely handle difficult issues and that court-
based antitrust enforcement is needed to rein in 
anticompetitive practices that regulators may not focus on or 
consider central to their mission. A third issue was whether 
companies now have fewer obligations to aid their competitors. 
Generally under the antitrust laws, businesses enjoy the right 
to ``refuse to deal'' with any other person or company. In 
other words, a company can decide whether or not to engage in 
commercial dealings with another party. A judicially-created 
doctrine known as ``essential facilities'' doctrine placed some 
boundaries on this right, arguing that there are certain 
private services and networks that are so important--or 
``essential''--that the owner/operators of these services and 
networks have some limits on their right to discriminate among 
those with whom they choose to do business. Although essential 
facilities doctrine was judicially created, it has never been 
recognized by the Supreme Court, a point again made in Trinko. 
A fourth issue was the effect of the decisions on the vitality 
of antitrust savings clauses written into legislation by 
Congress. Antitrust savings clauses are included in legislation 
as a way of preserving the full range of applicable antitrust 
laws and remedies. In both Trinko and Credit Suisse, the 
Supreme Court rejected antitrust claims despite the presence of 
broad antitrust savings clauses in the relevant regulatory law. 
Had the holdings merely found that, although the antitrust laws 
applied, there was no basis for an antitrust claim in these 
cases, there would be no controversy. Instead, the decisions 
went further, suggesting in Trinko and actually holding in 
Credit Suisse that the antitrust laws should not have applied 
regardless of the underlying merits. Such a precedent could 
weaken all existing antitrust savings clauses, throwing into 
question what Congress must specify when it intends for the 
antitrust laws to apply to an industry.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Howard A. Shelanski, Deputy Director 
for Antitrust in the Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade 
Commission, John Thorne, Senior Vice President, Verizon 
Communications, Incorporated, Mark A. Lemley, William H. Neukom 
Professor of Law, Stanford University, School of Law, and Dr. 
Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of 
America.

``Impact of China's Antitrust Law and other Competition Policies on 
        U.S. Companies'' (Serial No. 111-117)

    The hearing examined the anti-monopoly law recently 
implemented by the People's Republic of China, focusing on 
whether the law as written, or applied, have a discriminatory 
impact on foreign competitors doing business in China. The 
hearing focused on China's merger review process, application 
of the anti-monopoly law to state owned enterprises, and the 
treatment of intellectual property under the anti-monopoly law.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Shanker A. Singham, Partner, Squire 
Sanders, LLP, on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Tad 
Lipsky, Partner, Latham & Watkins; Susan Beth Farmer, Professor 
of Law, Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law; 
and the Honorable Thomas O. Barnett, Partner, Covington & 
Burling, LLP, and Former Assistant Attorney General of the 
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

``The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition and the 
        Department of Justice's Antitrust Division'' (Serial No. 111-
        133)

    The purpose of this hearing was to examine the enforcement 
records of the two federal antitrust enforcement agencies, the 
Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition and the 
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. The hearing also 
examined whether the Agencies are doing enough to promote 
competition in such fields as banking, agriculture, and mobile 
devices. The Agencies are jointly empowered to enforce the 
federal antitrust laws, whose overarching goal is to promote 
consumer welfare by ensuring robust competition in the 
marketplace. The U.S. Supreme Court has referred to the 
antitrust laws as ``the Magna Carta of free enterprise,'' 
declaring them ``a comprehensive charter of economic liberty 
aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition.'' 
Effective antitrust enforcement is key to ensuring a vibrant, 
competitive marketplace that rewards innovation and creativity 
and offers consumers greater choice and lower prices. In the 
absence of antitrust enforcement, companies have less incentive 
to compete, and more incentive to maintain high profit margins 
at the expense of consumer welfare and whether the Agencies are 
effectively enforcing the antitrust laws, and how well they are 
addressing certain ``hot-button'' issues. For example, the 
Agencies have been criticized for lax merger enforcement and 
wasteful infighting with respect to deciding which Agency 
reviews a particular merger. Critics also point to different 
enforcement tools available to the Agencies, and argue that 
whether a party is found to have violated the antitrust laws 
now depends significantly upon the investigating Agency.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: The Honorable Christine A. Varney, 
Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, U.S. Department of 
Justice, and the Honorable Jon Leibowitz, Chairman, Federal 
Trade Commission.

``Competition in the Evolving Digital Marketplace'' (Serial No. 111-
        147)

    The purpose of this hearing was to examine a range of 
competition issues in both the online and mobile markets. As 
these markets evolve, their growth has been driven in large 
part by innovative competitors and disruptive technologies. 
While these markets currently appear fluid and competitive, 
sustained anticompetitive behavior by companies with market 
power could choke off competition, in turn slowing innovation 
and raising prices and reducing options for consumers. Former 
Federal Trade Commission Timothy Muris has argued that there 
should be looser antitrust enforcement in these nascent 
markets, as the competitors, their products, and their relative 
market shares are constantly changing. Proponents of this 
position argue that antitrust enforcement actions in these 
markets necessarily rely upon ``snapshots'' of the market that 
may not adequately reflect the degree of competition from new 
entrants or the tenuousness of existing market share, and would 
only stifle innovation and create disincentives against 
entrepreneurship.
    The bipartisan Congressionally-established Antitrust 
Modernization Commission, have argued that the antitrust laws 
are developed from principles not tied to the particulars of 
any single industry, and whose application is as appropriate in 
developing markets as it is in more established markets. 
Moreover, supporters of this position argue that Department of 
Justice's antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. in 1998 
highlights the dangers of waiting to act, in that, even though 
Microsoft lost the case, its upstart competitor, Netscape, had 
gone out of business by the time it won the case.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Richard Feinstein, Director, Bureau 
of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Edward J. Black, 
President & Chief Executive Officer, Computer and 
Communications Industry Association, Morgan Reed, Executive 
Director, Association for Competitive Technology, C. Cleland, 
President, Precursor, LLP, Geoffrey A. Manne, Executive 
Director, International Center for Law & Economics, Lewis & 
Clark Law School, and Dr. Mark N. Cooper, Director of Research, 
Consumer Federation of America.

``Courtroom Use: Access to Justice, Judicial Administration, and 
        Courtroom Security'' (Serial No. 111-153)

    The purpose of the hearing was to consider a recent 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on federal 
courthouse construction and its effects on courts and access to 
justice. The GAO report concluded that many of the courthouses 
built since 2000 include extra space as a result of excessive 
construction, an overestimation of judges, and an absence of 
planning for courtroom sharing. The GAO report found that the 
there was an estimated 887,000 square feet of extra court 
building space caused by the judiciary overestimating the 
number of judges the courthouses would have in 10 years. 
According to the GAO, one reason for the overestimation of 
judges is inaccurate predictions as to when judges would take 
senior status. The GAO pointed out that predicting when judges 
take senior status is challenging, and overestimates in this 
regards are due to factors difficult to predict, such as judges 
deciding to leave the bench, dying, or remaining active after 
they become eligible for senior status. The GAO essentially 
determined that empty courtrooms were ``excess'' space 
constituting a waste of funding. This is an instance where the 
GAO is not appropriately applying the planning policies that 
were in place at the time the building was planned. However, as 
the judiciary notes, the courthouse space accounted for will be 
needed at some point in the future, even if that exact time is 
several years off. Most courthouses are occupied for many 
decades and planning courthouse without taking account of 
future needs of delivering justice would not only reduce the 
useful life of federal courthouses, but would also risk 
inadequate capacity to house needed judges and staff for the 
future. One major factor contributing to judge overestimation 
that the GAO cites is that it is not clear how many new 
judgeships will ultimately be created by Congress. The GAO 
report pointed out that Congress had not passed a comprehensive 
judgeships bill to add to the number of total judgeships since 
1990.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Panel The Honorable Jim Cooper, 
Member of Congress, 5th District of Tennessee. Panel II, Mark 
L. Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, The Honorable Michael A. 
Ponsor, U.S. District Judge, District of Massachusetts, and 
Chairman of the Judicial Conference's Committee on Space and 
Facilities, Robert A. Peck, Commissioner of Public Buildings, 
U.S. General Services Administration, The Honorable Robert J. 
Conrad, Jr., Chief U.S. District Judge, Western District of 
North Carolina, and Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of 
Law, Yale Law School.

``Antitrust Laws and Their Effects on Healthcare Providers, Insurers 
        and Patients'' (Serial No. 111-157)

    The purpose of this hearing was to examine the disparate 
treatment of physicians and health insurers by the antitrust 
enforcement agencies. Since 2000, the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (hereafter, the 
Agencies) have brought more than 30 antitrust enforcement 
actions against physicians for collusive behavior in the course 
of negotiating reimbursement rates from insurance companies. In 
contrast, hospital groups, physicians, and patient advocates 
have complained that the Agencies have pursued fewer actions 
against health insurance companies.
    The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written 
statement for the record: Panel I, Richard Feinstein, Director, 
Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, and Sharis 
Pozen, Chief of Staff and Counsel to the Assistant Attorney 
General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice. Panel 
II, Melinda Hatton, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, 
American Hospital Association, Arthur Lerner, Partner, Crowell 
& Moring LLP on behalf of America's Health Insurance Plans, Dr. 
Peter Mandell, Chair of the Council on Advocacy, American 
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Dr. Michael Connair, American 
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 
and David Balto, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress.
  SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY}1

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

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TED POE, Texas                       JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              ZOE LOFGREN, California
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            MAXINE WATERS, California
TOM ROONEY, Florida                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
                                     ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
                                     MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
                                     THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida

----------
\1\Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 22, 2009.

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.........................   312
Legislation on which hearings were held..........................    20
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.....................     5
Legislation pending before the full Committee....................     1
Legislation reported to the House................................     6
Legislation discharged from the Committee........................     5
Legislation pending in the House.................................     3
Legislation passed by the House (including suspensions)..........    37
Legislation pending in the Senate................................    22
Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).............     0
Legislation enacted into Public Law..............................     7
Legislation enacted into Public Law as part of other legislation.    --
Days of legislative hearings.....................................    12
Days of oversight hearings.......................................    26

                    Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
has jurisdiction over: 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. 743, the ``Executive Accountability Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 743, a bill introduced to address concerns 
about the veracity of the executive branch with respect to 
statements made in order to generate support in Congress for 
use of the Armed Forces of the United States.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 743 was introduced by Rep. 
Walter B. Jones (R-NC) on January 28, 2009 and referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. On July 27, 2009, the House Judiciary 
Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Subcommittee heard testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Walter B. Jones, (NC); Dr. 
Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library of 
the Library of Congress; Washington, DC; Bruce Fein, Legal 
Consultant, Washington, DC; and Jonathan F. Cohn, Partner, 
Sidley and Austin, Washington, DC. (Serial No. 111-72) No 
legislative action was taken on this bill.

H.R. 748, the ``Center to Advance, Monitory, and Preserve University 
        Security Act (CAMPUS Safety Act) of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 748 was introduced to authorize the Director 
of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to 
establish and operate a National Center for Campus Public 
Safety, which would assist campus safety agencies by providing 
education and training, research, best practices information, 
and other assistance.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 748 was introduced on January 
28, 2009 by Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) and referred 
to the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. This bill passed by the House by a voice vote on 
February 3, 2009.

H.R. 1064, the ``Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, 
        Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education Act'' (``Youth 
        PROMISE Act'')

    Summary.--H.R. 1064, the ``Youth Prison Reduction through 
Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education 
Act'' (``Youth PROMISE Act'') is legislation designed to 
prevent youth violence, delinquency, and street gang crime, and 
to redirect youth already involved in the juvenile or criminal 
justice systems toward law abiding and productive lives. The 
bill will provide federal support for evidence-based and 
promising local community efforts and programs that prevent the 
involvement of at risk youth in juvenile delinquency or 
criminal street gang activity and provide positive alternatives 
for youth who have become involved in juvenile delinquency or 
criminal street gang activity.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1064 was introduced by Rep. 
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott on February 13, 2009 and referred to 
the following Committees: Judiciary; Education and Labor; 
Energy and Commerce; and the House Financial Services. The 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a 
hearing on July 15, 2009, on H.R. 1064. Testimony was received 
from Marian Wright Edelman, President and Founder, Children's 
Defense Fund; Deborah Prothrow-Stith, MD, Consultant, Spencer 
Stuart; Leroy D. Baca, Sherriff, Los Angeles County; David B. 
Muhlhausen, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Date 
Analysis, The Heritage Foundation; and Tracy Velazquez, 
Executive Director, Justice Policy Institute. (Serial No. 111-
86)
    On October 29, 2009, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered the bill 
H.R. 1064 favorably reported, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present. Rpt. #111-688 pt. 1. On December 16, 2009, the Full 
Judiciary Committee met in open session and ordered the bill 
H.R. 1064 favorably reported with an amendment, by a roll call 
vote of 17 to 14, a quorum being present. We are still awaiting 
floor action on the legislation. On February 13, 2009, Senator 
Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 435, the Senate companion 
bill to the Youth PROMISE Act. That bill has 16 bi-partisan co-
sponsors in the Senate. December 17, 2010, House Committee on 
Financial Services Granted an extension for further 
consideration ending not later than December 21, 2010.

H.R. 1110, the ``Prohibiting Harassment through Outbound Number 
        Enforcement Act (PHONE Act) of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 1110, this bill was introduced 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 hide the callers' true identity in order to 
wrongfully obtain anything of value or to commit other abusive 
acts. The bill provides for felony penalties of up to 5 years 
in prison for violations committed with the intent to 
wrongfully obtain anything of value. Certain abusive uses of 
another person's caller ID information without commercial 
motives are classified as misdemeanors under the bill.
    Legislative History.--The bill was introduced by Robert C. 
``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) on February 23, 2009, and referred to 
the Judiciary Committee. On October 7, 2009, the Committee met 
in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 1110 favorably 
reported, with one amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present. Reported to the House, as amended, November 2, 2009. 
House Report No. 111-321. Passed the House by a vote of 418 to 
1, December 16, 2009.

H.R. 1139, the ``COPS Improvements Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 1139, this bill was introduced to 
reauthorize the programs administered by the Justice 
Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
(COPS) for public safety and community-based policing, 
establish three grant programs: (1) The Troops-to-Cops Program, 
(2) the Community Prosecutors Program, and (3) the Technology 
Grants Program. The Troops-to-Cops Program would fund the 
hiring of former members of the Armed Forces to serve as law 
enforcement officers in community-oriented policing, 
particularly in communities adversely affected by recent 
military base closings. The Community Prosecutors Program would 
authorize the Attorney General to make grants for additional 
community prosecuting programs that would, for example, assign 
prosecutors to pursue cases from specific geographic areas and 
to deal with localized violent crime. The Technology Grants 
Program would authorize the Attorney General to make grants to 
develop new technologies to assist State and local law 
enforcement agencies in refocusing some of their efforts from 
reacting to crime to preventing crime.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1139 was introduced on February 
23, 2009, by Rep. Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY). On March 25, 2009, 
the Committee ordered the bill, H.R. 1139, favorably reported 
with amendments, by a vote of 17 to 7. House Rpt.# 111-78. On 
March 23, 2009, the House passed the bill by a vote of 342-78.

H.R. 1459, ``Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009''

Hearing on ``Unfairness in Federal Cocaine Sentencing: Is it Time to 
        Crack the 100 to 1 Disparity?''

    Summary.--This hearing was held on May 21, 2009 and focused 
on legislation that has been introduced in the 111th Congress 
to address the disparities in federal sentencing for 
distribution and importation of crack and powder cocaine. Under 
federal law at the time of the hearing, possession of five (5) 
grams of crack cocaine resulted in the same five-year mandatory 
minimum sentence as selling 500 grams of powder cocaine. This 
was referred to as the ``100 to 1'' disparity ratio between 
crack and powder cocaine mandatory sentences. More than twenty 
years after this federal law was enacted, many people 
acknowledge that there is neither a scientific, medical nor 
public policy rationale that supports the 100 to 1 disparity. 
There were five bills introduced in the House during the 111th 
Congress to address this disparity: H.R. 1459, the ``Fairness 
in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009;'' H.R. 2178, the ``Crack 
Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 2009;'' H.R. 265, the 
``Drug Sentencing Reform and Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2009,'' 
H.R. 1466, the ``Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 
2009'' and H.R. 18, the ``Powder-Crack Cocaine Equalization Act 
of 2009.'' This hearing focused on the different approaches 
these bills take to address the disparity, as well as other 
issues associated with cocaine sentencing. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from the following witnesses: the Honorable 
Charles B. Rangel, (D-NY), the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, 
(D-TX), the Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett, (R-MD), the Honorable 
Maxine Waters, (D-CA); Lanny A. Breuer; Assistant Attorney 
General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC; The Honorable Ricardo H. Hinojosa; U.S. 
District Court Judge, Southern District of Texas, and Acting 
Chair U.S. Sentencing Commission Washington, DC; Scott 
Patterson, District Attorney, Easton, Maryland on behalf of 
Joseph I. Cassilly, President of the National District 
Attorneys Association, Alexandria, VA; Willie Mays Aikens, 
Kansas City, MO; Bob Bushman, Vice President, National 
Narcotics Officers Association Coalition, Washington, DC; 
Veronica Coleman-Davis, President and CEO, National Institute 
of Law and Equity, Memphis, TN; and Marc Mauer, Executive 
Director of the Sentencing Project, Washington, DC. (Serial No. 
111-27)
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1459, the ``Fairness in Cocaine 
Sentencing Act of 2009'' was introduced March 12, 2009, by Rep. 
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) and referred to the House 
Judiciary and the House Energy and Commerce Committees. H.R. 
3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 was 
introduced on July 16, 2009 by Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott 
(D-VA) and referred to the House Judiciary and House Energy and 
Commerce Committees. This bill included very narrow language 
that would address the crack cocaine disparity. H.R. 3245 
passed out of the Subcommittee on a voice vote on July 23, 
2009. The legislation passed the Full Judiciary Committee on 
July 29, 2009 by a 16-9 vote. On December 1, 2010, the 
Judiciary Committee reported to the House. Rpt.# 111-670 pt. 1. 
On March 15, 2010, Senate Judiciary, without written report--
reported by Patrick J. Leahy with an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009 by a 18-0 
vote, which would lower the 100 to 1 disparity between crack 
and powder cocaine to 18 to 1. On March 17, 2010, the Senate 
passed S. 1789 with an amendment by unanimous consent. On March 
18, 2010, S. 1789 was referred to the House Judiciary and House 
Judiciary Committees. On July 28, 2010, S. 1789 passed the 
House on the suspension calendar by voice vote. On August 3, 
2010, President Barack Obama signed S. 1789 into law (Public 
law 111-220).

H.R. 1514, the ``Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Reauthorization 
        Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 1514 was introduced to reauthorize a program 
that provides formula grants to states and localities to 
provide individualized treatment of juvenile offenders.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1514 was introduced by Rep. 
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) on March 16, 2009 and referred 
to the Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
The bill was taken directly to the House floor for a vote, and 
was passed by a vote of 364-45 on May 19, 2010.

H.R. 1727, the ``Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH) Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 1727 was introduced to establish guidelines 
and incentives for states to establish criminal arsonist and 
criminal bomber registries and to require the attorney general 
to establish a national criminal arsonist and criminal bomber 
registry program, and for other purposes.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1727 was introduced on March 26, 
2009 by Rep. Mary Bono Mack, (R-CA-45) and referred to the 
Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. There 
was no Judiciary Committee action on the bill, which was 
adopted by the House by voice vote on September 30, 2009. 
October 1, 2009 referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary.

H.R. 1924, the ``Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009''

    Summary--H.R. 1924 On December 10, 2009, a legislative 
hearing on H.R. 1924, the ``Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009,'' 
sponsored by Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-At 
Large). The Judiciary Committee had primary jurisdiction over 
the bill, but it was also referred to the Committees on Natural 
Resources, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor. There 
was a Senate companion bill, S. 797 (Sen. Dorgan), which was 
reported out of the Committee on Indian Affairs with amendments 
that addressed the concerns with the original bill, and was 
considered closely by the Committee. The Act was a 
comprehensive bill was an effort to address the public safety 
crisis occurring on Indian Country. The bill sought to reduce 
crime through two approaches. First, it increased tribal 
authority over crime by providing more resources to tribal law 
enforcement and criminal justice systems and by increasing 
tribal sentencing authority. Second, it provided for new 
offices and positions within the federal government that focus 
on tribal justice, extends concurrent federal jurisdiction to 
PL-280 states, sets up a reporting system to provide for 
accountability of the federal government, and establishes a 
Commission to study and recommend changes. The bill amends the 
Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, the Indian Tribal Justice 
Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance 
Act of 2000, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968. At the hearing, both the needs of Indian country were 
examined and the challenges with existing tribal justice 
systems were examined. Witnesses conveyed the importance of 
balancing more robust sentencing authority with the individual 
rights of defendants. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the 
following witnesses: The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, 
United States House of Representatives (SD-At Large); The 
Honorable Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General, United 
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Marcus Levings, 
Great Plains Area Vice-President, National Congress of American 
Indians, New Town, ND; Tova Indritz, Chair, National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Native American 
Justice Committee, Albuquerque, NM; Scott Burns, Executive 
Director, National District Attorneys Association, Alexandria, 
VA; and Barbara Creel, Assistant Professor of Law, Southwest 
Indian Law Clinic, University of New Mexico School of Law, 
Albuquerque, NM. (Serial No. 111-134)
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1924 was introduced on April 2, 
2009, by Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD–At Large) and was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the 
Committees on Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and 
Education and Labor. On April 21, 2009, it was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health of Energy and Commerce, on May 21, 2009 
to the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities of 
Education and Labor, and on May 26, 2009 to the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary. 
The Senate introduced a version of H.R. 1924, S. 797, which 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 23, 2010. It was 
attached to H.R. 725, the Arts and Crafts bill and the 
Fireworks bill H.R. 1333 was also included in the package (both 
H.R. 1333 and S. 725 have previously passed the House on 
suspension). The Senate-passed bill included HJC proposed-
provisions on sentencing and defendants' rights. On July 21, 
2010, H.R. 725 passed the House and was signed by President 
Barack Obama on July 29, 2010.

H.R. 1966, the `Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act;' and H.R. 
        3630, the `Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education Act 
        (AWARE Act)'

    Summary.--On September 30, 2009, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing on 
``Cyberbullying and other online safety issues for children'' 
to examined the problems of bullying perpetrated through the 
Internet and certain other risks of online victimization for 
children. H.R. 1996 was introduced to provide federal criminal 
penalties for cyberbullying. H.R. 3630 was introduced to 
establish a grant program to be implemented by the Department 
of Justice to educate young people about safe use of the 
Internet, partly to prevent cyberbullying and other activities 
of online victimization. The two bills were examined, with 
various views expressed about the policy and constitutional 
implications of criminalizing cyberbullying. The hearing also 
examined the need for educating children so that they can avoid 
victimization on the Internet and the need to provide 
comprehensive services to at-risk youth so that they are less 
likely to engage in online bullying.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1966, the Megan Meier 
Cyberbullying Prevention Act was introduced on April 2, 2009 by 
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and referred to the House Judiciary 
Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. H.R. 3630, the ``Adolescent Web Awareness Requires 
Education Act (AWARE Act)'' was introduced on September 23, 
2009 by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and referred to 
the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Rep. Linda Sanchez, sponsor of H.R. 1966, the 
``Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act''; Rep. Debbie 
Wasserman Schultz, sponsor of H.R. 3630, the ``Adolescent Web 
Awareness Requires Education Act (AWARE Act)''; Robert O'Neil, 
founding director of The Thomas Jefferson Center for the 
Protection of Free Expression, Professor emeritus at University 
of Virginia; Judy Westberg Warren, President, Web Wise Kids; 
Harvey Silverglate, Attorney, Zalkind, Rodriquez, Lunt & 
Duncan, LLP; Nancy Williard, M.S., J.D., Director of the Center 
for Safe and Responsible Internet Use; John Palfrey, Professor 
of Law at Harvard Law School, Chair of the Internet Safety Task 
Force. No legislative action was taken on either bill. Serial 
No. 111-76

H.R. 2157, ``DNA Expansion and Improvement Act of 2009.'' Hearing on 
        ``Rape Kit Backlogs: Failing the Test of Providing Justice to 
        Sexual Assault Survivors''

    Summary.--This hearing titled ``Rape Kit Backlogs: Failing 
the Test of Providing Justice to Sexual Assault Survivors'' was 
held on May 20, 2010. Each year, approximately 200,000 rapes 
are reported in the United States. The majority of these sexual 
assault victims submit to a medical examination immediately 
after the attack so that the police can collect evidence for a 
rape kit. While no national statistics exist to determine the 
exact number of untested kits, some estimates put the number at 
around 180,000. Testing a rape kit can identify the attacker, 
confirm that a suspect had sexual contact with a victim, 
corroborate the victim's account of the sexual assault, and 
exonerate innocent suspect. There are various reasons why so 
many rape kits go untested including a lack of resources, 
prioritization of cases by prosecutors and police and delays at 
police crime laboratories. This hearing explored why so many 
rape kits are not tested and what can be done to clear up the 
backlogs that exist in jurisdictions across the country.
    Legislative History.--On November 11, 2009, Rep. Carolyn B. 
Maloney (D-NY) introduced H.R. 4114, the Justice for Survivors 
of Sexual Assault Act of 2009. On April 28, 2009, Rep. Anthony 
Weiner (D-NY) introduced H.R. 2157, ``DNA Expansion and 
Improvement Act of 2009'' and was referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary. This bill which authorizes grants 
for states and local governments to purchase or improve 
forensic DNA technology. On June 12, 2009, H.R. 2157 was 
referred the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. On May 20, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing and 
received testimony from the following witnesses: The Honorable 
Carolyn B. Maloney; The Honorable Anthony D. Weiner; The 
Honorable Adam B. Schiff; The Honorable Jerrold Nadler; Kym L. 
Worthy, Esq., Wayne County Prosecutor, Detroit, Michigan; 
Valerie Neumann, Cincinnati, Ohio; Mariska Hargitay, Joyful 
Heart Foundation, New York, New York; Dr. Christian Hassell, 
Assistant Director, Laboratory Division; Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, (FBI); U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, 
DC; Jeffrey Boschwitz, Ph.D., Vice President, North American 
Sales and Marketing; Orchid Cellmark Inc., Princeton, New 
Jersey; and Peter Marone, Director, Virginia Department of 
Forensic Science, Richmond, Virginia. (Serial No. 111-115)

H.R. 2289, the ``Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 
        2009''

    Summary.--On June 9, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
in which we examined the practice of imposing sentences of life 
without parole on juvenile defendants. The United States 
currently is the only country that continues to sentence 
juveniles to life without parole. The hearing examined this 
practice and addressed H.R. 2289, introduced by Congressman 
Scott, which requires states, under risk of losing up to 10% of 
certain funding, to offer a meaningful opportunity for parole 
to juveniles sentenced to life after serving 15 years in 
prison. It also establishes a similar opportunity for parole 
for juveniles in federal custody, requires victim notification, 
and establishes a grant program to improve legal representation 
of children facing life in prison.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2289 was introduced on May 6, 
2009 by Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) and was referred 
to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On June 5, 2009, it 
was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. On June 9, 2009, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on the bill. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the 
following witnesses: Professor Mark Osler, Baylor Law School 
Waco, TX; Dr. Linda L. White, Former Board Member of the Murder 
Victims' Families for Reconciliation, Magnolia, TX; Jennifer 
Bishop-Jenkins, Co-Founder, National Organization of Victims of 
``Juvenile Lifers'', Northfield, IL; Anita Colon, Pennsylvania 
State Coordinator, National Campaign for Fair Sentencing for 
Children, Springfield, PA; James Fox, District Attorney, San 
Mateo County, CA; and Marc Mauer, Executive Director of the 
Sentencing Project, Washington, DC. (Serial No. 111-47)

H.R. 2780, the ``Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement 
        Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 2780 was introduced to amend the federal 
criminal code to clarify that the criminal prohibition on 
entering federal restricted buildings and grounds does not 
apply to individuals who are have lawful authority to do so.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2780 was introduced on June 6, 
2009 by Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-FL) and referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary. There was no House Committee action on the bill, 
which was adopted by the House by voice vote on July 27, 2010. 
On July 28, 2010, the H.R. 2780 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 2811, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to include 
        constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious 
        animal

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing November 6, 2009, 
and focused on legislation that has been introduced to amend 
title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of 
the species Python genera as an injurious animal. The addition 
was intended to ban the further importation and interstate 
transportation of pythons which were initially brought to the 
U.S. and to Florida and sold as pets. Too often these animals 
were subsequently introduced into the wild either by owners who 
could no longer handle them or through escape from owners. Many 
owners, particularly in South Florida, simply dumped them in 
the Florida Everglades, believing that to be a suitable and 
hospitable environment. The pythons have wreaked havoc on the 
ecosystem, and have become a dominant predator. They have been 
known to grow to 23 feet and can weigh up to 200 pounds. They 
consume animals many times their size. In addition to the 
environmental impact, there is also a safety issue. Since 1980 
12 people have been killed by pet pythons, he most recent being 
a 2 year old girl in Florida. The Subcommittee heard testimony 
from the following witnesses: The Honorable Kendrick Meek, 
Member of Congress, District 17 of Florida; Dan Ashe, Deputy 
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Washington, DC; Andrew Wyatt, President, United States 
Association of Reptile Keepers, Grandy, NC; Dr. Elliott 
Jacobson, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of 
Florida, Gainesville, FL; Nancy Perry, Vice President, 
Government Affairs, The Humane Society of the United States 
Washington, DC; and George Horne, Deputy Executive Director, 
Operations and Maintenance, South Florida Water Management 
District, MSC 5100, West Palm Beach, FL. Witnesses addressed 
the pros and cons of the proposed legislation. Testimony also 
included findings of a study by the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS), the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish & 
Wildlife Service (USF&W) entitled, ``Giant Constrictors: 
Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment Risk 
Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas and the 
Boa Constrictor.'' (Serial No. 111-97)
    Legislative History.--On June 10, 2009, Rep. Kendrick Meek 
(D-FL-17) introduced H.R. 2811. On July 23, 2010 the bill was 
referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Rep. Meek introduced 
H.R. 2811 for the purpose of amending the first sentence of the 
Lacey Act, Title 18 United States Code, Section 42 (a)(1) by 
inserting, ``constrictor snakes of the species Python genera'' 
after ``polymorpha''. The purpose of the original bill was to 
add the genus Python, which includes forty seven (47) species 
of Pythons, to a list of injurious animals that are prohibited 
from importation and interstate transportation into and 
throughout the United States, its territories and possessions. 
The bill was reported out of the Crime Subcommittee in its 
original form. During the Full Committee markup, Representative 
Rooney offered an amendment which, beginning in line 6 of H.R. 
2811, deleted ``constrictor snakes of the species Python 
Genera'' and inserted, ``Burmese Python of the species Python 
Molurus Bivittatus; African Rock Python of the species Python 
Sebae''. Under the amendment, two (actually three species since 
the African Rock Python consists of two species  the northern 
African Python and the southern African python) of the forty-
seven species of Pythons were to be prohibited. The amendment 
was accepted and the bill was reported out of the full 
committee. The hearing was held following the full committee 
markup at the request of several members. No further action was 
taken on the bill.

H.R. 3040, the ``Senior Financial Empowerment Act of 2010''

    Summary.--The hearing was held on May 25, 2010 and focused 
on legislation that had been introduced in the 111th Congress 
to address issues pertaining to mail, telemarketing and 
Internet fraud targeting seniors. Elder financial abuse is 
defined as ``the unauthorized use or illegal taking of funds or 
property of peopled aged 60 and older.'' The terminology used 
in the 2006 Older Americans Act is ``exploitation'', defined as 
``. . . the fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or 
improper act of process of an individual, including a care-
giver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an older person 
for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that 
results in depriving an older individual of rightful access to, 
or use of, benefits, resources, belonging, or assets.''. Elder 
Financial abuse has been called the ``crime of the 21st 
Century''. It is a crime that can have significant impact on 
its victims because they are incapable of recovering financial 
losses. For every dollar lost to theft and abuse, there are 
still more related costs associated with stress and health care 
and the intervention of social services. Fraud complaints by 
older persons is increasing annually. The Consumer Sentinel 
Network (CSN) , a secure online database of millions of 
consumer complaints had recorded 721, 418 fraud-related 
complaints in 2009. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
the following witnesses: the Honorable Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); 
the Honorable Howard Coble (R-NC); Mr. Lee Hammond, Board 
President, AARP; Mr. Robert Blancato, National Coordinator, 
Elder Justice Coalition; and Ms. Latifa Ring, personal impact 
witness.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3040, the Senior Financial 
Empowerment Act of 2010 was introduced on June 25, 2009 by Rep. 
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). The bill referred to House Committee on 
the Judiciary, House Energy and Commerce and the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. It requires the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC): (1) to disseminate to seniors and their care-givers 
information on mail, telemarketing, and Internet fraud 
targeting seniors; (2) in response to a request about fraud 
committed by a particular entity or individual, to provide to 
the requester publicly available information on any record of 
civil or criminal law enforcement action against such 
individual or entity for fraud; and (3) to maintain a website 
as an information resource for seniors and their care-givers 
regarding Internet fraud. Authorizes FY2011-FY2015 
appropriations. It also directs the Attorney General to 
establish a grant program for mail, telemarketing, and Internet 
fraud prevention education programs for senior citizens. 
Authorizes FY2011-FY2015 appropriations. On July 29, 2010, on 
motion to suspend the rules the House passed H.R. 3040, as 
amended on a vote of 335-81. It was then received in the 
Senate, read twice referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
(Serial No. 111-137)

H.R. 3695 the ``Help Find the Missing Act'' or ``Billy's Law''

    Summary.--This hearing was held on January 21, 2010. The 
FBI and the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice 
(NIJ) maintain databases which contain information about 
missing persons and unidentified remains. H.R. 3695 was 
introduced to strengthen and expand the accessability of these 
databases. This hearing examined the history of the databases, 
why they were created, whom they serve, why the public needs 
access to more information, why law enforcement needs to be 
encouraged to submit more information to the databases, and how 
the bill can help both the public and law enforcement solve 
cases of missing persons and unidentified remains. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from Rep. Christopher Murphy 
(D-CT); Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX); Ms. Janice Smolinski (mother of 
Billy Smolinski, missing person); Steven Morris, Deputy 
Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Kristina Rose, Acting 
Director of the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department 
of Justice. (Serial No. 111-99)
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3695 was introduced on October 
1, 2009 by Rep. Christopher S. Murphy (D-CT) and referred to 
the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. The bill was ordered reported with an amendment by 
the Judiciary Committee on January 27, 2010 (adopted by voice 
vote), and passed by the House under Suspension of the Rules by 
voice vote on February 23, 2010. Rpt. #111-416. On February 24, 
2010, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary.

H.R. 4080, the ``Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009'' and H.R. 
        4055, the ``Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement 
        (HOPE) Initiative Act of 2009''

    Summary.--This hearing was held on May 11, 2009 and focused 
on two pieces of legislation that were introduced in the 111th 
Congress by Congressman Adam Schiff, H.R. 4080, the ``Criminal 
Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009'' and H.R. 4055, the ``Honest 
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Initiative Act of 
2009.'' Both bills seek to address the country's incarceration 
crisis by focusing on criminal justice policies that work. The 
hearing educated members on these bills and brought attention 
to justice reinvestment efforts that have demonstrated results. 
``Criminal justice reinvestment'' involves redirecting 
corrections monies into policies that keep people safer, while 
slowing the growth of the prison and jail populations. The 
notion is to reinvest the resulting savings back into the 
community, in ways that advance the goals of public safety 
through strategies proven to be effective and efficient in 
accomplishing that result. At the hearing, the successes of 
several states that have engaged in their own justice 
reinvestment initiatives were highlighted. Hawaii's HOPE 
project, the original project that inspired H.R. 4055, was be 
presented as a successful example of what justice reinvestment 
can do. There appeared to be bipartisan support for both bills.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 4055, the ``Honest Opportunity 
Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Initiative Act of 2009 and 
H.R. 4080, the ``Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009'' 
were both introduced on November 16, 2009 by Rep. Adam B. 
Schiff (D-CA) and referred to the House Committee on the 
Judiciary. On January 4, 2010, they were referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. On May 
11, 2010, the subcommittee held a hearing on the bills and 
heard testimony from the following witnesses: The Honorable 
Adam B. Schiff (CA-29th District); Mr. Adam Gelb, Director, 
Public Safety Performance Project, Pew Center on the States, 
Washington, DC; The Honorable John T. Broderick, Jr., Chief 
Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Concord, New 
Hampshire; The Honorable Jerry Madden, Texas House of 
Representatives, Plano, Texas; Dr. Nancy G. La Vigne, Director, 
Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC; and 
The Honorable Steven Alm, Judge, Second Division, Circuit Court 
of the First Judicial Circuit, Honolulu, Hawaii. (Serial No. 
111-114)

H.R. 5566, the ``Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush 
        Videos Act of 2010''

    Summary.--H.R. 5566 was introduced to prohibit the creation 
and distribution of certain depictions of extreme animal 
cruelty, called ``crush videos,'' in response to the Supreme 
Court's decision in April of 2010, invalidating the existing 
law on First Amendment grounds.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5566 was introduced by on June 
22, 2010 by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and referred to the 
House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
After the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. 
Stephens, invalidating the existing law criminalizing the 
possession, creation, and sale of certain depictions of animal 
cruelty, the Subcommittee on Crime conducted a hearing, on May 
26, 2010. Members and the panel of witnesses discussed the law 
that was overturned, the Court's rationale for finding the law 
in violation of the First Amendment, and ways in which a new 
law could be drafted to avoid these constitutional defects. The 
Subcommittee on Crime received testimony from Congressman Elton 
Gallegly (R-CA); Congressman Gary Peters (D-MI); Professor 
Stephen I. Vladeck, American University Washington College of 
Law; Professor Nathaniel Persily, Columbia University School of 
Law; and J. Scott Ballenger, Partner, Latham and Watkins. 
(Serial No. 111-129)
    H.R. 5566 was subsequently developed and introduced on June 
22, 2010. On July 23, 2010, the Judiciary Committee approved 
the bill without amendment and favorably reported it by a vote 
of 23-0. On July 21, 2010, the House passed the bill by a vote 
of 416-3. Rpt.# 111-549. The Senate passed the bill with an 
amendment on September 28, 2010. On November 15, 2010, the 
House passed H.Res. 1172, providing that it agreed to the 
Senate amendments with an amendment. On November 19, 2010, the 
Senate agreed to the House amendments by unanimous consent. The 
President Barack Obama signed it into law on December 9, 2010. 
Public Law 111-294

H.R. 5575, the ``Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on September 15, 
2010, on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking to address issues 
pertaining to the commercial sexual exploitation of American 
children within U.S. borders, and their subsequent rescue and 
rehabilitation. The hearing focused on domestic minor sex 
trafficking, including H.R. 5575, the ``Domestic Minor Sex 
Trafficking, Deterrence and Victims Supports Act of 2010,'' 
introduced by Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Christopher 
Smith. At the hearing, the Subcommittee examined the ways in 
which children are trafficked in the U.S., including the role 
that the Internet plays, the challenges that these cases pose 
to law enforcement, and the unique needs of survivors.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5575 was introduced June 23, 
2010 by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY-14) and referred to the 
House Judiciary and House Ways and Means Committees. On July 
26, 2010, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. On September 15, 2010 the 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the following witnesses: The 
Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, 14th District of New York; The 
Honorable Jackie Speier, 12th District of California; The 
Honorable Ted Poe, 2nd District of Texas; The Honorable 
Christopher H. Smith, 4th District of New Jersey; The Honorable 
Linda Smith (Former Member of Congress); Ms. Francey Hakes, 
National Coordinator for Child, Exploitation Prevention and 
Interdiction United States Department of Justice, Washington, 
DC; Mr. Ernie Allen, President & CEO, National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children; Alexandria, VA; Ms. Tina 
Frundt, Executive Director/Founder, Courtney's House, 
Washington, DC; Mr. Nicholas Sensley, Chief of Police, Truckee 
Police Department, Truckee, CA; Ms. Suzanna Tiapula, Director, 
National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, National 
District Attorneys Association, Alexandria, VA; Ms. Deborah 
Richardson, Chief Program Officer, Women's Funding Network, San 
Francisco, CA; Mr. William ``Clint'' Powell, Director, Customer 
Service and Law Enforcement Relations Craigslist, Inc., San 
Francisco, CA; and Elizabeth ``Liz'' McDougall, Partner at 
Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA. (Serial No. 111-146)

H.R. 5932, the ``Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution 
        Act of 2010''

    Summary.--H.R. 5932 a bill directs the attorney general to 
establish the Organized Retail Theft Investigation and 
Prosecution Unit to: (1) investigate and prosecute those 
instances of organized retail theft over which the Department 
of Justice (DOJ) has jurisdiction; (2) assist state and local 
law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting 
organized retail theft; and (3) consult with key stakeholders, 
including retailers and online market places, to obtain 
information about instances of and trends in organized retail 
theft.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 5932, was introduced on July 29, 
2010 by Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA-03). The bill was 
referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. The House passed this bill by voice vote 
on September 29, 2010 was the bill was referred to the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.

S. 4005, the ``Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for Forfeiture Act of 
        2010''

    Summary.--S. 4005, this bill provides authority for federal 
prosecutors to seek court orders restraining foreign assets 
held in the United States pending asset forfeiture proceedings 
in foreign courts.
    Legislative History.--S. 4005 was introduced on December 
12, 2010 by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and referred to the 
House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
This bill passed by the Senate on December 14, 2010 and then 
passed by the House by voice vote on December 16, 2010. On 
December 17, 2010, S. 4005 was presented to President Barack 
Obama.

                          Oversight Activities


Hearing on Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORNA): Barriers 
        to Timely Compliance by States (Serial No. 111-21)

    Summary: This hearing, on the Sex Offender Registration and 
Notification Act (SORNA), was held on March 10, 2009. SORNA 
became public law on July 27, 2006, as Title I of the Adam 
Walsh Act. It created a national registry for all sex 
offenders, and required States to participate in and comply 
with the requirements of SORNA or lose 10% of Byrne grant 
funding. The initial deadline for compliance by States was July 
2009. As of the date of this hearing, not a single state had 
been found in compliance. SORNA authorizes the AG to give two 
one-year extensions upon request. According to the Department 
of Justice website, at the time the hearing was held only 
twelve states, four Tribes, and Guam had received a one-year 
extension. A New York Times article reported that the DOJ 
admitted that as of December 2008, only four states, Arizona, 
Idaho, Louisiana and Ohio, had tried to fully comply with 
SORNA. In January 2009, the DOJ denied Ohio's application. The 
Office of the Inspector General concluded in December 2008 that 
the States ``will not fulfill their SORNA requirements by July 
2009.'' For these reasons, this hearing sought to explore and 
gather information about problems with implementation of SORNA, 
to consider whether Congress should extend the deadline that 
existed at the time, which was July 2009, and to seek 
alternatives to the present barriers. After the hearing, the 
Attorney General extended the deadline to July 27, 2010. Prior 
this extension, the Chairs and Ranking members of the House and 
Senate Judiciary Committee and Crime Subcommittee sent a letter 
requesting a one-year blanket extension for all states. While 
challenges to implementation of SORNA still exist, particularly 
tribal jurisdictions, more states have been found in compliance 
as of late, and others have received extensions based on 
individual applications to the SMART office. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from: Laura Rogers, Previous Director of the 
Department of Justice SMART Office, Washington, DC; Emma J. 
Devillier, Asst. Attorney General, Criminal Division, Office of 
the Attorney General of LA, Chief, Sexual Predator Unit, Baton 
Rouge, LA; Madeline Carter, Principal, Center for Sex Offender 
Management, Center for Effective Public Policy, Silver Spring, 
MD; Ernie Allen, President & Chief Executive Officer, National 
Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Alexandria, VA; Mark 
Lunsford, Father of Jessica Lunsford, the Victim of a Sex 
Offense, Homasassa, FL; Det. Robert Shilling, Seattle Police 
Department, Sex and Kidnapping Offender Detail, Sexual Assault 
and Child Abuse Unit, Seattle, WA; and Amy Borror, Public 
Information Officer, Office of the Ohio Public Defender, 
Columbus, OH. (Serial No. 111-21)

Hearing on ``Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings.''

    Summary.--This hearing was held on March 12, 2009 in 
conjunction with the Committee on Education and Labor's 
Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities. It is 
estimated that approximately seven million of the 28 million 
students enrolled in U.S. middle or junior high schools are at 
risk of academic failure, drug and alcohol abuse or delinquent 
behavior. Many of these at risk youth enter alternative schools 
and ultimately end up in juvenile justice institutions and 
later prisons. These settings may include day treatment 
programs, residential treatment centers, group homes, foster 
care settings, home tutoring, juvenile justice facilities and 
private therapeutic programs which are funded by public 
schools. Students find their way to these public and private 
settings via court mandates, public school referrals for 
students with certain disabilities, as an alternative to 
expulsion and a placement for children with substance abuse or 
other behavioral challenges. This hearing explored the 
increasing number of challenges associated with educating 
children in alternative settings and successful models that 
have overcome obstacles to providing quality education in these 
settings. On March 12, 2009, the Subcommittee's heard testimony 
from the following witnesses: Dr. Thomas Blomberg, Professor of 
Criminology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL; Dr. 
Cynthia Cave, As Director of the Office of Student Services, 
Virginia Department of Education, Richmond, VA; Leonard Dixon, 
M.S., Executive Director of the Wayne County Juvenile Detention 
Facility, Detroit, MI; Janeen Steel, J.D., founder of the 
Learning Rights Law Center, Los Angeles, CA; Dr. Robert 
Whitmore, D. Ed., CEO of Manito Incorporated, Chambersburg, PA; 
and Ms. Linda Brooke, Director of Government Relations and 
Education Services for the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, 
Austin, TX. (Serial No. 111-5)

Hearing on Representation of Indigent Defendants in Criminal Cases: A 
        Constitutional Crisis in Michigan and Other States?

    Summary.--On March 26, 2009, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing in which we examined the state of indigent defense in 
Michigan and other states. Despite the Supreme Court's rulings 
guaranteeing the right to counsel in criminal cases, many 
defendants are still denied effective, or sometimes any, 
representation. Many studies of national indigent defense 
conducted since Gideon v. Wainright have documented these 
problems. A 1999 Department of Justice report found that, 
despite progress since Gideon, indigent defense remained ``in a 
chronic state of crisis,'' and pointed to funding and workload 
problems as among the causes of the crisis. The hearing focused 
on the situation in Michigan, although problems faced by other 
states were addressed generally. Testimony was also received 
about a paper released in June 2008, by the National Legal Aid 
& Defender Association NLADA, titled ``A Race to the Bottom, 
Speed & Savings Over Due Process: A Constitutional Crisis,'' 
which concluded that ``the [S]tate of Michigan fails to provide 
competent representation to those who cannot afford counsel in 
its criminal courts.'' The problems can be traced to inadequate 
funding for indigent defense, a lack of independence in the 
appointments process, and unmanageable case loads, which are 
particularly egregious in Michigan. The witnesses conveyed an 
urgent need for solutions, and discussed whether the federal 
government had an obligation to assist states with the 
responsibility imposed upon them by Gideon. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from the following witnesses: Mr. Dennis 
Archer, Chairman of Dickinson-Wright, PLLC; Former Michigan 
Supreme Court Justice; Past-President, American Bar 
Association; Past-President, State Bar of Michigan, Detroit, 
MI; Mr. David J. Carroll, Director of Research, National Legal 
Aid and Defender Association, Washington, DC; Ms. Nancy J. 
Diehl, Past-President of the State Bar of Michigan; Chief of 
the Trial Division, Wayne County Prosecutor's Office Detroit, 
MI; Mr. Erik Luna, Professor at Washington and Lee University 
School of Law, Lexington, VA; Ms. Regina Daniels Thomas, Chief 
Counsel, Legal Aid ` Defender Association Juvenile Law Group; 
Detroit, MI; and Mr. Robin Dahlberg, Senior Staff Attorney with 
the American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY. (Serial No. 
111-20)

Hearing on ``The Escalating Violence in Mexico and the Southwest Border 
        as a Result of the Illicit Drug Trade.''

    Summary.--On May 6, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to provide members of Congress with information regarding 
illicit drug trafficking originating in Mexico and to review 
how our law enforcement agencies are responding to its 
escalating violence. When Mexican President Felipe Calderon 
took office with a pledge to investigate and prosecute illicit 
drug organizations. In fulfilling his pledge, President 
Calderon has made trafficking drugs in Mexico more difficult 
with one unintended result. As the trafficking has become more 
difficult, violence among the drug organizations has increased 
as they fight to control fewer trafficking routes. According to 
Mexican Attorney General Edwardo Merina Mora, violence directly 
attributable to the drug organizations was responsible for the 
deaths of at least 8,150 people between December 2006 and 
December 2008. This hearing also examined how the border 
violence affects the security of the U.S. Southwest border and 
made recommendations to Congress to determine what response, if 
any, may be necessary. The Subcommittee heard testimony from 
the following witnesses: Mr. Stuart G. Nash, Associate Deputy 
Attorney General, and Director, Organized Crime Drug 
Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), U.S. Department of Justice, 
Salvador Nieto, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of 
Intelligence and Operations Coordination, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Janice 
Ayala, Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Investigations, 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security, Anthony Placido, Assistant Administrator for 
Intelligence, United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 
U.S. Department of Justice; and William J. Hoover, Acting 
Deputy Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice. (Serial No. 111-25)

Hearing on ``Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A 
        Path Forward''

    Summary.--On May 13, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to examine the state of forensic sciences in the United States, 
focusing on the assessments and recommendations made in a 
report published by the National Research Council of the 
National Academies of Science entitled ``Strengthening Forensic 
Science in the United States: A Path Forward.'' The 
Subcommittee heard testimony detailing many of the problems 
facing forensic science, including vast disparities in 
standards, resources, and technology between different 
jurisdictions; the need for further research in many forensic 
disciplines; and the lack of standards and education 
requirements for practitioners. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from the following witnesses: Kenneth Melson, Acting 
Director Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 
Former Director, Executive Office for the United States 
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Peter 
Marone, Director, Virginia Department of Forensic Science, 
Richmond, VA; John W. Hicks, Director, Northeast Regional 
Forensic Institute, The University at Albany, State University 
of New York, Albany, NY; Peter Neufeld, Co-Director, The 
Innocence Project, New York, NY. (Serial No. 111-28)

Hearing on Indigent Representation: A Growing National Crisis

    Summary.--This hearing, held on June 4, 2009, examined the 
problems surrounding the right and access to counsel for 
indigent defendants throughout the United States. This hearing 
continued the discussion of the problem presented in the March 
26, 2009 hearing, which focused on the indigent defense crisis 
in Michigan. Many of the problems plaguing Michigan, such as 
inadequate funding for defense counsel, lack of independence in 
the appointment process, lack of representation, and the risk 
of wrongful convictions are prevalent in other states 
throughout the country. This hearing focused on these problems 
and explore the possible role of Congress in helping to solve 
them. Possible solutions included expanding DOJ's Byrne-JAG 
grants to include funding for indigent defense, creating a 
federal office to oversee and assist state indigent defense 
systems, and creating a cause of action for DOJ to vindicate 
the rights of defendants in states that are systematically 
failing to provide effective assistance of counsel. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the following witnesses: 
Robert M.A. Johnson, Co-Chair, National Right to Counsel 
Committee and District Attorney, Anoka County, Minnesota; Alan 
Crotzer, Probation and Community Intervention Officer, Florida 
Department of Juvenile Justice; wrongfully convicted and 
sentenced to 130 years in prison Tallahassee, FL; Erik Luna, 
Professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, 
Lexington, VA; Malcolm R. ``Tye'' Hunter: former Executive 
Director, North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services, 
Durham, North Carolina; John Wesley Hall, President, National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Little Rock, Arkansas; 
and Rhoda Billings, Co-Chair, National Right to Counsel 
Committee, Former Justice and Chief Justice of the North 
Carolina Supreme Court, Lewisville, NC. (Serial No. 111-29)

Hearing on the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Report and 
        Standards

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on July 8, 2009 
on a report released by the National Prison Rape Elimination 
Commission. On June 23, 2009, the National Prison Rape 
Elimination Commission (NPREC) released its final report and 
proposed standards on prevention, detection, and monitoring of 
sexual abuse of incarcerated and detained individuals in the 
United States. The report and standards are the culmination of 
many years of work by Members of Congress, prison-reform 
advocates, corrections and detention officials and sexual 
assault victims to bring attention to this serious problem. 
During the hearing, the findings of the report and the 
standards developed by the Commission were discussed. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from: Melissa Rothstein, East 
Coast Program Director, Just Detention International, 
Washington, DC; Reggie B. Walton, Judge, United States District 
Court of the District of Columbia, Chair, National Prison Rape 
Elimination Act Commission; Sean E. Kenyon, Attorney, Hoeppner 
Wagner & Evans LLP, Merrillville, Indiana; Jon Ozmint, 
Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Columbia, 
SC; and Lisa Freeman, Prisoner Rights Project, Legal Aid 
Society of New York, New York, NY. (Serial No. 111-49)

Hearing on Mandatory Minimums and Unintended Consequences

    Summary.--This hearing, held on July 14, 2009, examined the 
nature and consequences of the, at the time, 170 existing 
mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the federal criminal code. 
Various groups, including the federal Judicial Conference, the 
ABA--through its Kennedy Commission, the Sentencing Project, 
the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Families Against Mandatory 
Minimums, and others have long advocated for the elimination of 
mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The hearing examined the 
consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing laws on the 
criminal justice system, including unprecedented rates of 
incarceration, disparate impacts on minorities, and irrational 
sentencing results. Moreover, the hearing explored whether 
mandatory minimum penalties are meeting the goals of increased 
uniformity in sentencing, fairness, deterrence and reduction of 
crime. Finally, three bills, the ``Common Sense in Sentencing 
Act of 2009'' (H.R. 2934); the ``Ramos and Compean Justice Act 
of 2009'' (H.R. 834); and the ``Major Drug Trafficking 
Prosecution Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1466) were considered. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from: Honorable Julie E. Carnes, 
Chair, Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States, Washington, DC; Grover G. Norquist, President, 
Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC; Michael J. Sullivan, 
Partner, Ashcroft Sullivan, LLC, Boston, MA; T.J. Bonner, 
President, National Border Patrol Council, Campo, CA; and Julie 
Stewart, President and Founder Families Against Mandatory 
Minimums Foundation, Washington, DC. (Serial No. 111-48)

Hearing on Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

    Summary.--On July 21, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to conduct general oversight over the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
(BOP). BOP was established by an act of Congress in 1930 and is 
within the Department of Justice (DOJ). The agency director is 
Harley G. Lappin who was appointed in April 2003. The BOP is 
charged with the ``management and regulation of all Federal 
penal and correctional institutions.'' The mission of the BOP 
is ``to protect society by confining offenders in the 
controlled environments of prisons and community-based 
facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and 
appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-
improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-
abiding citizens.'' The BOP is responsible for the 
incarceration of over 205,000 inmates. Almost 82% of these 
inmates are confined in Bureau-operated facilities, while 18% 
are confined primarily in private sector prisons. The average 
sentence length for inmates in BOP custody is 9.9 years. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the following witnesses: The 
Honorable Dennis Cardoza (D) Calif. 18th District; Harley G. 
Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of 
Justice; Washington, DC; Reginald A. Wilkinson, President & 
CEO, Ohio College Access Network, Columbus, Ohio; Philip 
Fornaci, Director, DC Prisoners' Project, Washington Lawyers' 
Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs, Washington, DC; 
Richard A. Lewis, Senior Manager, ICF International, Fairfax, 
VA; Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender, 
Portland, Oregon; and Phil Glover, Legislative Coordinator, the 
American Federation of Government Employees, Johnstown, PA. 
(Serial No. 111-89)

Hearings on ``Over-Criminalization of Conduct/Over-federalization of 
        Criminal Law''

    Summary.--On July 22, 2009, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing. We focused on the issue of Over-Criminalization of 
Conduct/Over-federalization of Criminal Law. The purpose of the 
hearing was to address the mounting concerns about both the 
number of new federal crimes being created annually by 
Congress, as well as the deterioration in the mens rea 
traditionally needed to find a person guilty of a crime. There 
was also the question of whether these new laws have any 
deterrent effect when they seek to prohibit and punish conduct 
that merely involves negligence or bad judgment. Finally, there 
was also the question of whether the increase in federal crimes 
has, in effect, only duplicated crimes that already (and 
rightly) reside within the jurisdiction of the states. The 
Subcommittee had been encouraged to conduct this hearing by a 
coalition of organizations that includes the National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Heritage 
Foundation, The Constitution Project, and the Innocence 
Project, among others. The coalition has been actively engaged 
in the advocacy of reform of federal criminal laws as well as 
the process by which federal crime legislation is enacted in 
the future. This was a bi-partisan hearing involving the full 
participation and support of both Chairman Scott and Ranking 
Member Gohmert. Testimony began with a consensus over-
criminalization expert with extensive background in the issues 
of over-federalization of crime and over-criminalization. That 
expert framed the problems and summarized their depth. Other 
experts focused on specific reforms with respect to mens rea, 
over-federalization, and sentencing. Victim witnesses' 
testimony highlighted the need for the reforms recommended by 
our experts. Each of the witnesses was a consensus witness of 
the above-referenced coalition.
    The hearing explored whether Congress should: authorize a 
review of existing Federal laws with specific emphasis on those 
laws that have been enacted but are not being enforced; 
reconsider how best to fight crime within the Federal system; 
reconsider the true Federal interests in crime control versus 
the risks of Federalizing local crime; articulate general 
principles which should guide it (Congress) in determining 
whether to create new crimes--implement mechanisms to foster 
restraint on further Federalization--(such as through a 
federalization assessment by a select joint committee); 
implement/enact ``Sunset'' provisions with respect to both 
existing laws that are not being enforced and those enacted in 
the future; and whether the proper response to public safety 
concerns is enactment of new federal crime legislation or 
increased federal support for state and local crime control 
efforts. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the following 
witnesses: The Honorable Richard Thornburgh, former U.S. 
Attorney General, presently with K`L Gates LLP, Washington, DC; 
Timothy Lynch, Cato Institute, Washington, DC; Kathy Norris, 
Victim/Personal Impact; Krister Evertson, Victim/Personal 
Impact, Professor Stephen Saltzburg, George Washington 
University Law School, Washington, DC; and James Strazzella, 
Temple University Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA. 
(Serial No. 111-67)

Hearing on ``Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004''

    Summary.--This hearing was held on September 22, 2009, and 
focused on the Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act 
of 2004, a part of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
406, Title IV) (IPA) which was set to expire on September 30, 
2009. A the time, there was no pending legislation for 
reauthorization of the IPA. The Subcommittee heard testimony 
about the implementation of the two grant programs authorized 
by the IPA: the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing 
Grants Program (Subtitle A, Sections 412 and 413) and the 
Capital Representation Improvement Grants (Subtitle B, Sections 
421 and 422). Testimony described initial problems with the 
Bloodsworth program that were remedied by a temporary 
adjustment of statutory language during the appropriations 
process for FY 2008. Witnesses addressed the issue of whether 
the temporary adjustment should become permanent, and whether 
additional changes are needed to improve the Bloodsworth 
program. The hearing also focused on continuing issues 
surrounding the efficacy of improving competent legal 
representation of indigent defendants in State capital cases 
through Capital Representation Improvement Grants. The 
Department of Justice (DOJ) witness explained how Capital 
Representation Improvement Grants have worked in practice under 
the IPA. Advocate witnesses described general problems with 
indigent defense representation in State Capital cases, and 
possibly suggest improvements that can be made to the IPA to 
spur the creation of more effective systems for providing legal 
representation in State capital cases. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from the following witnesses: Lynn Overmann, Senior 
Advisor, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC; Barry C. Scheck, Co-Director and Co-
Founder, The Innocence Project, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of 
Law, New York, NY; Karen A. Goodrow, Esq., Director, Division 
of Public Defender Services; c/o McCarter ` English, Hartford, 
CT; Pete Marone, Director, Virginia Department of Forensic 
Science, Richmond, VA; and Stephen B. Bright, President ` 
Senior Counsel, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA. 
(Serial No. 111-74)

Hearing on The Crime Victims Rights Act of 2004

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing on the Crime 
Victims Rights Act of 2004 on September 29, 2009. The purpose 
of the hearing was to conduct oversight of the implementation 
of the statutory rights for victims of federal crimes and the 
grant programs established under the Act. As of September 2008, 
according to the Department of Justice, over 750,000 crime 
victims with active cases were registered with the Victim 
Notification System. The most common types of cases prosecuted 
in the federal criminal justice system during March 2006 and 
March 2007 that involve victims included: fraud; burglary, 
larceny and theft; sex offenses; and robberies. Almost half of 
the federal criminal cases that were initiated during the same 
time period in the federal criminal justice system were related 
to immigration and narcotics violations, which generally do not 
involve any victims. There have been several attempts to amend 
the U.S. Constitution to establish a constitutionally 
recognized role for crime victims in the criminal justice 
process. After several failed attempts to pass a Constitutional 
Amendment, Congress enacted statutes that established certain 
rights for federal crime victims and made funding available to 
provide services to crime victims including the Crime Victims 
Rights Act of 2004. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the 
following witnesses: Eileen Larence, Director, Homeland 
Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office, Washington, DC; Laurence E. Rothenberg, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Office of 
Legal Policy, Washington, DC; Mary Lou Leary, Acting Assistant 
Attorney General, Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Washington, DC; Douglas E. Beloof, Professor of Law, 
Lewis ` Clark Law School, Portland, OR; Susan Howley, Director, 
Public Policy, National Center for Victims of Crime, 
Washington, DC. (Serial No. 111-78)

Hearing on Strategies to Help Girls Achieve Their Full Potential

    Summary.--On October 20, 2009, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing entitled Girls 
in the Juvenile Justice System: Strategies to Help Girls 
Achieve Their Full Potential. The increasing number of girls' 
in the juvenile delinquency system has attracted the attention 
of federal, state, and local officials for more than a decade. 
While the majority of juvenile arrests and cases involve boys, 
for the past twenty years girls have increasingly become 
involved in the juvenile justice system. In 1980, 20 percent of 
all juvenile arrests were girls; by the mid-1990s about one 
quarter of these arrests were girls; and by 2007, girls 
accounted for 29 percent of all juvenile arrests. Although 
arrests for some violent crimes, such as assaults, have 
decreased for males, they have decreased less, or in some cases 
have increased, for females. This hearing examined prevention 
and intervention programs that have been successful at keeping 
girls safe and helping them successfully transition out of the 
juvenile justice system. The Subcommittee heard testimony from 
the following witnesses: Eileen Larence, Director, Homeland 
Security and Justice Issues, United States Government 
Accountability Office, Washington, DC; Dr. Lawanda Ravoira, 
Director, NCCD Center for Girls and Young Women, Jacksonville, 
FL; Ms. Tiffany Rivera, GEMS, New York, NY; Ms. Nadiyah 
Shereff, San Francisco, CA; C. Jackie Jackson, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Girls, Inc. of the Greater Peninsula, Hampton, VA; 
and Mr. Thomas Stickrath, Director, Ohio Department of Youth 
Services, Columbus, OH. (Serial No. 111-77)

Hearing on Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

    Summary.--The Subcommittee held a hearing October 29, 2009 
on ``Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System.'' 
During this hearing the witnesses discussed recent reports 
about the growing racial disparities in the criminal justice 
system. Every person in this country is guaranteed to be 
treated fairly by the justice system under the U.S. 
Constitution. When people are treated differently in the 
criminal justice system based on their race or ethnicity it 
undermines the important Constitutional principle of equal 
rights under law. Our criminal justice system is rife with 
evidence of racial disparities. Racial disparities in the 
criminal justice system exist when the proportion of a racial 
or ethnic group involved in the system is greater than the 
proportion of such group in the general population. In the 
United States, African Americans make up 13% of the general 
U.S. population, yet they constitute 28% of all arrests, 40% of 
all inmates held in prisons and jails, and 42% of the 
population on death row. Whites make up 67% of the total U.S. 
population and 70% of all arrests, yet only 40% of all inmates 
held in state prisons or local jails and 56% of the population 
on death row. The following witnesses appeared and submit a 
statement for the record. The Honorable Steve Cohen, United 
States House of Representatives, 9th District of Tennessee: 
Barry Krisberg, President, National Council on Crime and 
Delinquency, Jacksonville, FL; The Honorable James Reams, 
President-Elect, National District Attorneys Association, 
Alexandria, VA; Wayne McKenzie, Director, Program on 
Prosecution and Racial Justice, New York, NY; and Marc Mauer, 
Executive Director, The Sentencing Project, Washington, DC. 
(Serial No. 111-78)

Hearing on ``Combating Organized Retail Crime--The Role of Federal Law 
        Enforcement''

    Summary.--This hearing was conducted on November 5, 2009. 
The hearing examined the roles of the several federal law 
enforcement agencies that investigate instances of organized 
retail crime. This type of crime is perpetrated by 
sophisticated, multi-level criminal organizations, often 
operating across state and even international boundaries, to 
steal and resell high-value retail goods. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from David Johnson, Section Chief, Criminal 
Investigations Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Special Agent in Charge John R. Large, Criminal Investigative 
Division, U.S. Secret Service; Janice Ayala, Deputy Assistant 
Director, Office of Investigations, ICE; and Deputy Chief 
Postal Inspector Zane Hill, U.S. Postal Inspection Service. 
(Serial No. 111-96)

Hearing on ``FBI Oversight Regarding Recent DOJ Inspector General 
        Reports''

    Summary.--This hearing was held February 24, 2010. The 
Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General which 
had released several reports that focused on the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation's track record with respect to handling 
information and effective cooperation with other federal, state 
and local law enforcement agencies: Explosives Investigation 
Coordination between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Audit 
Report 10-01); the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Foreign 
Language Translation Program (Audit Report 10-02); and a Review 
of the Department's Anti-Gang Intelligence and Coordination 
Centers (I-2010-01). During the hearings, the findings of the 
reports and the recommendations of the OIG were discussed as 
well as the FBI's Responses to the Reports. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from representatives from the Office of the 
Inspector General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 
and the FBI: the Honorable Glenn A. Fine, Office of the 
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice; Margaret 
Gulotta, Section Chief, Language Services Section, Directorate 
of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Jennifer 
Shasky Calvery, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of 
Justice. (Serial No. 111-102)

Hearing on ``Keeping Youth Safe While in Custody: Sexual Assault in 
        Adult and Juvenile Facilities''

    Summary.--On February 23, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing titled ``Keeping Youth Safe While in Custody: Sexual 
Assault in Adult and Juvenile Facilities.'' On January 7, 2010, 
the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics 
released a report titled ``Sexual Victimization in Juvenile 
Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09'' (hereinafter ``BJS 
report''). During the hearing, witnesses discussed the findings 
of the report and the problem of sexual assault of youth in 
adult and juvenile facilities. The Prison Rape Elimination Act 
of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) (PREA) required the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) to conduct a comprehensive statistical review 
and analysis of the incidents of sexual assault in juvenile 
correctional facilities for at least 90 days. PREA also 
required the BJS report to provide a list of juvenile 
correctional facilities according to the prevalence of sexual 
victimization. The January BJS report findings shed light on 
the dangerous conditions under which many youth in juvenile 
correctional facilities live. The report focused on larger 
juvenile institutions that typically detain adjudicated youth 
for longer periods of time. The Subcommittee heard testimony 
from the following witnesses: Brenda Smith, Professor, American 
University, Washington, DC; Troy Erik Isaac, North Hollywood, 
CA; Bernard Warner, Chief Deputy Secretary for Juvenile 
Justice; Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division 
of Juvenile Justice, Sacramento, CA; Gabriel Morgan, Sheriff, 
Newport News, VA; and Grace Bauer, Campaign for Youth Justice, 
Washington, DC. (Serial No. 111-100)

Hearing on ``United States v. Stevens--The Supreme Court's Decision 
        Invalidating the Crush Video Statute''

    Summary.--This hearing was conducted on May 26, 2010. The 
hearing examined the Supreme Court's decision which invalidated 
the federal law enacted in 1999 to criminalize the creation, 
sale, and possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. 
Members and the panel of witnesses discussed the law that was 
overturned, the Court's rationale for finding the law in 
violation of the First Amendment, and ways in which a new law 
could be drafted to avoid these constitutional defects. The 
Subcommittee on Crime received testimony from Congressman Elton 
Gallegly (R-CA); Congressman Gary Peters (D-MI); Professor 
Stephen I. Vladeck, American University Washington College of 
Law; Professor Nathaniel Persily, Columbia University School of 
Law; and J. Scott Ballenger, Partner, Latham and Watkins. 
(Serial No. 111-129)

Hearing on ``Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Barriers 
        to Reentry for the Formerly Incarcerated''

    Summary.--On June 9, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
titled ``Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: 
Barriers to Reentry for the Formerly Incarcerated.'' On April 
9, 2008, the Second Chance Act (P.L. 110-199) was signed into 
law. This law authorizes federal grants to government agencies 
and nonprofit organizations to provide employment assistance, 
substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, 
mentoring, victims support, and other services that can help 
reduce recidivism and better address the needs of the growing 
population of ex-offenders returning to their communities. The 
two year authorization for the Second Chance Act expired on 
September 30, 2010. As the Committee evaluates the successes 
and challenges of implementing Second Chance Act programs, this 
hearing examined the continuing barriers that ex-offenders in 
this country face as they reenter society after being released 
from jails and prisons. In addition, this hearing explored 
whether any of these obstacles to successful reintegration 
should be addressed in Second Chance Act reauthorization 
legislation. On June 9, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Barriers to 
Reentry for the Formerly Incarcerated. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from the following witnesses: Marc Mauer, Executive 
Director, The Sentencing Project, Washington, DC; Maurice 
Emsellem, Policy Co-Director, National Employment Law Project, 
Oakland, CA; Calvin Moore, DC Employment Justice Center, 
Washington, DC; Richard A. Lewis, Fellow ICF International, 
Fairfax, VA; Pamela K. Lattimore, Ph.D., Principal Scientist, 
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC; and Richard 
Cassidy, Hoff Curtis, Burlington, VT. (Serial No. 111-139)

Hearing on Hearing on the Role and Operations of the United States 
        Secret Service

    Summary.--This hearing was held by the Subcommittee on 
Crime on June 29, 2010, and examined the dual role (protection 
and investigation) and operations of the United States Secret 
Service. The Members and witness discussed current challenges 
with the protective function, including concerns about security 
breaches. The hearing also focused on the Service's evolving 
and growing investigative role, particularly with respect to 
financial and computer crimes. The Crime Subcommittee received 
testimony from Mark Sullivan, Director of the United States 
Secret Service. (Serial No. 111-140)

Hearing on Hearing on Internet Privacy, Social Networking, and Crime 
        Victimization

    Summary.--On July 28, 2010, the Subcommittee on Crime 
conducted a hearing examining the intersection between Internet 
privacy and crime victimization of Internet users, with a focus 
on the particular risks raised by participation on social 
networking sites. The Members and witnesses discussed means by 
which criminals spread malware to social networking 
participants, obtain private information of social networkers, 
and the need for enhanced privacy protection. The Subcommittee 
on Crime received testimony from Mr. Gordon M. Snow, Assistant 
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Mr. Michael P. Merritt, 
Assistant Director, United States Secret Service, United States 
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Mr. Joe 
Sullivan, Chief Security Officer (CSO), Facebook Inc., Palo 
Alto, CA; Mr. Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director, Electronic 
Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Washington, DC; and Mr. Joe 
Pasqua, Vice President for Research, Symantec Inc., Washington, 
DC. (Serial No. 111-144)

Hearing on ``The Reauthorization of the Second Chance Act''

    Summary.--A hearing was held on September 29, 2010 by the 
Subcommittee titled ``the Reauthorization of the Second Chance 
Act.'' On April 9, 2008, the Second Chance Act (P.L. 110-199) 
was signed into law. The Second Chance Act authorizes federal 
grants to government agencies and nonprofit organizations to 
provide employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, 
housing, family programming, mentoring, victims support, and 
other services that can help reduce recidivism and better 
address the needs of the growing population of ex-offenders 
returning to their communities. The two year authorization for 
the Second Chance Act expired on September 30, 2010. This 
hearing examined some of the programs that have been funded 
under the Second Chance Act. In addition, witnesses discussed 
the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (OIG) 
audit released in July, 2010 reviewing OJP's design and 
management of its three prisoner reentry grant programs. Also, 
witnesses discussed changes that could be made in a 
reauthorization bill to facilitate the work of government 
agencies and non-profit organizations in their efforts to 
address the needs of former offenders reintegrating back into 
their communities. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the 
following witnesses: Le'Ann Duran, Director, National Reentry 
Resources Center, Council of State Governments, New York, NY; 
Michele Banks, Richmond Second Chance Reentry Program Manager, 
Richmond City Sheriff's Office, Richmond, VA; Nancy La Vigne, 
Director, Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute, 
Washington, DC; David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., The Heritage 
Foundation, Washington, DC; and Gladyse Taylor, Acting 
Director, Illinois Department of Correction, Chicago, Ill. 
(Serial No. 111-154)

Hearing on ``Reining in Over-Criminalization: Assessing the Problems, 
        Proposing Solutions''

    Summary.--This hearing was held on September 28, 2010, and 
was a follow up to an earlier hearing held on July 22, 2009, on 
the same issue. The earlier hearing addressed mounting concerns 
about the number of new federal crimes being created annually 
by Congress. These concerns specifically revolve around 
questions of the laws' effectiveness, the dilution of the mens 
rea element, whether the increase in federal crimes duplicated 
crimes that already (and appropriately) reside within the 
jurisdiction of the states, and whether many of these newly 
enacted laws have had any deterrent effect when they seek to 
prohibit and punish conduct that merely involves negligence or 
bad judgment (and should therefore be regarded as 
administrative rather than criminal infractions). Following 
that earlier hearing, a coalition comprised of the Heritage 
Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, the National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Bar 
Association (ABA), the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, 
and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reconvened to 
address the issue of over-criminalization. A non-partisan, 
joint study, ``Without Intent'', prepared by two of the 
organizations, the Heritage Foundation and the National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, was also released 
following that first hearing. In the report, Heritage and the 
defense lawyers suggested that lawmakers take a few steps to 
improve matters, including requiring the House and Senate 
judiciary committees to review all proposed criminal laws and 
writing into law that defendants should get the benefit of the 
doubt when laws are not written clearly. It was the 
recommendation of the coalition that, in order to avoid adding 
to the problems of over-criminalization, Congress should ask 
the hard questions before enacting new criminal laws. Do we 
need to enact more laws at the federal level for a particular 
type of conduct? Is there a valid purpose to be served by 
creating criminal law at the federal level when it duplicates 
an existing state level law? Would it be a better use of 
resources for the federal government to supplement state 
enforcement of criminal laws rather than replicating their 
efforts? It was the position of the coalition that Congress 
should be asking these same questions about the thousands of 
laws already in the federal criminal code. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from the following witnesses: Jim Lavine, 
President, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 
Washington, DC; Bobby Unser, Personal Impact Victim, 
Albuquerque, NM; Abner Schoenwetter, Personal Impact Victim, 
Pinecrest, FL; Brian Walsh, Senior Legal Research Fellow, The 
Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC; Stephen Smith, Professor 
of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, IN; 
Ellen Podgor, LeRoy Highbaugh, Sr. Research Chair and Professor 
of Law, Stetson University College of Law, Gulfport, FL; and 
Andrew Weissmann, Partner, Jenner & Block, LLP, New York, New 
York. (Serial No. 111-151)
 SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 
                        AND INTERNATIONAL LAW\1\

 ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa                     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           MAXINE WATERS, California
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TED POE, Texas                       LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
                                     ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
                                     CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
                                     JUDY CHU, California

--------------------
\1\Subcommittee chairmanship and assignments approved January 22, 2009.

          Tabulation of subcommittee legislation and activity

Public:
    Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.....................   258
    Legislation on which hearings were held......................     1
    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................     0
    Legislation reported to the House............................     4
    Legislation discharged from the Committee....................     0
    Legislation pending in the House.............................     3
    Legislation passed by the House..............................     8
    Legislation pending in the Senate............................     1
    Legislation vetoed by the President (not overridden).........     0
    Legislation enacted into Public Law..........................     5
    Legislation enacted into Public Law as part of other 
      legislation................................................    19
    Days of legislative hearings.................................     1
    Days of oversight hearings...................................     6
Private:
  Claims:
    Legislation referred to the Subcommittee.....................     1
    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.....................    62
    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.........................     3

                          Legislative Activity


H.R. 42/S. 69, the ``Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of 
        Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 42 addresses the mistreatment of Japanese 
Latin Americans during World War II and creates a fact-finding 
commission to extend the study of the Commission on Wartime 
Relocation and Internment of Civilians. The commission would 
investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding 
the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries 
of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 
through February 1948. The commission would also assess the 
impact of those actions by the United States, and recommend 
appropriate remedies, if any.
    Legislative History.--On January 6, 2009, Representative 
Xavier Becerra (D-CA) introduced H.R. 42, which on the same day 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Also on the 
same day, Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) introduced a companion 
bill, S. 69. On February 9, 2009, H.R. 42 was referred to the 
Immigration Subcommittee, which reported the bill to the full 
Judiciary Committee on July 23, 2009 by a vote of 7 to 2. The 
Judiciary Committee marked up the bill on October 21, 2009 and 
ordered it to be reported favorably by a vote of 22-10. On 
February 11, 2009, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs ordered S. 69 to be reported favorably 
without amendment. No further action was taken on H.R. 42 or S. 
69.

H.R. 847/S. 1334, the ``James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation 
        Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 847 establishes the World Trade Center 
Health Program to provide medical monitoring and treatment 
benefits to emergency responders, recovery and cleanup workers, 
area residents, and others who were directly impacted by the 
attacks of September 11, 2001. The bill also reopens the 
September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 to provide 
compensation to anyone who was injured in the aftermath of the 
attacks, including persons who were injured during debris 
removal at the September 11 crash sites. The bill extends the 
deadline for making claims under the fund, and it provides 
certain liability protections for the City of New York and 
other entities that engaged in recovery efforts and debris 
removal following the September 11 attacks.
    Legislative History.--On February 4, 2009, Representative 
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced H.R. 847, which was referred 
that same day to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and 
Judiciary. On February 9, 2009, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce referred H.R. 847 to its Subcommittee on Health. On 
March 16, 2009, the Judiciary Committee referred H.R. 847 to 
its Crime and Immigration Subcommittees, and the Full Committee 
further referred the bill to its Constitution Subcommittee on 
March 27, 2009. The Immigration and Constitution Subcommittees 
held a joint hearing on H.R. 847 on March 31, 2009. A hearing 
on H.R. 847 was also held by the Health Subcommittee of the 
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on April 22, 2009. On June 24, 
2009, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced a companion 
bill, S. 1334, which saw no further action in the Senate. On 
July 29, 2009, the House Judiciary Committee marked up H.R. 847 
and ordered it to be reported with amendments by a vote of 22 
to 9. On March 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee marked up H.R. 847 and ordered it 
to be reported with amendments by a vote of 25 to 8. The Energy 
and Commerce Committee marked up H.R. 847 on May 25, 2010, when 
it was ordered to be reported with amendments by a vote of 33 
to 12. On July 22, 2010, the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce 
Committees each reported H.R. 847 out of committee. On July 29, 
2010, H.R. 847 was considered under suspension of the rules, 
where it failed to be passed by the House by a vote of 255 to 
159. On September 29, 2010, the House passed H.R. 847 under a 
rule by a vote of 268 to 160. H.R. 847 was received in the 
Senate on that same day. On December 9, 2010, the Senate 
considered a motion to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to 
consideration of H.R. 847 in the Senate, but the cloture motion 
failed by a vote of 57 to 42. On December 22, 2010, the Senate 
reconsidered H.R. 847 and passed the bill with an amendment by 
unanimous consent. Later that same day, the House concurred in 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 847 by a vote of 206 to 60. H.R. 
847 became Public Law 111-347 on January 2, 2011.

H.R. 1029, the ``Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 1029 provides 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 subjects 
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. 1029 directs 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 also tightens 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 February 12, 2009, Representative 
Baron Hill (D-IN) introduced H.R. 1029. On March 31, 2009, the 
House passed H.R. 1029 under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the 
Senate Committee on Judiciary on April 1, 2009 and no further 
action was taken on the bill. Certain portions of H.R. 1029 
that dealt with alien smuggling and human trafficking by sea 
were added to H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011. H.R. 3619 became Public Law 111-281 
on October 15, 2010.

H.R. 1127--To extend certain immigration programs

    Summary.--H.R. 1127 extends two expiring immigration 
programs until September 30, 2009. The bill amends the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the R visa special 
immigrant program for non-minister religious workers, which 
expired on March 6, 2009. The bill also amends the Immigration 
and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 to extend the 
Conrad 30 J-1 visa waiver program for doctors serving rural 
areas, which also expired on March 6, 2009.
    Legislative History.--On February 23, 2009, Representative 
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced H.R. 1127. On March 4, 2009, the 
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. On March 11, 2009, the Senate passed the bill by 
unanimous consent. H.R. 1127 became Public Law 111-9 on March 
20, 2009.

H.R. 1425/S. 564, the ``Wartime Treatment Study Act''

    Summary.--H.R. 1425 creates a fact-finding commission that 
would review the U.S. Government's wartime treatment of 
European Americans and European Latin Americans during World 
War II. The bill also creates a second commission to review the 
U.S. Government's refusal to allow Jewish and other refugees 
fleeing persecution or genocide in Europe entry to the United 
States between January 1, 1933 and December 31, 1945.
    Legislative History.--On March 10, 2009, Representative 
Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced H.R. 1425, which on the same 
day was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Also on the 
same day, Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduced a 
companion bill, S. 564. On April 27, 2009, H.R. 1425 was 
referred to the Immigration Subcommittee, which reported the 
bill to the full Judiciary Committee on July 31, 2009 by a vote 
of 9 to 1. The Judiciary Committee marked up the bill on 
October 21, 2009 and ordered it to be reported by a vote of 19-
7. No further action was taken on H.R. 1425 or S. 564.

H.R. 2892, Extension of E-Verify and other expiring immigration 
        programs (religious workers, EB-5 investor visas, and J-1 
        waiver for doctors serving in under-served areas) and 
        elimination of widow penalty

    Summary.--H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act for 2010, extends several expiring 
immigration programs until September 30, 2012. Section 547 
extends the E-Verify pilot program to electronically check the 
employment eligibility of job applicants; section 548 extends 
the EB-5 investor visa immigration program; and section 568 
extends the R visa special immigrant program for non-minister 
religious workers and the Conrad 30 J-1 visa waiver program for 
doctors serving rural areas. The bill, in section 568, also 
amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow spouses and 
other close relatives of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent 
residents to complete the permanent resident process if the 
petitioning U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident passes 
away before the process is completed.
    Legislative History.--The immigration provisions in H.R. 
2892 were added by the Senate and amended in a conference 
between the Houses. The House agreed to the conference report 
on October 15, 2009 by a vote of 307 to 114. The Senate agreed 
to the conference report on October 20, 2009 by a vote of 79 to 
19. H.R. 2892 became Public Law 111-83 on October 28, 2009.

H.R. 3290/S. 1736, the ``September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and 
        Patriotism Act of 2009''

    Summary.--H.R. 3290 permits a defined set of surviving 
dependents of undocumented workers killed during the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, to apply for lawful permanent 
residence in the United States.
    Legislative History.--On July 22, 2009, Representative 
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced H.R. 3290, which on the same 
day was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On October 
1, 2009, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a companion 
bill, S. 1736. Also on July 22, 2009, H.R. 3290 was referred to 
the Immigration Subcommittee, which reported the bill to the 
full Judiciary Committee on July 23, 2009 by a vote of 7 to 5. 
The Judiciary Committee marked up the bill on September 16, 
2009 and ordered it to be reported by voice vote. No further 
action was taken on H.R. 3290 or S. 1736.

H.R. 4748/S. 3467, the ``Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act 
        of 2010''

    Summary.--H.R. 4748 requires the Director of National Drug 
Control Policy to submit to Congress a Northern Border 
Counternarcotics Strategy. The Strategy must set forth the 
Government's strategy for preventing the illegal trafficking of 
drugs across the international border between the United States 
and Canada, state the specific roles and responsibilities of 
relevant federal agencies to implement that Strategy, and 
identify the resources required for implementation.
    Legislative History.--On March 3, 2010, Representative 
William Owens (D-NY) introduced H.R. 4748, which on the same 
day was referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and 
Homeland Security. On May 5, 2010, H.R. 4748 was referred by 
the Committee on Homeland Security to the Subcommittee on 
Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, but no further 
committee action was taken on the bill. On June 9, 2010, 
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a companion bill, S. 
3467. On July 27, 2010, the House passed H.R. 4748 under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 413 to 0. On December 20, 
2010, the Senate passed H.R. 4748 with an amendment by 
unanimous consent. On December 21, 2010, the House concurred in 
the Senate amendment under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. H.R. 4748 became Public Law 111-356 on January 4, 2011.

H.R. 4862, To permit Members of Congress to administer the oath of 
        allegiance to applicants for naturalization, and for other 
        purposes

    Summary.--H.R. 4862 amends the Immigration and Nationality 
Act to permit each applicant for naturalization to choose to 
have the oath of allegiance for naturalization administered by 
a Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 
(Member). The bill limits the administration of the oath (1) by 
a Member of the Senate to individuals who reside in the 
Senator's state; and (2) by a Member of the House to 
individuals who reside in the respective congressional 
district. The bill also: prohibits a Member from administering 
the oath during the 90-day period before any election in which 
the Member is a candidate; requires a Member to administer the 
oath only at times and places designated by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security; and prohibits a Member from administering 
the oath during any period in which exclusive authority to 
administer it may be exercised by an eligible court for the 
person concerned, unless the court has waived such exclusive 
authority.
    Legislative History.--On March 16, 2010, Representative 
Jose Serrano (D-NY) introduced H.R. 4862, which was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary that same day. On April 26, 
2010, H.R. 4862 was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee, 
but no further Committee action was taken on the bill. On 
September 15, 2010, the House passed the bill under suspension 
of the rules by voice vote. The bill was received in the Senate 
on September 16, 2010, but no further action was taken on the 
bill.

H.R. 5138/H.R. 1623, the ``International Megan's Law of 2010''

    Summary.--H.R. 5138 contains provisions designed to protect 
children from sexual exploitation by restricting or monitoring 
the international travel of certain sex offenders who pose a 
risk of committing a sex offense against a minor while 
traveling. The bill introduces new reporting requirements for 
registered sex offenders who wish to depart from or return to 
the United States. The knowing failure to report such travel is 
punishable by a fine and/or prison term of up to 10 years. The 
bill also requires diplomatic or consular missions in each 
foreign country to establish and maintain a countrywide sex 
offender registry for sex offenders from the U.S. who 
temporarily or permanently reside in such country. H.R. 5138 
directs the President to establish the International Sex 
Offender Travel Center, headed by U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, to coordinate the travel notification requirement. 
The Travel Center is authorized to determine whether a sex 
offender who has provided advance notice of travel is a ``high 
interest registered sex offender'' and to provide advance 
notice of such travel to destination countries. The traveler 
must be informed whether the destination country will be 
notified and must be provided an opportunity to appeal the high 
interest registered sex offender determination. The bill 
additionally authorizes the Secretary of State to revoke the 
passport or passport card of a person who has been convicted in 
a foreign jurisdiction of a sex offense and to limit to one 
year the period of validity for passports issued to persons 
designated as high interest registered sex offenders. The bill 
amends the minimum standards in the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act of 2000 to include consideration of whether a 
particular government cooperates with other governments in the 
investigation and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in 
persons, including cases involving nationals of that country 
who are suspected of engaging in severe forms of trafficking in 
persons in another country.
    Legislative History.--On March 19, 2009, Representative 
Christopher Smith (R-NJ) introduced H.R. 1623, the 
International Megan's Law of 2009, which was on the same day 
referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign 
Affairs. On April 27, 2009, the bill was referred to the 
Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Crime Subcommittees, but 
no further committee action was taken on the bill. On April 26, 
2010, Representative Christopher Smith introduced H.R. 5138, 
the International Megan's Law of 2010, which was on the same 
day referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign 
Affairs. The Committee on Foreign Affairs marked up the bill on 
April 28, 2010 and ordered it to be reported by voice vote. On 
June 15, 2010, the bill was referred to the Judiciary 
Committee's Crime Subcommittee, but the Committee discharged 
the bill on July 27, 2010. Also on July 27, 2010, the House 
passed H.R. 5138, as amended, under suspension of the rules by 
voice vote. The bill was received in the Senate on July 28, 
2010 but no further action was taken on the bill.

H.R. 5281/H.R. 1751/H.R. 6497/S. 729/S. 3827/S. 3962/S. 3963/S. 3992, 
        the ``Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors 
        (DREAM) Act of 2010''

    Summary.--The DREAM Act authorizes the Secretary of DHS to 
cancel the removal of, and adjust to conditional nonimmigrant 
status, an alien who: entered the U.S. before his or her 16th 
birthday; has been present in the U.S. for at least five years 
on the date of enactment; is under age 30 on the date of 
enactment; is a person of good moral character; is not 
inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act; and has been admitted to an 
institution of higher education or has earned a high school 
diploma or general education development certificate in the 
United States. An alien is also required to: submit biometric 
and biographic data and pass security and law enforcement 
background checks; register for Selective Service; undergo a 
medical examination; and meet other specific requirements. For 
an alien who meets all of the above requirements, the bill 
establishes an initial five-year period of conditional 
nonimmigrant status, which can be revoked if the alien violates 
any requirement for such status. The alien can extend the 
status for an additional five-year period if the alien 
continues to meet the above requirements and has either 
completed at least two years of higher education (or received a 
degree from an Institution of Higher Education) or has 
completed at least two years in the Armed Forces. The bill 
further allows an alien who has been on conditional 
nonimmigrant status for 10 years, without violating such 
status, to adjust his or her status to that of an alien 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence. To obtain permanent 
residency, the alien would need to satisfy citizenship and 
federal tax requirements and again pass security and law 
enforcement background checks. The bill further allows an alien 
who has adjusted status to permanent residency and has been in 
such status for three years to apply for naturalization.
    Legislative History.--On March 26, 2009, Representative 
Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced H.R. 1751, which was referred 
to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
Education and Labor on the same day. Also on the same day, 
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced a companion bill, S. 
729. Senator Durbin subsequently filed four different versions 
of the bill: S. 3827 on September 22, 2010; S. 3962 and S. 3963 
on November 17, 2010; and S. 3992 on November 30, 2010. On 
December 6, 2010, a motion to proceed was filed on S. 3992, 
along with a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. 
On December 7, 2010, Representative Berman filed a new version 
of the DREAM Act, H.R. 6497, in the House. On December 8, 2010, 
the House voted to add the provisions contained in H.R. 6497 to 
an unrelated bill, H.R. 5281, which had already passed the 
House and been returned by the Senate with an amendment. The 
House voted to concur in the Senate amendment with an 
amendment--the DREAM Act provisions in H.R. 6497--by a vote of 
216 to 198. On December 9, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5281 
as amended. That same day, the Senate voted to table the motion 
to proceed on S. 3992 by a vote of 59 to 40. On December 18, 
2010, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on a motion to agree 
to the House amendment to H.R. 5281 by a vote of 55 to 41. No 
further action was taken on the bill.

H.R. 5283/S. 3411, the ``Help HAITI Act of 2010''

    Summary.--H.R. 5283 authorizes the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide permanent 
resident status to Haitian orphans who were granted admission 
into the United States pursuant to the humanitarian parole 
policy for such orphans announced on January 18, 2010. These 
orphans were in the process of being adopted by U.S. citizens 
when an earthquake hit Haiti on January 12, 2010. DHS used 
emergency parole procedures to bring those orphans to the U.S. 
and expedite their reunification with their prospective-
adoptive families. The bill provides these children with 
permanent immigration status.
    Legislative History.--On May 12, 2010, Representative Jeff 
Fortenberry (R-NE) introduced H.R. 5283, which was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary on the same day. On May 25, 
2010, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced a companion 
bill, S. 3411. S. 3411 was referred to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee but no further action was taken on the bill. On June 
15, 2010, H.R. 5283 was referred to the Immigration 
Subcommittee, but no further Committee action was taken on the 
bill. On July 20, 2010, the House passed H.R. 5283 under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote. On August 4, 2010, the 
Senate passed H.R. 5283 with an amendment by unanimous consent. 
On December 1, 2010, the House concurred in the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 5283 under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. H.R. 5283 became Public Law 111-293 on December 9, 2010.

H.R. 5532, the ``International Adoption Harmonization Act of 2010''

    Summary.--H.R. 5532 amends the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act (INA) to harmonize its international 
adoption provisions. Currently, the INA contains two age 
requirements related to the adoption of foreign children. The 
general rule is that an adoption must be finalized before a 
child turns 16 in order for the child to qualify for legal 
status. For any siblings of such a child, the adoption must be 
finalized before the sibling's 18th birthday, but only if the 
sibling comes from a country that has not signed the Convention 
on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of 
Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention). The age cut-off for 
siblings from signatory countries is the child's 16th birthday. 
H.R. 5532 harmonizes these provisions by applying the more 
generous 18-year-old age cut-off to all foreign children 
adopted by U.S. citizens, irrespective of whether they are a 
sibling of another adopted child or whether their home country 
is a signatory to the Hague Convention. Similarly, H.R. 5532 
also harmonizes vaccination requirements for adopted children 
by expanding a documentation exemption, which was previously 
available only to children from countries that had failed to 
sign the Hague Convention, to children from signatory countries 
as well.
    Legislative History.--On June 15, 2010, Representative Zoe 
Lofgren (D-CA) introduced H.R. 5532, which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary that same day. On July 20, 2010, the 
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote. The bill was received in the Senate on July 21, 2010, but 
no further action was taken on the bill.

H.R. 6397, the ``Marine Sergeant Michael H. Ferschke, Jr. Memorial 
        Act''

    Summary.--Under current immigration law, when a marriage 
takes place between two persons who cannot both be physically 
present during the ceremony, the marriage is not valid unless 
and until it is consummated. H.R. 6397 amends the Immigration 
and Nationality Act to create a narrow exception in cases where 
the failure to consummate the marriage is caused by physical 
separation due to the active-duty military service abroad of 
one of the parties to the marriage.
    Legislative History.--On November 15, 2010, Representative 
John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) introduced H.R. 6397, which was 
referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and Budget that 
same day. Also on the same day, the House passed the bill under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote. The bill was received in 
the Senate on November 17, 2010, but no further action was 
taken on the bill.

S. 1023/H.R. 2935, the ``Travel Promotion Act of 2009''

    Summary.--S. 1023 establishes a nonprofit corporation, the 
``Corporation for Travel Promotion,'' to promote the United 
States as a tourist destination for foreign tourists. The bill 
authorizes up to $10 million in seed money in fiscal year 2010, 
and allows in following fiscal years federal matching funds of 
up to $100 million per year if matched with corporate 
contributions. The federal share would come from fees assessed 
by the Secretary of Homeland Security on users of the Visa 
Waiver Program, which allows citizens of specified countries 
(including many European countries, Japan, South Korea, and 
Australia) to travel to the United States for up to 90 days 
without obtaining visas.
    Legislative History.--Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) 
introduced S. 1023 on May 12, 2009. On June 18, 2009, 
Representative Bill Delahunt introduced a companion bill, H.R. 
2935, which on the same day was referred to the Committees on 
Energy and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Homeland Security. H.R. 
2935 was referred to subcommittees in each committee of 
jurisdiction, but no further action was taken on the bill. On 
September 9, 2009, the Senate passed S. 1023 by a vote of 79 to 
19. On September 23, 2009, the House returned S. 1023 to the 
Senate via H. Res. 1653, which stated that the bill contravened 
Art. 1, Sec. 7 of the U.S. Constitution. Similar provisions to 
those in S. 1023/H.R. 2935 were thereafter added by the House 
as section 9 of H.R. 1299, the United States Capitol Police 
Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009. H.R. 1299 
became Public Law 111-145 on March 4, 2010.

S. 1376, the ``International Adoption Simplification Act''

    Summary.--S. 1376 restores two international adoption 
exemptions to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that 
were inadvertently eliminated when the United States became a 
signatory to the Convention on Protection of Children and 
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague 
Convention). Prior to the enactment of this bill, the law 
generally made U.S. permanent residency available to foreign 
children adopted by U.S. citizens while such children were less 
than 16 years of age. An exemption to this 16-year age cut-off 
existed for siblings of such adopted children, but this 
exemption was available only in relation to countries that had 
failed to sign the Hague Convention. S. 1376 harmonizes the 
international adoption provisions in the INA by expanding the 
sibling-adoption exemption to children adopted from signatories 
to the Hague Convention. Similarly, S. 1376 also expands a 
vaccination documentation exemption, which was previously 
available only to children from non-signatory countries, to 
children from signatory countries as well.
    Legislative History.--Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) 
introduced S. 1376 on June 25, 2009. On July 21, 2010, the 
Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. On November 15, 
2010, the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules 
by voice vote. S. 1376 became Public Law 111-287 on November 
30, 2010.

S. 1472, the ``Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2009''

    Summary.--S. 1472 establishes a new section within the 
Department of Justice's Criminal Division to enforce human 
rights laws. The bill also strengthened the provision in the 
Immigration and Nationality Act that makes the commission of 
acts of genocide a ground of inadmissibility by clarifying that 
the provision applies to acts of genocide wherever and by 
whomever committed.
    Legislative History.--Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) 
introduced S. 1472 on July 20, 2009. On November 21, 2009, the 
Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. On December 15, 
2009, the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules 
by a vote of 416 to 3. S. 1472 became Public Law 111-122 on 
December 22, 2009.

S. 1599, the ``Reserve Officers Association Modernization Act of 2009''

    Summary.--S. 1599 amends title 36, United States Code, to 
revise the federal charter of the Reserve Officers Association 
of the United States. The bill revises the federal charter by: 
making the president-elect of the Association an officer and 
including such person on the national executive committee as a 
non-voting member; amending the number of national executive 
committee members who may be officers of the Association and 
who may serve on the national executive committee; amending 
provisions that regulate who may serve as officers of the 
Association; declaring that the officers shall take office at 
the Association's national convention; requiring the 
Association's judge advocate to be appointed by the national 
executive committee; allowing for appointment by the national 
executive committee of any other national officers specified in 
the Association's constitution; revising the requirement that 
minutes be kept of the proceedings of the national council; and 
eliminating specification of the national council and replacing 
it with other national entities of the Association.
    Legislative History.--Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 
introduced S. 1599 on August 6, 2009. On September 24, 2009, 
the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. On September 
25, 2009, S. 1599 was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. On October 19, 2009, the bill was referred to the 
Immigration Subcommittee, but no further action was taken on 
the bill by the Judiciary Committee. On November 19, 2009, the 
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules by a vote 
of 425 to 0. S. 1599 became Public Law 111-113 on December 14, 
2009.

S. 1774/H.R. 3182, For the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke

    Summary.--S. 1774/H.R. 3182 provides lawful permanent 
residency to beneficiary Hotaru Nakama Ferschke.
    Legislative History.--On July 10, 2009, Representative John 
J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) introduced H.R. 3182, which on the same 
day was referred to Committee on the Judiciary. On July 20, 
2009, H.R. 3182 was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee, 
but no further action was taken on the bill. On October 13, 
2009, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) introduced a companion bill, S. 
1774, which was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 
the same day. On December 3, 2010, the Senate passed S. 1774 
with an amendment by unanimous consent. The House received S. 
1774 on December 7, 2010 and passed the bill on December 15, 
2010 under suspension of the rules by voice vote. S. 1774 
became Private Law 111-2 on December 22, 2010.

S. 4010/H.R. 698/S. 124--For the relief of Shigeru Yamada

    Summary.--S. 4010 /H.R. 698/S. 124 provides lawful 
permanent residency to beneficiary Shigeru Yamada.
    Legislative History.--On January 6, 2009, Senator Dianne 
Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S. 124, which was referred to the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the same day. On January 
26, 2009, Representative Bob Filner (D-CA) introduced a 
companion bill, H.R. 698, which on the same day was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. On March 10, 2009, H.R. 698 was 
referred to the Immigration Subcommittee, but no further 
committee action was taken on the bill. On December 3, 2010, 
the Senate passed S. 124 without amendment by unanimous 
consent. S. 124 was received in the House on December 7, 2010, 
but no further action was taken on the bill. On December 6, 
2010, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 4010, which was similar 
in substance to S. 124. On that same day, the Senate passed S. 
4010 without amendment by unanimous consent. The House received 
S. 4010 on December 7, 2010 and passed the bill on December 15, 
2010 under suspension of the rules by voice vote. S. 4010 
became Private Law 111-1 on December 22, 2010.

H.J. Res. 26/S.J. Res. 12--Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an 
        honorary citizen of the United States posthumously

    Summary.--Casimir Pulaski was a citizen of Poland who 
fought alongside American colonists during the American 
Revolution. He quickly rose to the rank of brigadier general of 
the American cavalry and led a courageous charge at the Battle 
of Brandywine that averted defeat and saved the life of George 
Washington. Pulaski is often referred to as the ``Father of the 
American Cavalry.'' He died in battle fighting for the nation's 
independence before he was able to become a U.S. citizen. H.J. 
Res. 26 posthumously provides Pulaski with honorary 
citizenship.
    Legislative History.--On March 2, 2009, Representative 
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced H.J. Res. 26, which on the 
same day was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Also 
on the same day, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced a 
companion bill, S.J. Res. 26. On March 16, 2009, H.J. Res. 26 
was referred to the Immigration Subcommittee, which reported 
the bill to the full Judiciary Committee on July 23, 2009 by a 
vote of 10 to 1. The Judiciary Committee took no further action 
on the bill. On October 8, 2009, the House passed H.J. Res. 26 
under suspension of the rules by a vote of 422 to 0. H.J. Res. 
26 was received in the Senate on that same day. On October 22, 
2009, the Senate passed H.J. Res. 26 by unanimous consent. H.J. 
Res. 26 became Public Law 111-94 on November 6, 2009.

                         Oversight Activities 


Oversight Hearing on the ``Treatment of Latin Americans of Japanese 
        Descent, European Americans, and Jewish Refugees During World 
        War II''

    Summary.--This March 19, 2009, hearing examined the 
mistreatment of Latin Americans of Japanese descent, European 
Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II by the U.S. 
Government. The purpose of the hearing was to explore the facts 
and listen to the history in order to determine whether it 
would be appropriate to move legislation authorizing the 
creation of commissions to further report on this issue.
    Witnesses at this hearing were: Daniel Masterson, Professor 
of Latin American History, U.S. Naval Academy; Grace Shimizu, 
Director, Japanese Peruvian Oral History Project; Libia 
Yamamoto, Former Japanese of Latin American Descent Internee; 
John Christgau, Author of ``Enemies: World War II Alien 
Internment''; Karen Ebel, President, German American Internee 
Coalition; Heidi Gurcke Donald, Board and Founding Member, 
German American Internee Coalition; John Fonte, Director of 
Center for American Common Culture and Senior Fellow at Hudson 
Institute; Valery Bazarov, Director of Location and Family 
History Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; David A. Harris, 
Executive Director, American Jewish Committee; Leo Bretholz, 
Author of ``Leap Into Darkness''; Michael Horowitz, Senior 
Fellow, Hudson Institute.

Joint Hearing on H.R. 847, the ``James Zadroga 9/11 Health and 
        Compensation Act of 2009''

    Summary.--This March 21, 2009, hearing focused on the 
experience of the Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) established by 
Congress to provide compensation to survivors of persons 
killed, or to those who were injured, in the immediate 
aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The hearing 
also looked at the current problems arising from injuries 
sustained by first responders, construction workers, local 
residents, and other individuals who sustained injuries that 
did not become manifest until after the deadline for seeking 
compensation from the VCF. This hearing highlighted the need to 
reopen the VCF and consider H.R. 847's approach to this end.
    The witnesses were: Kenneth Feinberg, Former Special 
Master, Victim Compensation Fund; Barbara Burnette, Detective, 
New York Police Department; Christine LaSala, Chief Executive 
Officer, World Trade Center Captive Insurance Fund; James 
Melius, M.D., Administrator, N.Y.S. Laborers' Health and Safety 
Trust Fund; Michael Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, City of New 
York; Ted Frank, American Enterprise Institute; Rich Wood, 
President, Plaza Construction Corporation.

Oversight Hearing on the ``United States Citizenship and Immigration 
        Services''

    Summary.--This March 23, 2010, hearing examined the funding 
structure for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) and the impact that it has on immigration policies, as 
well as the status of USCIS's efforts to transform its business 
and technology processes.
    The witnesses were: Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services; Frank W. Deffer, 
Assistant Inspector General for IT Audits, Office of the 
Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security; Susan J. 
Irving, Ph.D., Director, Federal Budget Analysis, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office.

Joint Oversight Hearing on ``The Public Safety and Civil Rights 
        Implications of State and Local Enforcement of Federal 
        Immigration Laws''

    Summary.--This April 2, 2009, hearing focused on the public 
safety and civil rights concerns that arise when state and 
local law enforcement get involved in immigration enforcement, 
most commonly through an agreement with the U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement under Sec. 287(g) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. In particular, this hearing examined the 
risk of racial profiling and the erosion of trust between the 
police and local communities that can occur when states and 
localities attempt to enforce immigration laws without 
appropriate and necessary safeguards.
    The witnesses were: Julio Cesar Mora, victim of racial 
profiling, Avondale, AZ; Antonio Ramirez, Frederick, Maryland 
Community Advocate; Deborah Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II 
Distinguished Professor of Law, Director of Clinical Programs, 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law; Ray 
Tranchant, Operations Director, Advanced Technology Center, 
Virginia Beach, VA and Adjunct Professor at Cambridge College, 
Cambridge, MA, Chesapeake Campus and Bryant and Stratton 
College in Virginia Beach, VA; David Harris, Professor of Law, 
University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Hubert Williams, 
President, Police Foundation; George Gascon, Chief, Mesa Police 
Department, Mesa, AZ; Kris Kobach, Professor of Law, University 
of Missouri--Kansas City School of Law.

Oversight Hearing on The Executive Office for Immigration Review

    Summary.--This June 17, 2010, hearing examined the 
Executive Office for Immigration Review's efforts to improve 
the Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals, as 
well as the challenges that the agency faces as immigration 
enforcement continues to rise.
    The witnesses were: Juan P. Osuna, Associate Deputy 
Attorney General, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Karen T. Grisez, Chair, Commission on 
Immigration, American Bar Association; Russell R. Wheeler, 
Ph.D., President, The Governance Institute and Visiting Fellow, 
The Brookings Institution; Hon. Dana Leigh Marks, President, 
National Association of Immigration Judges; Hon. Mark H. 
Metcalf, Former Immigration Judge.

Oversight Hearing on The Ethical Imperative for Reform of our 
        Immigration System

    Summary.--This July 14, 2010, hearing brought together 
prominent leaders from three traditionally conservative 
religious denominations to present the moral argument for a 
just and humane overhaul of our country's immigration laws.
    The witnesses were: Richard D. Land, Ph.D., President, 
Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee of the Southern Baptist 
Convention; Gerald F. Kicanas, D.D., Bishop, Archdiocese of 
Tucson, Arizona and Vice-President of the U.S. Conference of 
Catholic Bishops; Mathew D. Staver, J.D., Founder and Chairman, 
Liberty Counsel and Dean and Professor of Law, Liberty 
University School of Law; James R. Edwards, Jr., Ph.D., Fellow, 
Center for Immigration Studies.

Oversight Hearing on Protecting America's Harvest

    Summary.--This September 24, 2010, hearing explored labor 
needs in the agricultural sector, attempts to recruit U.S. 
workers for agricultural labor, the lack of reliable and 
efficient avenues to legally hire foreign workers, and 
potential solutions.
    The witnesses were: This hearing explored labor needs in 
the agricultural sector, attempts to recruit U.S. workers for 
agricultural labor, the lack of reliable and efficient avenues 
to legally hire foreign workers, and potential solutions.

Oversight Hearing on Role of Immigration in Strengthening America's 
        Economy

    Summary.--This September 30, 2010, hearing brought together 
prominent political and business leaders to explore the 
rationale and framework for comprehensive immigration reform 
presented by the ``Partnership for a New American Economy.''
    The witnesses were: Hon. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City 
of New York; Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, News 
Corporation; Jeff Moseley, President and CEO, The Greater 
Houston Partnership; Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, 
Center for Immigration Studies.

                           Oversight Letters


Request for Investigation into Civil Rights Violations in Maricopa 
        County, Arizona

    On February 12, 2009, Chairman John Conyers, Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, Constitution Subcommittee 
Chairman Jerrold Nadler, and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bobby 
Scott, wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. and Secretary 
of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano concerning allegations of 
misconduct on the part of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe 
Arpaio. The letter requested that the Special Litigation and 
Criminal Sections of the Department of Justice Civil Rights 
Division undertake an investigation into actions taken by the 
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and urged the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to review the agency's 287(g) agreement with 
Maricopa County.

H-2A Regulations

    On May 5, 2009, Chairman John Conyers, Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, Foreign Affairs Chairman 
Howard Berman, Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, and 
Representative Luis Gutierrez, wrote to Secretary of Labor 
Hilda Solis concerning H-2A regulations that weaken enforcement 
and government oversight in the program and suppress wages and 
weaken other worker protections. The letter urged the Secretary 
to immediately suspend the existing regulations.
    On October 20, 2009, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Zoe Lofgren and Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman, wrote 
to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and the Office of Policy 
Development and Research Administrator Thomas Down, largely in 
support of proposed modifications to the H-2A temporary foreign 
agricultural worker regulations.

Prosecution of Undocumented Workers Arrested in the Postville, Iowa 
        Immigration Raid

    On May 12, 2009, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder, urging the 
agency to review and reconsider the cases of 270 undocumented 
workers arrested in the May 2008 immigration raid in Postville, 
Iowa.

Vigorous Enforcement of Anti-Trafficking Legislation to Combat Modern-
        Day Slavery

    On May 14, 2009, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, together with 
Representatives Howard Berman, George Miller, Jerrold Nadler, 
Yvetta D. Clarke, Neil Abercrombie, Donald Payne, Luis 
Gutierrez, Jeff Fortenberry, Daniel E. Lungren, Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, Michael Simpson, Carolyn Maloney, Robert C. ``Bobby'' 
Scott, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Albio Sires, Jim Moran, and 
Sheila Jackson Lee, wrote to Director Robert M. Mueller, III, 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigations to urge the Bureau to 
continue and intensify its efforts to combat modern slavery in 
America and abroad. The letter highlighted and clarified key 
provisions of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 
Reauthorization Act of 2008, enacted into law with bipartisan 
support in December 2008.

Budgeting for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

    On June 5, 2009, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote Appropriations Chairman David Obey and 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Chairman David 
Price to express support for the President's budgetary request 
for $206 million in direct appropriations to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services.

Views on Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Provisions

    On June 11, 2009, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, wrote to Appropriations 
Chairman David Obey to express concerns about expanding or 
mandating the current E-Verify program prematurely or through 
the appropriations process. The letter expressed support for a 
short term extension of the current voluntary E-Verify program 
while work proceeds on more comprehensive efforts.
    On September 11, 2009, Chairman John Conyers and 
Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote 
Appropriations Chairman David Obey and Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security Chairman David Price 
regarding provisions in the Senate version of the Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that 
fall within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The 
letter expressed opposition to Senate amendments pertaining to 
a mandatory expansion of the E-Verify pilot program, a 
prohibition on funds being used to implement changes to the 
``no match'' rule, and an expansion of the current statutory 
mandate to complete fencing on our international land borders. 
The letter also expressed support for several provisions, 
including extended authorization for the Special Immigrant Non-
Minister Religious Worker and the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa 
Waiver Programs for doctors who serve in medically underserved 
areas, a fix to the so-called ``widow penalty'', and a 
permanent reauthorization of the EB-5 Immigrant Investor 
regional center pilot program.
    On June 24, 2010, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, wrote to Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security Chairman David Price to 
express concerns about expanding or mandating the current E-
Verify program prematurely or through the appropriations 
process. The letter advised that E-Verify remain in its current 
form until further comprehensive efforts and changes can be 
made to the program.

Conditions of Confinement for Immigration Detainees and Efforts at 
        Reforms

    On September 25, 2009, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Zoe Lofgren wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet 
Napolitano and Assistant Secretary John Morton to request a 
copy of the report submitted to the agency by Dora Schriro 
prior to her departure in order to become Commissioner of the 
New York City Department of Corrections.
    On April 9, 2010, Chairman John Conyers wrote to Assistant 
Secretary of Homeland Security John Morton to request copies of 
investigative reports prepared in connection with allegations 
that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees hid the 
truth of immigrant detainee custodial deaths.
    On May 5, 2010, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Homeland Security Inspector General Richard 
Skinner to request copies of investigative reports pertaining 
to the in-custody deaths of Arnulfo Rodriguez-Solis and Evelyn 
Obey.
    On May 5, 2010, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security John 
Morton to request a copy of an investigative report pertaining 
to the in-custody death of Ernesto Gomez-Vasquez.
    On July 2, 2010, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security John 
Morton regarding allegations of sexual abuse of women detainees 
at the T. Don Hutto Detention Center, operated by the 
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The letter expressed 
support for reforms that CCA had agreed to make to all of its 
immigration detention facilities, in order to make them more 
appropriate for a civilly-detained population. The letter 
expressed continuing concern regarding the conditions of 
confinement within many of our detention facilities and urged 
the Department to implement these reforms throughout the 
detention system, where appropriate.

USCIS Fee Increases

    On October 7, 2009, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services Alejandro Mayorkas to express concern that the agency 
was considering another fee increase for immigration and 
naturalization applications. The letter requested that USCIS 
consult with the Committee before considering another fee 
increase and expressed the view that any further fee increases 
be justified by both financial need and a demonstrated ability 
by USCIS to fulfill its promises to improve the provision of 
services.

Refugee Consultation Follow-up

    On October 13, 2009, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote to Secretary of State 
Hillary Rodham Clinton to thank her for participating in the 
refugee consultation and to highlight the Administration's 
commendable actions to systemically improve our refugee 
admissions program. The letter also reiterated views expressed 
during the consultation about various refugee concerns, 
including continued shortfalls in domestic funding for 
resettled refugees, delays in exercising waiver or exemption 
authority for material support and related bars to admission, 
serious unmet refugee resettlement needs in Africa, and 
particular populations of concern with respect to international 
protection in countries of first asylum or resettlement.

Alleged Terrorist Activity

    On October 20, 2009, Chairman John Conyers and Ranking 
Member Lamar Smith wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and 
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to request the 
immigration files of five persons recently arrested in 
connection with alleged terrorist activities in the United 
States.

Abuses and Violations in the H-1B Visa Program

    On November 12, 2009, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote to Attorney General 
Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, 
and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, regarding abuses and 
violations in the H-1B visa program, as detailed in media 
reports pertaining to hundreds of Filipino nationals brought to 
the United States on H-1B visa to work as public school 
teachers in Louisiana. The letter urged all three Departments 
to review the reports of abuse, as appropriate.

USCIS Policy Guidance on Implementing the So-Called ``Widow Penalty'' 
        Fix

    On June 1, 2010, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services Alejandro Mayorkas commenting on a recent policy 
guidance pertaining to the so-called ``Widow Penalty'' fix. The 
letter requested that the policy clarify additional areas of 
concern.

The Humanitarian Crisis Left Behind by the Haitian Earthquake

    On January 13, 2010, Chairman John Conyers, Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, and Representatives Alcee 
Hastings, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Mario 
Diaz-Balart, wrote to President Barack Obama to express 
gratitude for the emergency response efforts undertaken by the 
Department of Homeland Security in light of the devastating 
earthquake that struck Haiti's capital city of Port-au-Prince. 
The letter requested that the Administration exercise its 
authority to designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status 
pursuant to section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    On January 28, 2010, Chairman John Conyers, Ranking Member 
Lamar Smith, Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman, Foreign 
Affairs Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, wrote to Secretary of 
State Hillary Rodham Clinton pertaining to the ongoing 
protection needs of Haitian children who were adopted, or who 
were in the process of being adopted, by U.S. citizens prior to 
the January 12, 2010, earthquake. The letter urged the State 
Department to develop a plan to provide for the security and 
humanitarian needs of these children until such time as they 
are safely with their U.S. citizen parents in the United 
States.
    On March 8, 2010, Chairman John Conyers, Foreign Affairs 
Chairman Howard Berman, Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Ileana 
Ros-Lehtinen, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, 
and Representatives Yvette Clarke, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario 
Diaz-Balart, and Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, wrote to Secretary of 
Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to commend the significant 
humanitarian actions already taken by the Department of 
Homeland Security since the January 12, 2010, earthquake in 
Haiti. The letter additionally requested that the Department 
use its parole authority to allow Haitians with an already 
approved, legal method of entering the United States to be 
reunited with close family members in the United States while 
awaiting visa availability. Expediting reunification in this 
manner would bring families together without risking a 
dangerous maritime migration, and would increase the flow of 
remittances back to Haiti to assist in that country's 
rebuilding effort.
    On July 26, 2010, Chairman John Conyers and Immigration 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren wrote to Director of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Alejandro Mayorkas to 
commend the agency's implementation of Temporary Protected 
Status for Haitians already in the United States. The letter 
encouraged USCIS, when drafting the final rule adjusting 
applications fees, to include the humanitarian parole 
application form among the list of forms eligible for an 
application fee waiver.

Administrative Actions to Maximize Efficiencies

    On June 8, 2010, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services Alejandro Mayorkas urging the agency to take 
administrative actions to maximize efficiencies. The letter 
requested that the agency consider actions including extending 
employment authorization to spouses of certain employment-based 
visa holders, expanding the use of premium processing for 
various applications and petitions, and expanding the use of 
multi-year employment authorization documents.

Lethal Use of Force Along the Southwest Border

    On July 2, 2010, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Janet 
Napolitano regarding the recent deaths of two Mexican nationals 
along our southwest border following the use of force by 
Department of Homeland Security personnel. The letter expressed 
support for ongoing investigations into the deaths by federal 
and local authorities. The letter also encouraged the 
Department to review policies, procedures, and training 
protocols pertaining to the use of forces along our land 
borders, and to utilize the expertise of the Department's Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties Officer and Office of Health Affairs 
in such a review.

Confusion Surrounding the Ability of Local Law Enforcement Agencies to 
        ``Opt Out'' of Secure Communities

    On July 27, 2010, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren wrote to Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Janet 
Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder pertaining to the 
current deployment of ICE's Secure Communities program. The 
letter requested a clear explanation of how local law 
enforcement agencies may ``opt out'' of Secure Communities by 
having fingerprints they collect and submit to the State 
Identification Bureaus checked against criminal, but not 
immigration, databases.
                   TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT

   ADAM B. SCHIFF, California, 
             Chairman

                                     SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
                                     WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
                                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
                                     HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
                                     Georgia
                                     PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
                                     CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
                                     BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
                                     F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
                                     Wisconsin
                                     DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
                                     J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
                                     LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
H. Res. 1031, Impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the 
    United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
    Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors..................
On January 6, 2009, Chairman Conyers introduced H. Res. 15, which 
  continued the authority of H. Res. 1448 (from the 110th 
  Congress) and provided that the Committee on the Judiciary 
  inquire into whether Judge Porteous should be impeached. H. 
  Res. 15 passed the full House on January 13, 2009, by a voice 
  vote. At its organizational meeting January 22, 2009, the 
  Committee voted to refer the impeachment inquiry to a ``Task 
  Force on Judicial Impeachment,'' comprised of 13 Committee 
  Members, to conduct the factual investigation. Members of the 
  Task Force were Chairman Adam B. Schiff, Ranking Member Bob 
  Goodlatte, William D. Delahunt, Sheila Jackson Lee, Steve 
  Cohen, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Pedro Pierluisi, Charles 
  Gonzalez, F. James Sensenbrenner, Daniel E. Lungren, J. Randy 
  Forbes, and Louis Gohmert......................................
On July 29, 2009, the full Committee voted 30-0 to request the 
  House General Counsel to seek immunity orders to compel the 
  testimony of 8 witnesses.......................................
The Task Force held fact-finding hearings on November 17-18, 
  2009, December 8, 2009, December 10, 2009 and December 15, 
  2009. On January 21, 2010, the Task Force voted 8-0 to 
  recommend four articles of impeachment to the full Committee. 
  On that day, Chairman Conyers, with 13 original co-sponsors, 
  introduced H. Res. 1031, which set forth the four articles that 
  had been approved by the Task Force. On January 27, 2010, the 
  Committee met and approved the four articles by separate votes 
  as follows: Article 1--29-0; Article II--28-0; Article III--23-
  0; and Article IV--25-0, with one Member passing. Thereafter, 
  H. Res. 1031 was favorably reported without amendment by a roll 
  call vote of 24-0. On March 11, 2010, H. Res. 1031 passed the 
  House by unanimous votes on each of the four Articles as 
  follows: Article I--412-0; Article II--410-0; Article III--416-
  0; and Article IV 423-0. In addition, on March 11, 2010, the 
  House passed by unanimous consent H. Res. 1165, which 
  designated 5 Members of the Judiciary Committee--Reps. Schiff, 
  Goodlatte, Lofgren, Jonson, and Sensenbrenner--to be the House 
  Managers for the purposes of conducting the Impeachment trial 
  before the Senate. The Articles were presented to the Senate on 
  March 17, 2010. After pre-trial proceedings, an evidentiary 
  hearing was held in front of the Senate Impeachment Trial 
  Committee commencing September 13, 2010. On December 7, 2010, 
  Mr. Schiff and Mr. Goodlatte argued the House's case before the 
  Full Senate. On December 8, 2010, the Senate found Judge 
  Porteous guilty on each of the four Articles by the following 
  votes (two-thirds being required to convict): Article I--96-0; 
  Article II--69-27; Article III--88-8; and Article IV--90-6. 
  Upon his conviction by the Senate, Judge Porteous was removed 
  from his position as United States District Court Judge. The 
  Senate thereafter voted 94-2 to disqualify Judge Porteous from 
  holding further office.........................................
H. Res. 520--Impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United 
    States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for 
    high crimes and misdemeanors.................................
On May 12, 2009, Chairman Conyers introduced H. Res. 424, which 
  authorized the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into 
  whether Judge Samuel B. Kent (S.D. Tx.) should be impeached. 
  The House passed that Resolution by unanimous consent. The next 
  day, May 13, 2009, the Committee on the Judiciary passed a 
  resolution to provide that the Impeachment Task Force (which 
  had been previously established to investigate Judge Porteous) 
  conduct an inquiry into whether Judge Kent should be impeached. 
  The Task Force held and evidentiary hearing on June 3, 2009. On 
  June 9, 2009, the Task Force met and approved a proposed 
  resolution recommending four articles of impeachment to the 
  full Committee. Later that day, H. Res. 520 was introduced by 
  Chairman Conyers. On June 10, 2010, the Committee considered 
  and approved the four Articles by separate votes as follows: 
  Article I--30-0; Article II--28-0; Article III--30-0; Article 
  IV--28-0 (with one Member passing). Thereafter, by a vote of 
  29-0, the Committee voted to report H. Res. 520 favorably. On 
  June 19, 2009, the House approved the Articles by separate 
  votes as follows: Article I--289-0; Article II--385-0; Article 
  III--381-0; and Article IV--372-0 (with one Member voting 
  present). Also on June 17, 2009, the House passed H. Res. 565, 
  appointing Mr. Schiff, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Johnson 
  and Mr. Sensenbrenner to be the House Managers for purpose of 
  conducting the impeachment trial before the Senate. On June 24, 
  2010, the House Managers presented the Articles of Impeachment 
  to the Senate. Judge Kent thereafter submitted his resignation, 
  effective June 30, 2009. On July 20, 2009, the House passed by 
  unanimous consent H. Res. 661, instructing the House Managers 
  to advise the Senate that the House did not desire further to 
  urge the articles of impeachment against Judge Kent. On July 
  22, 2009, the Senate dismissed the Articles against Judge Kent.

                                  
