Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                 Union Calendar No. 508
107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-807

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

                        REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                 of the

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               during the

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                              pursuant to

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

                        House of Representatives




January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                        House of Representatives
                      one hundred seventh congress

                                 ------                                
            F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania        BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
BOB BARR, Georgia                    ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   MAXINE WATERS, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin                TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida                  ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
            Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff--General Counsel
               Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
            Subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary

                                 ------                                

                Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                      LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin                ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
BOB BARR, Georgia                    ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
RIC KELLER, Florida
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
                                 ------                                

                   Commercial and Administrative Law

                      BOB BARR, Georgia, Chairman
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania        JERROLD NADLER, New York
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin                TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   MAXINE WATERS, California
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
                                 ------                                

            Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property

                 HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              MAXINE WATERS, California
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida                  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
                                 ------                                

                Immigration, Border Security, and Claims

                GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania        BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
                                 ------                                

                            The Constitution

                      STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        JERROLD NADLER, New York
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania        MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 2003.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Trandahl: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am transmitting 
the report on the activities of the Committee on the Judiciary 
of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 107th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                               F. James Sensenbrenner, 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.................................................     8
House Documents..................................................     8
Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary..........     9
    Public Laws..................................................     9
    Private Laws.................................................    14
    Conference Appointments......................................    15
    Full Committee Activities....................................    20
    Legislative activities:
        Antitrust:
            H.R. 768, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act.........    20
            H.R. 809, the Antitrust Technical Corrections Act....    22
            H.R. 1253, the Free Market Antitrust Immunity Reform 
              (FAIR) Act.........................................    23
            H.R. 1407, to amend title 49, U.S.C. to permit air 
              carriers to meet and discuss their schedules in 
              order to reduce flight delays......................    28
            H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband 
              Deployment Act, also H.R. 1697, H.R. 1698, and H.R. 
              2120...............................................    30
            H.R. 3288, the Fairness in Antitrust in National 
              Sports (FANS) Act..................................    37
        Liability:
            H.R. 2037, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms 
              Act................................................    42
            H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness Act.............    42
            H.R. 2926, the Air Transportation Safety and System 
              Stabilization Act..................................    47
            H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act..........    48
            H.R. 4600, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, 
              Timely Healthcare (Health) Act.....................    48
        Matters held at Full Committee:
            H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act..................    49
            H.R. 169, the Notification and Federal Employee 
              Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act.............    52
            H.R. 741, the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.....    53
            H.R. 802, the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor 
              Act................................................    53
            H.R. 860, the Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum 
              Trial Jurisdiction Act.............................    54
            H.R. 861, to make technical amendments to section 10 
              of Title 9, U.S.C..................................    54
            H.R. 1209, the Child Status Protection Act...........    55
            H.R. 1701, the Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act    56
            H.R. 2068, to revise, codify, and enact without 
              substantive change certain general and permanent 
              laws related to public buildings, property, and 
              works, as Title 40, U.S.C. ``Public Buildings, 
              Property, and Works''..............................    57
            H.R. 2137, the Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act.    57
            H.R. 2215, 21st Century Department of Justice 
              Appropriations Authorization Act...................    58
            H.R. 2458, E-Government Act of 2002..................    73
            H.R. 2882, Public Safety Officer Benefits Act........    74
            H.R. 3162, H.R. 2975, the USA Patriot Act............    74
            H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act.................    79
            H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa 
              Entry Reform Act...................................    83
            H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002........    87
            H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act.................    88
            H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security Act.................    88
            H. Res. 193, Requesting that the President Focus 
              Appropriate Attention on the Issues of Neighborhood 
              Crime Prevention, Community policing, and Reduction 
              of School Crime....................................   101
            H. Res. 417, Recognizing and honoring the career and 
              work of Justice C. Clifton Young...................   102
            H. Con. Res. 225, Expressing the sense of the 
              Congress that, as a symbol of solidarity following 
              the terrorist attacks on the United States on 
              September 11, 2001, every United States citizen is 
              encouraged to display the flag of the United States   103
            H. Con. Res 227, Condemning Bigotry and Violence 
              against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and 
              Americans from South Asia in the wake of terrorist 
              attacks in New York City, New York, and Washington, 
              D.C., on September 11, 2001........................   103
            H. Con. Res. 243, Expressing the sense of Congress 
              that the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor 
              should be presented to the public safety officers 
              who have perished and select other public safety 
              officers who deserve special recognition for 
              outstanding valor above and beyond the call of duty 
              in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the 
              United States on September 11, 2001................   104
            S. 320, Intellectual Property and High Technical 
              Amendments Act.....................................   104
            S. 1888, to amend title 18, of the U.S.C., to correct 
              a technical error in the codification of title 36 
              of the U.S.C.......................................   104
        Other Matters of the Committee:
            H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act.................   105
            Energy legislation, H.R. 4...........................   105
            H.R. 1586, National Defense Authorization............   106
            H.R. 718, the Unsolicited Commercial E-mail Act......   107
            Agriculture, H.R. 2646...............................   109
            Terrorism, H.R. 3016.................................   109
            Immigration/Terrorism, H.R. 1646.....................   110
            H.R. 2581, the Export Administration Act of 2001.....   111
            Trade, H.R. 3009.....................................   112
            Bioterrorism, H.R. 3448..............................   113
            Corporate Accountability, H.R. 3763..................   114
            H.R. 3951, the Financial Services Regulatory Relief..   115
            Defense Authorization, H.R. 4546.....................   116
        Oversight Activities:
            List of Oversight hearings...........................   117
            Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act................   117
            Revisions to the Attorney General Guidelines.........   121
            Review of Documents Relating to the Competitive 
              Imbalance in Major League Baseball.................   125
            Review of Judicial Security..........................   133
            Review of FBI Stolen Vehicle Parts Regulations.......   134
            Review of Office of Crime Victims....................   134
            Reorganization of the Office of Justice Programs.....   135
            Department of Justice Information Technology and 
              Systems............................................   136
            FBI Information Technology...........................   136
            IDENT/IAFIS Integration..............................   137
            Immigration Systems..................................   138
            INS/DOJ System Project Management....................   138
            INS Planning for the Entry/Exit System...............   140
            Federal Agencies use of Biometrics to Combat 
              Terrorism, Improve Law Enforcement, and Enhance 
              Border Security....................................   141
            Application of the Federal Tort Claims Act...........   145
            Review of Case Assignments in Sixth Circuit in Racial 
              Discrimination.....................................   147
            Review of the Circumstances Surrounding Senior 
              Circuit Judge Richard D. Cudahy's Disclosure that a 
              Grand Jury was Considering Evidence of President 
              Clinton's Now Admittedly False Deposition Testimony 
              in Jones v. Clinton................................   151
Summary of activities of the subcommittees of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary:
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................   155
        Jurisdiction of the subcommittee.........................   155
        Legislative Activities:
            Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act..............................   156
            International Convention for the Suppression of 
              Terrorist Bombings and for the International 
              Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of 
              Terrorism..........................................   157
            Cyber Security Enhancement...........................   158
            Anti-Terrorism Explosives Act........................   160
            Homeland Security Information Sharing................   160
            Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act......................   162
            Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act...............   163
            RAVE Act.............................................   163
            Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act..............   164
            Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act.....................   165
            Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act.......   166
            Sex Tourism Prohibition Act..........................   167
            Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act......   168
            Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act..........   169
            Child Abduction Prevention Act.......................   169
            Innocence Protection Act.............................   171
            James Guelff and Chris McClurley Body Armor Act......   171
            Law Enforcement Tribute Act..........................   173
            Financial Services Antifraud Network Act of 2001.....   173
            Human Cloning Prohibition Act........................   174
            Consumer Product Protection Act......................   175
            Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting 
              Act................................................   176
            Combatting Illegal Gambling Reform...................   176
            Our Lady of Peace Act................................   177
            Bail Bond Fairness Act...............................   178
            Honoring the New Jersey State Law Enforcement 
              Officers Association...............................   178
            Requesting that the President focus appropriate 
              attention on neighborhood crime prevention and 
              community policing, and coordinate certain Federal 
              efforts to participate in ``National Night Out'', 
              including by supporting local efforts and 
              neighborhood watches and by supporting local 
              officials to provide homeland security, and for 
              other purposes.....................................   179
            Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety 
              Officers' Benefit Act of 2002......................   179
        Oversight Activities:
            List of Oversight hearings...........................   179
            Counterintelligence Program for the 21st Century.....   180
            Department of Homeland Security......................   180
            First Responder Training and Assistance for Terrorist 
              Events.............................................   181
            Drug Trafficking on the Southwest Border.............   185
            Narco-terrorism......................................   185
            OxyContin............................................   186
            Medical Marijuana....................................   187
            Protecting Seniors from Fraud........................   187
            Reauthorization of the Department of Justice.........   189
            Office of Justice Programs...........................   190
            FBI: Criminal Justice Information Services...........   191
            Computer Hacking.....................................   192
            FBI Reorganization...................................   192
            FBI Academy: Hostage Rescue Team.....................   192
            Implementation of USA Patriot Act....................   193
            FBI Outdated Technology Issues.......................   193
            FBI Technology Issues................................   193
            Secret Service: Counterfeiting.......................   194
            Electronic Crime Task Force..........................   194
            ATF: Gun Shows.......................................   195
            ATF: New York Office.................................   195
            Ballistic Imaging....................................   196
            Dog Training.........................................   196
            ATF: Explosives......................................   196
            Bureau of Prisons....................................   196
            United States Sentencing Commission..................   196
            Racial Profiling.....................................   197
            Newport News Courthouse..............................   198
            New Jersey Speed Violation Survey....................   198
            Misleading Testimony before the Subcommittee.........   198
Summary of activities of the subcommittees of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary:
    Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................   201
        Jurisdiction of the subcommittee.........................   201
        Legislative activities:
            Administrative Law and Regulatory Reform.............   202
                Homeland Security Act............................   202
                Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act.........   203
                Housing Affordability for America Act............   204
            Bankruptcy...........................................   205
                Chapter 12 of Title 11 of the United States Code 
                  Is Reenacted...................................   206
                Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
                  Protection.....................................   207
            State Taxation Affecting Interstate Commerce.........   213
                Electronic Commerce..............................   214
                Internet Tax Freedom.............................   214
                Internet Tax Nondiscrimination...................   215
                Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity...............   215
                Satellite Radio Freedom and Satellite Services...   216
                Internet Tax Fairness............................   217
                Federal Long-Term Care Insurance.................   219
            Federal Arbitration..................................   219
                Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration 
                  Fairness.......................................   219
            Interstate Compacts..................................   220
                New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact..   220
                Utah-Nevada State Boundary.......................   221
                Tax Treatment of Bonds and Other Obligations 
                  Issued by the Government of American Samoa.....   222
            Litigation Reform....................................   223
                Health Care Litigation Reform and Help Efficient, 
                  Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare........   223
        Oversight activities:
            List of Oversight hearings...........................   224
            Executive Orders and Presidential Directives.........   224
            United States Department of Justice..................   226
                Executive Office for the United States Attorneys.   226
                Civil Division...................................   227
                Environmental and Natural Resources Division 
                  (ENRD).........................................   227
                Executive Office for the United States Trustees..   227
                Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)............   227
            Executive Office of United States Attorneys (EOUSA)..   227
            Settlement Agreement by and among the United States 
              of America, the Federal Communications Commission, 
              NextWave Telecom, Inc., and certain affiliates and 
              Participating Auction 35 Winning Bidders...........   229
            Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact and the 
              Apalachicola-Chattahoochee and Flint River Basin 
              Compact............................................   231
            Legal Services Corporation...........................   233
            Rails-to-Trails Program..............................   240
            Federal Reserve Board/Department of Treasury Proposed 
              Rule Concerning Competition in the Real Estate 
              Brokerage and Management Markets...................   242
Summary of activities of the subcommittees of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary:
    Subcommittee on Courts, The Internet, and Intellectual 
      Property:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................   245
        Jurisdiction of the subcommittee.........................   246
        Legislative activities:
            H.R. 1203, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
              Reorganization Act.................................   246
            H.R. 2048, To require a report on the operations of 
              the State Justice Institute........................   246
            H.R. 2336, To make permanent the authority to redact 
              financial disclosure statements of judicial 
              employees and judicial officers....................   247
            H.R. 2522, Federal Courts Improvement Act............   247
            H.R. 3892, Judicial Improvements Act.................   247
            H.R. 4125, Federal Courts Improvement Act............   248
        Intellectual Property....................................   248
            H.R. 5469, To suspend for a period of 6 months the 
              determination of the librarian of Congress of July 
              8, 2002, relating to rates and terms for the 
              digital performance of sound recordings and 
              ephemeral recordings...............................   250
            S. 487, Technology, Education, and Copyright 
              Harmonization Act of 2001..........................   251
        Patents..................................................   252
            H.R. 740, Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization 
              Act................................................   252
            H.R. 1866, To amend title 35, United States Code, to 
              clarify the basis for granting requests for 
              reexamination of patents...........................   252
            H.R. 1886, To amend title 35, U.S.C., to provide for 
              appeals by third parties in certain patent 
              reexamination proceedings..........................   252
            H.R. 2047, Patent and Trademark Office Authorization 
              Act................................................   252
            H.R. 5119, Plant Breeders Equity Act.................   253
        Oversight Activities:
            List of Oversight hearings...........................   254
            Review of Operations of the United States Copyright 
              Office.............................................   254
            Review of the Operations of the United States Patent 
              and Trademark Office including Review of Agency 
              Funding............................................   255
            Review of Operations of the Federal Judicial 
              Misconduct and Recusal Statutes....................   256
            Review of the United States Patent and Trademark 
              Office: Operations and Fiscal Year 2003 Budget.....   257
            Review of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel 
              (CARP) Structure and Process.......................   258
            Review of Unpublished Judicial Opinions..............   259
            Review of the United States Patent and Trademark 
              Office: Fee Schedule Adjustment and Agency Reform..   259
Summary of activities of the subcommittees of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary:
    Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................   261
        Jurisdiction of the subcommittee.........................   262
        Legislative Activities:
            Immigration..........................................   262
                Family Reunification Act.........................   262
                Section 245(i) Extension.........................   264
                Work authorization for nonimmigrant spouses of 
                  treaty traders and treaty investors............   265
                Work authorization for nonimmigrant spouses of 
                  intra- company transferees.....................   265
                Basic Pilot Extension............................   266
                Family Sponsor Immigration.......................   267
                Eligibility for In-Country Refugee Processing in 
                  Vietnam........................................   268
                Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and 
                  Accountability.................................   269
                Embassy Employee Compensation....................   278
                Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program 
                  Extension......................................   279
                Improving Access to Physicians in Medically 
                  Underserved Areas..............................   279
                Border Commuter Student..........................   279
                Concurrence by the House with amendments in the 
                  amendment of the Senate to H.R. 1885...........   280
                Persian Gulf War POW/MIA Accountability..........   280
                Permanent Authority for Admission of ``S'' Visa 
                  Non-Immigrants.................................   281
            Claims...............................................   281
                Honorary Citizenship of the United States 
                  posthumously on Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roche 
                  Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette....   281
                Sober Borders....................................   282
                United States-Jordan Free Trade Area 
                  Implementation Act.............................   283
                Posthumous Citizenship Restoration...............   283
                Bar federal agencies from accepting any 
                  identification-related purposes................   284
                Prevent nonimmigrant aliens who are delinquent in 
                  child support payments from gaining entry to 
                  the United States..............................   284
                Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility....   285
                Justice for United States Prisoners of War.......   285
                Temporary Emergency Wildfire Suppression.........   286
            Federal Charters.....................................   286
                New Federal Charters.............................   286
                Charter of the AMVETS Organization...............   287
                Charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 
                  United States..................................   287
                Requirements for Eligibility in the American 
                  Legion.........................................   288
                Private Claims and Private Immigration...........   289
        Oversight Activities:
            List of Oversight hearings...........................   289
            Examination of INS management of it's Dual Missions..   290
            Review of the Immigration Detention Policies and 
              Procedures of the Department of Justice............   292
            Issuance of Visas to and Admission to the United 
              States of the 19 September 11 Hijackers............   295
            Review of the INS Issuance of Visa Approval Letters 
              for Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi.............   296
            Federal Agency Policies and Law Enforcement Efforts 
              to Prevent Identity Theft..........................   301
            INS Systems Oversight................................   307
            INS Information Technology...........................   308
            INS' Failure to Implement the Border Crossing Card...   309
            INS' Implementation of a ENTRY-EXIT Tracking System 
              at U.S. Ports of Entry.............................   310
            Operations of the Executive Office for Immigration 
              Review.............................................   310
            INS Admission of Four Aliens from the Progesso.......   314
            INS' Foreign Student Tracking Program................   316
            INS Interior Enforcement Strategy....................   318
            State Department shredding of completed diversity 
              visa applications..................................   322
            INS interactions with Hesham Mohammed Ali Hedayet....   323
            Immigration History of Suspected Criminals in High-
              Profile Cases......................................   329
            Information on Alleged Mexican Incursions into the 
              United States......................................   330
            INS Maintenance of Alien Address Records.............   330
            Examination of Immigration and United States 
              Population.........................................   330
            Review of INS and Office of Special Counsel for 
              Immigration-related Unfair employment Practices....   332
            U.S. and Canada Safe Third Country Agreement.........   333
            GAO on the INS Forensic Document Lab.................   335
            GAO Report on Immigration Benefit Fraud..............   336
            State Department's Visa Condor Program...............   337
            Foreign Guestworker Programs.........................   339
            Visa Waiver Program..................................   342
Summary of activities of the subcommittees of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary:
    Subcommittee on Constitution:
        Tabulation and disposition of bills referred to the 
          subcommittee...........................................   345
        Jurisdiction of the subcommittee.........................   345
        Legislative Activities:
            Born-Alive Infants Protection........................   346
            Child Custody Protection.............................   347
            Community Recognition................................   347
            Newdow v. U.S. Congress..............................   348
            George Washington letter to Touro Synagogue in 
              Newport, Rhode Island..............................   349
            Partial-Birth Abortion Ban...........................   349
            Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
              flag of the United States..........................   350
            Memorializing fallen firefighters by lowering the 
              American flag to half-staff in honor of the 
              national Fallen Firefighters memorial service in 
              Emmittsburg, Maryland..............................   351
            Governors to Appoint Persons Temporarily to Take the 
              Place of Representatives Who Had Died or Become 
              Incapacitated in Emergency Situations..............   351
            Tax Limitation.......................................   352
            Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 2001   353
            To Reaffirm the reference to One Nation under God in 
              the Pledge of Allegiance...........................   354
            Unborn Victims of Violence...........................   355
        Oversight Activities:
            List of Oversight hearings...........................   356
            Presidential Pardon Power............................   356
            United States Commission on Civil Rights.............   357
            Department of Justice Civil Rights Division..........   361
            Judicial Vacancy Crisis..............................   362
            Genetic Privacy......................................   363


                                                 Union Calendar No. 508
107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-807

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



 
       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                _______
                                

January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, 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 107th Congress:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


     Rule X.--Establishment and Jurisdiction of Standing Committees


                 THE COMMITTEES AND THEIR JURISDICTION

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

                 Tabulation of Legislation and Activity

                    ____________________________________________________

                     legislation referred to committee

Public Legislation:
    House bills...................................................   760
    House joint resolutions.......................................    66
    House concurrent resolutions..................................    35
    House resolutions.............................................    25
                                                                  ______
                                                                     886
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
    Senate bills..................................................    24
    Senate joint resolutions......................................     1
    Senate concurrent resolutions.................................     2
                                                                  ______
                                                                      27
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
        Subtotal..................................................   913
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
Private Legislation:
    House bills (claims)..........................................    24
    House bills (copyrights)......................................     1
    House bills (immigration).....................................    48
    House resolutions (claims)....................................     1
                                                                  ______
                                                                      74
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
    Senate bills (claims).........................................     1
    Senate bills (immigration)....................................     7
                                                                  ______
                                                                       8
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
        Subtotal..................................................    82
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
        Total.....................................................   995

              action on legislation not referred to committee

Held at desk for House action:
    Senate bills..................................................     2
                                                                  ______
                                                                       2
Conference appointments:
    House bills...................................................     5
    Senate bills..................................................     1
                                                                  ______
                                                                       6
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
        Total.....................................................     8

                               final action

House concurrent resolutions approved (public)....................     3
House resolutions approved (public)...............................     4
Public legislation vetoed by the President........................     0
Public Laws.......................................................    56
Private Laws......................................................     6

                            Printed Hearings
                          Serial No. and Title
                               __________
    1. Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2001. Subcommittee on 
Crime. March 8, 2001. (H.R. 863).
    2. Presidential Pardon Power. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
February 28, 2001.
    3. Drug Trafficking on the Southwest Border. Subcommittee on Crime. 
March 29, 2001.
    4. Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. March 15, 2001. (H.R. 503).
    5. Business Method Patents. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, 
and Intellectual Property. April 4, 2001.
    6. United States Copyright Office. Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property. May 2, 2001.
    7. Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. 
Committee on the Judiciary. February 7, 8, 2001. (H.R. 333).
    8. ICANN, New gTLDS, and the Protection of Intellectual Property. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. March 
22, 2001.
    9. Patents: Improving Quality and Curing Defects. Subcommittee on 
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. May 10, 2001.
    10. Executive Orders and Presidential Directives. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. March 22, 2001.
    11. Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 
2001. Subcommittee on Crime. April 26, 2001. (H.R. 1577).
    12. Music on the Internet. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, 
and Intellectual Property. May 17, 2001.
    13. State and Local Implementation of Existing Charitable Choice 
Programs. Subcommittee on the Constitution. April 24, 2001.
    14. Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2001. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. June 
27, 2001. (S. 487).
    15. 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. Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. May 9, 2001.
    16. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Operations and Funding. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. June 
7, 2001.
    17. Constitutional Role of Faith-Based Organizations in 
Competitions for Federal Social Service Funds. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. June 7, 2001.
    18. Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. 
Committee on the Judiciary. June 5, 2001. (H.R. 1542).
    19. American Broadband Competition Act of 2001 and the Broadband 
Competition and Incentives Act of 2001. Committee on the Judiciary. May 
22, 2001. (H.R. 1698 and H.R. 1697).
    20. Constitutional Issues Raised by Recent Campaign Finance 
Legislation Restricting Freedom of Speech. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. June 12, 2001.
    21. INS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. May 15, 2001.
    22. Guestworker Visa Programs. Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims. June 19, 2001.
    23. Whois Database: Privacy and Intellectual Property Issues. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. July 
12, 2001. (See also Serial No. 70).
    24. Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001 and the 
Anti-Spamming Act of 2001. Committee on the Judiciary. May 10, 2001. 
(H.R. 718 and H.R. 1017).
    25. Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2001. Subcommittee on Courts, 
the Internet, and Intellectual Property. July 26, 2001. (H.R. 2522).
    26. Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. June 26, 2001. (H.R. 1552 and H.R. 1675).
    27. Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and 
Retaliation Act of 2001. Committee on the Judiciary. May 9, 2001. (H.R. 
169).
    28. Consumer Product Protection Act of 2001. Subcommittee on Crime. 
July 26, 2001. (H.R. 2621).
    29. Preauthorization of the United States Department of Justice: 
Criminal Law Enforcement. Subcommittee on Crime. May 3, 15, 2001.
    30. U.S. Population and Immigration. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims. August 2, 2001.
    31. Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. July 18, 2001. (H.R. 1410).
    32. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 12, 2001. (H.R. 2175).
    33. Fighting Caber Crime. Subcommittee on Crime. May 24, June 12, 
14, 2001.
    34. Law Enforcement and Community Efforts to Address Crimes Against 
Seniors. Subcommittee on Crime. July 11, 2001.
    35. Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2001. Subcommittee on 
Crime. June 21, 2001. (H.R. 1877).
    36. Child Custody Protection Act. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
September 6, 2001. (H.R. 476).
    37. United States Department of Justice. Committee on the 
Judiciary. June 6, 2001.
    38. Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act of 2001. 
Subcommittee on Crime. July 31, 2001. (H.R. 2146).
    39. Administration's Draft Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. Committee on 
the Judiciary. September 24, 2001.
    40. Human Cloning. Subcommittee on Crime. June 7, 19, 2001. 
[Oversight, H.R. 1644, and H.R. 2172 (a bill referred to the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce).]
    41. Internet Tax Fairness Act of 2001. Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law. September 11, 2001. (H.R. 2526).
    42. Market Power and Intellectual Property Litigation. Subcommittee 
on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. November 8, 2001.
    43. Using Information Technology to Secure America's Borders: INS 
Problems with Planning and Implementation. Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims. October 11, 2001.
    44. Immigration and Naturalization Service Performance Issues. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. October 17, 2001.
    45. Operations of Federal Judicial Misconduct Statutes. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. 
November 29, 2001.
    46. Implementation of the International Convention for the 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for 
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Subcommittee on Crime. 
November 14, 2001. (H.R. 3275).
    47. Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act and the 
Combating Illegal Gambling Reform and Modernization Act. Subcommittee 
on Crime. November 29, 2001. (H.R. 556 and H.R. 3215).
    48. Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act of 2001. Subcommittee on Crime. 
November 7, 2001. (H.R. 3209).
    49. Help America Vote Act of 2001. Committee on the Judiciary. 
December 5, 2001. (H.R. 3295).
    50. Direct Broadcast Satellite Service and Competition in the 
Multichannel Video Distribution Market. Committee on the Judiciary. 
December 4, 2001.
    51. Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports (FANS) Act of 2001. 
Committee on the Judiciary. December 6, 2001. (H.R. 3288).
    52. Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 104 Report. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. 
December 12, 13, 2001.
    53. Federal Trademark Dilution Act. Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property. February 14, 2002.
    54. Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact and the 
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee and Flint River Basin Compact. Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law. December 19, 2001.
    55. Review of Department of Justice Immigration Detention Policies. 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. December 19, 2001.
    56. Settlement Agreement by and among the United States of America, 
the Federal Communications Commission, NextWave Telecom, Inc., et al. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law jointly with the 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. 
December 6, 2001.
    57. Operations of the Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR). Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. February 6, 2002.
    58. Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2001. Subcommittee on Crime. 
February 12, 2002. (H.R. 3482).
    59. Class Action Fairness Act of 2001. Committee on the Judiciary. 
February 6, 2002. (H.R. 2341).
    60. Patent Law and Non-Profit Research Collaboration. Subcommittee 
on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. March 14, 2002.
    61. Implications of Transnational Terrorism for the Visa Waiver 
Program. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. February 28, 2002.
    62. Temporary Filling of House of Representatives Vacancies During 
National Emergencies. Subcommittee on the Constitution. February 28, 
2002. (H.J. Res. 62).
    63. INS's March 2002 Notification of Approval of Change of Status 
for Pilot Training for Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-
Shehhi. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. March 19, 2002.
    64. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Operations and Fiscal year 
2003 Budget. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property. April 11, 2002.
    65. Proposed Change of Utah-Nevada State Boundary; Amendments to 
the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact; and Tax Treatment 
of Bonds Issued by the Government of American Samoa. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. March 6, 2002. (H.R. 2054, H.R. 
3180, and H.R. 1448).
    66. Legal Services Corporation. Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. February 28, 2002.
    67. HUD's ``Legislative Guidebook'' and Its Potential Impact on 
Property Rights and Small Businesses, Including Minority-Owned 
Businesses. Subcommittee on the Constitution. March 7, 2002.
    68. INS and Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related 
Unfair Employment Practices. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. 
March 21, 2002.
    69. Restructuring the INS--How the Agency's Dysfunctional Structure 
Impedes the Performance of Its Dual Mission. Committee on the 
Judiciary. April 9, 2002.
    70. Accuracy and Integrity of the Whois Database. Subcommittee on 
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. May 22, 2002. (See 
also Serial No. 23).
    71. Office of Justice Programs. Subcommittee on Crime. March 5, 7, 
14, 2002.
    72. Consumer Benefits of Today's Digital Rights Management (DRM) 
Solutions. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property. June 5, 2002.
    73. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. April 11, 2002.
    74. Victims' Rights Amendment. Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
May 9, 2002. (H.J. Res. 91).
    75. Enhancing Child Protection Laws After the April 16, 2002 
Supreme Court Decision, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Subcommittee 
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 1, 2002.
    76. Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 and the 
Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act of 2002. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 9, 2002. (H.R. 4623 and H.R. 
4477).
    77. Administrative and Procedural Aspects of the Federal Reserve 
Board/Department of the Treasury Proposed Rule Concerning Competition 
in the Real Estate Brokerage and Management Markets. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. May 16, 2002.
    78. Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) Structure and 
Process. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property. June 13, 2002.
    79. Patent Reexamination and Small Business Innovation. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. June 
20, 2002.
    80. Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act. Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law. May 1, 2002. (H.R. 4561).
    81. Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. June 25, 2002.
    82. Unpublished Judicial Opinions. Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property. June 27, 2002.
    83. Homeland Security Information Sharing Act. Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 4, 2002. (H.R. 4598).
    84. Anti-Terrorism Explosives Act of 2002. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 11, 2002. (H.R. 4864).
    85. Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) Interior 
Enforcement Strategy. Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims. June 19, 2002.
    86. Risk to Homeland Security from Identity Fraud and Identity 
Theft. Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims jointly 
with the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 
25, 2002.
    87. Tort Liability Under the Temporary Emergency Wildfire 
Suppression Act. Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims. June 28, 2002. (H.R. 5017).
    88. Free Market Antitrust Immunity Reform (FAIR) Act of 2001. 
Committee on the Judiciary. June 5, 2002. (H.R. 1253).
    89. Innocence Protection Act of 2001. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. June 18, 2002. (H.R. 912).
    90. Litigation and Its Effect on the Rails-to-Trails Program. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. June 20, 2002.
    91. Role of Immigration in the Department of Homeland Security 
Pursuant to H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Subcommittee 
on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. June 27, 2002.
    92. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Fee Schedule Adjustment and 
Agency Reform. Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property. July 18, 2002.
    93. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. July 9, 2002. (H.R. 4965).
    94. Proposal to Create a Department of Homeland Security. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. July 9, 2002.
    95. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2001. 
Subcommittee on Courts, theInternet, and Intellectual Property. July 
23, 2002. (H.R. 1203).
    96. Administrative Law, Adjudicatory Issues, and Privacy 
Ramifications of Creating a Department of Homeland Security. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. July 9, 2002.
    97. Health Care Litigation Reform: Does Limitless Litigation 
Restrict Access to Health Care? Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law. June 12, 2002.
    98. Fairness in Sentencing Act of 2002. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 14, 2002. (H.R. 4689).
    99. Homeland Security Act of 2002. Committee on the Judiciary. June 
26, 2002. (H.R. 5005).
    100. Privacy Concerns Raised by the Collection and Use of Genetic 
Information by Employers and Insurers. Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. September 12, 2002.
    101. Supreme Court's School Choice Decision and Congress' Authority 
to Enact Choice Programs. Subcommittee on the Constitution. September 
17, 2002.
    102. Preserving the Integrity of Social Security Numbers and 
Preventing Their Misuse by Terrorists and Identity Thieves. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the 
Committee on the Judiciary jointly with the Subcommittee on Social 
Security of the Committee on Ways and Means. September 19, 2002.
    103. Piracy of Intellectual Property on Peer-to-Peer Networks. 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. 
September 26, 2002.
    104. Plant Breeders Equity Act of 2002. Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property. September 19, 2002. (H.R. 5119).
    105. Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS's) 
Implementation of the Foreign Student Tracking Program. Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. September 18, 2002.
    106. Justice for United States Prisoners of War Act of 2001. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. September 25, 
2002. (H.R. 1198).
    107. Satellite Radio Freedom Act and the Satellite Services Act. 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. September 25, 2002. 
(H.R. 4869 and H.R. 5429).
    108. A Judiciary Diminished is Justice Denied: The Constitution, 
the Senate, and the Vacancy Crisis in the Federal Judiciary. 
Subcommittee on the Constitution. October 10, 2002.
    109. Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act of 2002. 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. October 10, 
2002. (H.R. 5519).
    110. Immigration and Naturalization Services' (INS's) Interactions 
with Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet. Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 
Security, and Claims. October 9, 2002.
    111. United States and Canada Safe Third Country Agreement. 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. October 16, 
2002.
    112. Child Abduction Prevention Act. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. October 1, 2002. (H.R. 5422).
    113. Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2001. Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. October 8, 2002. (H.R. 2929).


                            Committee Prints
                          Serial No. and Title
                               __________
    1. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 2001.
    2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 2001.
    3. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 2001.
    4. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 2001.
    5. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. December 1, 2002.
    6. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. December 1, 2002.
    7. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. December 1, 2002.
    8. Federal Rules of Evidence. December 1, 2002.


                            House Documents
                         H. Doc. No. and Title
                               __________
    107-12. Apportionment Population and State Representation. 
Communication from the President of the United States transmitting his 
report on the apportionment population for each State as of April 1, 
2000, and the number of Representatives to which each State would be 
entitled, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 2a(a) and 13 U.S.C. 141(b). Referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform. 
January 6, 2001. (Executive Communication No. 88).
    107-15. Legislative Proposal for an Agreement Between the United 
States and Jordan on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area. Message 
from the President of the United States transmitting a legislative 
proposal to implement the agreement between the United States of 
America and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the establishment of a 
free trade area. Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
Committee on the Judiciary. January 20, 2001. (Presidential Message No. 
3).
    107-36. Rallying the Armies of Compassion. Message from the 
President of the United States transmitting a report to support the 
heroic works of faith-based and community groups across America. 
Referred to the Committees on Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Education 
and the Workforce, Government Reform, and Financial Services. January 
31, 2001. (Presidential Message No. 4).
    107-39. New Freedom Initiative. Communication from the President of 
the United States transmitting his report to increase investment in and 
access to assistive technologies and a quality education, and help 
integrate Americans with disabilities into the workforce and into 
community life. Referred jointly to the Committees on Education and the 
Workforce, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the Judiciary, and House 
Administration. February 6, 2001. (Executive Communication No. 672).
    107-60. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2075. April 24, 2001. (Executive Communication No. 1574).
    107-61. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. April 
24, 2001. (Executive Communication No. 1575).
    107-62. A Letter Regarding Section 245(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. Communication from the President of the United States 
transmitting a letter in support of legislation to extend the window 
created under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
during which qualified immigrants may obtain legal residence in the 
United States without being forced to leave the country and their 
families for several years. May 1, 2001. (Executive Communication No. 
1677).
    107-139. A Legislative Proposal. Message from the President of the 
United States transmitting a legislative proposal to implement the 
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and 
the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of 
Terrorism. October 29, 2001. (Presidential Message No. 53).
    107-203. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2072. May 3, 2002. (Executive Communication No. 6621).
    107-204. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072. May 3, 
2002. (Executive Communication No. 6623).
    107-205. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2075. May 3, 2002. (Executive Communication No. 6624).
    107-206. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
Communication from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, transmitting amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate 
Procedure that have been adopted by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2072. May 3, 2002. (Executive Communication No. 6622).

        Summary of Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary

                              ----------                              


                      Legislation Enacted Into Law

    A variety of legislation within the Committee's 
jurisdiction was enacted into law during the 107th Congress. 
The public and private laws, along with approved resolutions, 
are listed below and are more fully detailed in the subsequent 
sections of this report recounting the activities of the 
Committee and its individual subcommittees.

                              PUBLIC LAWS

    Public Law 107-8.--To extend for 11 additional months the 
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States 
Code is reenacted. (H.R. 256) (Approved May 11, 2001; effective 
date July 1, 2000).
    Public Law 107-12.--To authorize the Public Safety Officer 
Medal of Valor, and for other purposes. ``Public Safety Officer 
Medal of Valor Act of 2001.'' (H.R. 802) (Approved May 30, 
2001).
    Public Law 107-17.--To extend for 4 additional months the 
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States 
Code is reenacted. (H.R. 1914) (Approved June 26, 2001; 
effective date June 1, 2001).
    Public Law 107-37.--To provide for the expedited payment of 
certain benefits for a public safety officer who was killed or 
suffered a catastrophic injury as a direct and proximate result 
of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty in 
connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 
(H.R. 2882) (Approved September 18, 2001).
    Public Law 107-42.--To preserve the continued viability of 
the United States air transportation system. ``Air 
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act.'' (H.R. 
2926) (Approved September 22, 2001).
    Public Law 107-43.--To implement the agreement establishing 
a United States-Jordan free trade area. ``United States-Jordan 
Free Trade Area Implementation Act.'' (H.R. 2603) (Approved by 
the President September 28, 2001; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 107-45.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to provide permanent authority for the 
admission of ``S'' visa non-immigrants. (S. 1424) (Approved 
October 1, 2001).
    Public Law 107-51.--Memorializing fallen firefighters by 
lowering the American flag to half-staff in honor of the 
National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmitsburg, 
Maryland. (H.J. Res. 42) (Approved October 16, 2001).
    Public Law 107-56.--To deter and punish terrorist acts in 
the United States and around the world, to enhance law 
enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. 
``Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate 
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT 
ACT) Act of 2001.'' (H.R. 3162) (Approved October 26, 2001; 
effective dates and termination dates vary).
    Public Law 107-72.--To amend the Improving America's 
Schools Act of 1994 to extend the favorable treatment of need-
based educational aid under the antitrust laws. ``Need-Based 
Educational Aid Act of 2001.'' (H.R. 768) (Approved November 
20, 2001; effective date September 30, 2001).
    Public Law 107-75.--To extend the moratorium enacted by the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act through November 1, 2003, and for 
other purposes. ``Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act.'' (H.R. 
1552) (Approved November 28, 2001).
    Public Law 107-104.--To amend chapter 90 of title 5, United 
States Code, relating to Federal long-term care insurance. 
(H.R. 2559) (Approved December 27, 2001; effective as if 
included in the enactment of section 1002 of the Long-Term Care 
Security Act--Public Law 106-265).
    Public Law 107-107.--To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2002 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such 
fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.'' 
(S. 1438) (Approved December 28, 2001; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 107-110.--To close the achievement gap with 
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is 
left behind. ``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.'' (H.R. 1) 
(Approved January 8, 2002; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 107-119.--To amend the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to extend the authorization of 
appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics through 
fiscal year 2006. ``Office of Government Ethics Authorization 
Act of 2001.'' (S. 1202) (Approved January 15, 2002).
    Public Law 107-124.--To provide for work authorization for 
nonimmigrant spouses of treaty traders and treaty investors. 
(H.R. 2277) (Approved January 16, 2002).
    Public Law 107-125.--To provide for work authorization for 
nonimmigrant spouses of intracompany transferees, and to reduce 
the period of time during which certain intracompany 
transferees have to be continuously employed before applying 
for admission to the United States. (H.R. 2278) (Approved 
January 16, 2002).
    Public Law 107-126.--To extend for 4 years, through 
December 31, 2005, the authority to redact financial disclosure 
statements of judicial employees and judicial officers. (H.R. 
2336) (Approved January 16, 2002).
    Public Law 107-128.--To extend the basic pilot program for 
employment eligibility verification, and for other purposes. 
``Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2001.'' (H.R. 3030) (Approved 
January 16, 2002).
    Public Law 107-140.--To amend title 18 of the United States 
Code to correct a technical error in the codification of title 
36 of the United States Code. (S. 1888) (Approved February 8, 
2002).
    Public Law 107-150.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to provide for the acceptance of an affidavit 
of support from another eligible sponsor if the original 
sponsor has died and the Attorney General has determined for 
humanitarian reasons that the original sponsor's classification 
petition should not be revoked. ``Family Sponsor Immigration 
Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 1892) (Approved March 13, 2002; effective 
dates vary).
    Public Law 107-155.--To amend the Federal Election Campaign 
Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform. ``Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 2356) (Approved March 27, 
2002; general provisions effective date November 6, 2002; other 
effective dates vary).
    Public Law 107-169.--To make technical amendments to 
section 10 of title 9, United States Code. (H.R. 861) (Approved 
May 7, 2002).
    Public Law 107-170.--To extend for 8 additional months the 
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States 
Code is reenacted. (H.R. 4167) (Approved May 7, 2002; effective 
date October 1, 2001).
    Public Law 107-171.--To provide for the continuation of 
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011. (H.R. 2646) 
(Approved May 13, 2002).
    Public Law 107-173.--To enhance the border security of the 
United States, and for other purposes. ``Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 3525) 
(Approved May 14, 2002).
    Public Law 107-174.--To require that Federal agencies be 
accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and 
whistleblower protection laws; to require that each Federal 
agency post quarterly on its public Web site, certain 
statistical data relating to Federal sector equal employment 
opportunity complaints filed with such agency; and for other 
purposes. ``Notification and Federal Employee 
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 169) 
(Approved May 15, 2002).
    Public Law 107-179.--To require a report on the operation 
of the State Justice Institute. (H.R. 2048) (Approved May 20, 
2002).
    Public Law 107-185.--To extend eligibility for refugee 
status of unmarried sons and daughters of certain Vietnamese 
refugees. (H.R. 1840) (Approved May 30, 2002).
    Public Law 107-188.--To improve the ability of the United 
States to prevent, prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and 
other public health emergencies. ``Public Health Security and 
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 
3448) (Approved June 12, 2002; effective dates vary).
    Public Law 107-196.--To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to ensure that chaplains killed in the 
line of duty receive public safety officer death benefits. 
``Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety 
Officers'' Benefit Act of 2002.'' (S. 2431) (Approved June 24, 
2002; effective date September 11, 2001, and applicable to 
injuries or deaths that occur in the line of duty on or after 
such date).
    Public Law 107-197.--To implement the International 
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings to 
strengthen criminal laws relating to attacks on places of 
public use, to implement the International Convention of the 
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, to combat terrorism 
and defend the Nation against terrorist acts, and for other 
purposes. (H.R. 3275) (Approved June 25, 2002; effective dates 
vary).
    Public Law 107-204.--To protect investors by improving the 
accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant 
to the securities laws, and for other purposes. ``Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 3763) (Approved July 30, 2002).
    Public Law 107-207.--To protect infants who are born alive. 
``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 2175) 
(Approved August 5, 2002).
    Public Law 107-208.--To amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to determine whether an alien is a child, for 
purposes of classification as an immediate relative, based on 
the age of the alien on the date the classification petition 
with respect to the alien is filed, and for other purposes. 
``Child Status Protection Act.'' (H.R. 1209) (Approved August 
6, 2002).
    Public Law 107-209.--Conferring honorary citizenship of the 
United States posthumously on Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roche 
Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette. (S.J. Res. 13) 
(Approved August 6, 2002).
    Public Law 107-210.--To extend the Andean Trade Preference 
Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and for 
other purposes. (H.R. 3009) (Approved August 6, 2002).
    Public Law 107-217.--To revise, codify, and enact without 
substantive change certain general and permanent laws, related 
to public buildings, property, and works, as title 40, United 
States Code, ``Public Buildings, Property, and Works.'' (H.R. 
2068) (Approved August 21, 2002).
    Public Law 107-228.--To authorize appropriations for the 
Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for 
other purposes. (H.R. 1646) (Approved September 30, 2002).
    Public Law 107-234.--To extend the Irish Peace Process 
Cultural and Training Program. (H.R. 4558) (Approved October 4, 
2002).
    Public Law 107-241.--To amend the charter of the AMVETS 
organization. (H.R. 3214) (Approved October 16, 2002).
    Public Law 107-242.--To amend the charter of the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars of the United States organization to make 
members of the armed forces who receive special pay for duty 
subject to hostile fire or imminent danger eligible for 
membership in the organization, and for other purposes. (H.R. 
3838) (Approved October 16, 2002).
    Public Law 107-252.--To establish a program to provide 
funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to 
establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the 
administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide 
assistance with the administration of certain Federal election 
laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration 
standards for States and units of local government with 
responsibility for the administration of Federal elections, and 
for other purposes. ``Help America Vote Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 
3295) (Approved October 29, 2002).
    Public Law 107-258.--To amend the Bring Them Home Alive Act 
of 2000 to provide an asylum program with regard to American 
Persian Gulf War POW/MIAs, and for other purposes. ``Persian 
Gulf War POW/MIA Accountability Act of 2002.'' (S. 1339) 
(Approved October 29, 2002).
    Public Law 107-273.--To authorize appropriations for the 
Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002, and for other 
purposes. ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act.'' (H.R. 2215) (Approved November 2, 2002).
    Public Law 107-274.--To establish new nonimmigrant classes 
for border commuter students. ``Border Commuter Student Act of 
2002.'' (H.R. 4967) (Approved November 2, 2002).
    Public Law 107-293.--To reaffirm the reference to one 
Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. (S. 2690) 
(Approved November 13, 2002).
    Public Law 107-296.--To establish the Department of 
Homeland Security, and for other purposes. ``Homeland Security 
Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 5005) (Approved November 25, 2002).
    Public Law 107-297.--To ensure the continued financial 
capacity of insurers to provide coverage for risks from 
terrorism. ``Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 
3210) (Approved November 26, 2002).
    Public Law 107-307.--To amend title 18, United States Code, 
with respect to consumer product protection. ``Product 
Packaging Protection Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 2621) (Approved 
December 2, 2002).
    Public Law 107-309.--To amend title 36, United States Code, 
to clarify the requirements for eligibility in the American 
Legion. (H.R. 3988) (Approved December 2, 2002).
    Public Law 107-314.--To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths, for 
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. 
``Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003.'' (H.R. 4546) (Approved December 2, 2002).
    Public Law 107-321.--To suspend for a period of 6 months 
the determination of the Librarian of Congress of July 8, 2002, 
relating to rates and terms for the digital performance of 
sound recordings and ephemeral recordings. ``Small Webcaster 
Settlement Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 5469) (Approved December 4, 
2002).
    Public Law 107-347.--To enhance the management and 
promotion of electronic Government services and processes by 
establishing a Federal Chief Information Officer within the 
Office of Management and Budget, and by reestablishing a broad 
framework of measurers that require using Internet-based 
information technology to enhance citizen access to Government 
information and services, and for other purposes. ``E-
Government Act of 2002.'' (H.R. 2458) (Approved December 17, 
2002).
    Public Law 107-352.--To consent to certain amendments to 
the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact. (H.R. 
3180) (Approved December 17, 2002).
    Public Law 107-377.--To extend for 6 months the period for 
which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is 
reenacted. (H.R. 5472) (Approved December 19, 2002).

                              PRIVATE LAWS

    Private Law 107-1.--For the relief of Rita Mirembe Revell 
(a.k.a. Margaret Rita Mirembe). (S. 560) (Approved July 17, 
2001).
    Private Law 107-2.--For the relief of retired Sergeant 
First Class James D. Benoit and Wan Sook Benoit (S. 1834) 
(Approved October 1, 2002).
    Private Law 107-3.--For the relief of Barbara Makuch. (H.R. 
486) (Approved October 4, 2002).
    Private Law 107-4.--For the relief of Eugene Makuch. (H.R. 
487) (Approved October 4, 2002).
    Private Law 107-5.--For the relief of Anisha Goveas Foti. 
(H.R. 2245) (Approved November 5, 2002).
    Private Law 107-8.--For the relief of So Hyun Jun. (H.R. 
3758) (Approved December 2, 2002).

               CONCURRENT AND SIMPLE RESOLUTIONS APPROVED

    H. Con. Res. 225.--Expressing the sense of the Congress 
that, as a symbol of the solidarity following the terrorist 
attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, every 
United States citizen is encouraged to display the flag of the 
United States. Agreed to by the House September 13, 2001; 
agreed to by the Senate September 13, 2001.
    H. Con. Res. 227.--Condemning bigotry and violence against 
Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia 
in the wake of terrorist attacks in New York City, New York, 
and Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001. Agreed to by the 
House September 15 (legislative day September 14), 2001; agreed 
to by the Senate September 26, 2001.
    H. Con. Res. 243.--Expressing the sense of the Congress 
that the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor should be 
presented to the public safety officers who have perished and 
select other public safety officers who deserve special 
recognition for outstanding valor above and beyond the call of 
duty in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United 
States on September 11, 2001. Agreed to by the House October 
30, 2001; agreed to by the Senate April 18, 2002.
    H. Res. 103.--Referring the bill (H.R. 1258), entitled ``A 
bill for the relief of Sarabeth M. Davis, Robert S. Borders, 
Victor Maron, Irving Berke, and Adele E. Conrad'', to the chief 
judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a report 
thereon. Agreed to by the House May 21, 2002.
    H. Res. 193.--Requesting that the President focus 
appropriate attention on the issues of neighborhood crime 
prevention, community policing, and reduction of school crime 
by delivering speeches, convening meetings, and directing his 
Administration to make reducing crime an important priority, 
and for other purposes. Agreed to by the House August 2, 2001.
    H. Res. 224.--Honoring the New Jersey State Law Enforcement 
Officers Association. Agreed to by the House November 1, 2001.
    H. Res. 417.--Recognizing and honoring the career and work 
of Justice C. Clifton Young. Agreed to by the House October 1, 
2002.
    H. Res. 459.--Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that Newdow v. U.S. Congress was erroneously 
decided, and for other purposes. Agreed to by the House June 
27, 2002.

                        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. 4 (S. 517)

    To enhance energy conservation, research and development 
and to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply 
for the American people, and for other purposes. ``Securing 
America's Future Energy Act of 2001'' or the ``SAFE Act of 
2001.'' Passed the House, amended, August 2 (legislative day 
August 1), 2001 (240 yeas; 189 nays). Passed the Senate, 
amended, April 25, 2002 (88 yeas; 11 nays). The Senate 
requested a conference April 25, 2002; appointed conferees May 
1, 2002. The House agreed to a conference June 12, 2002, and 
appointed conferees (including from the Committee on the 
Judiciary). The House appointed an additional conferee October 
3, 2002. The conference committee did not file a conference 
report.

H.R. 1646 (S. 1803)

    To authorize appropriations for the Department of State for 
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other purposes. ``Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal years 2002 and 2003.'' 
Passed the House, amended, May 16, 2001. Passed the Senate, 
amended, May 1, 2002. The Senate requested a conference May 1, 
2002, and appointed conferees. The House agreed to a conference 
September 12, 2002, and appointed conferees (including from the 
Committee on the Judiciary). Conference report filed in the 
House September 23, 2002 (H. Rept. 107-671). The House agreed 
to the conference report September 25, 2002 (voice vote). The 
Senate agreed to the conference report September 26, 2002 
(unanimous consent). Approved by the President September 30, 
2002--Public Law 107-228.

H.R. 2646 (S. 1731)

    To provide for the continuation of agricultural programs 
through fiscalyear 2011. ``Farm Security Act of 2001.'' Passed 
the House, amended, October 5, 2001. Passed the Senate, amended, 
February 13, 2002. The Senate requested a conference February 13, 2002, 
and appointed conferees. The House agreed to a conference February 28, 
2002, and appointed conferees from the Committee on Agriculture. The 
House named additional conferees March 7, 2002 (including from the 
Committee on the Judiciary). Conference report filed in the House May 
1, 2002 (H. Rept. 107-424). The House agreed to the conference report 
May 2, 2002 (280 yeas; 141 nays). The Senate agreed to the conference 
report May 8, 2002 (64 yeas; 35 nays). Approved by the President May 
13, 2002--Public Law 107-171.

H.R. 3009

    To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant 
additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other 
purposes. ``Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.'' 
Passed the House, amended, Nov. 16, 2001. Passed the Senate, 
amended, May 23, 2002. The House agreed to the Senate 
amendment, amended, June 27, 2002. The House requested a 
conference June 27, 2002, and appointed conferees (including 
from the Committee on the Judiciary). The Senate agreed to a 
conference July 12, 2002, and appointed conferees. Conference 
report filed in the House July 27 (legislative day July 26), 
2002 (H. Rept. 107-624). The House agreed to the conference 
report July 27 (legislative day July 26), 2002 (215 yeas; 212 
nays). The Senate agreed to the conference report August 1, 
2002 (64 yeas; 34 nays). Approved by the President August 6, 
2002--Public Law 107-210.

H.R. 3448

    To improve the ability of the United States to prevent, 
prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and other public 
health emergencies. ``Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 
Response Act of 2001.'' Passed the House December 12, 2001. 
Passed the Senate, amended, December 20, 2001. The Senate 
requested a conference December 20, 2001, and appointed 
conferees. The House agreed to a conference February 28, 2002, 
and appointed conferees (including from the Committee on the 
Judiciary). Conference report filed in the House May 21, 2002 
(H. Rept. 107-481). The House agreed to the conference report 
May 22, 2002 (425 yeas; 1 nay). The Senate agreed to the 
conference report May 23, 2002 (98 yeas; 0 nays). Approved by 
the President June 12, 2002--Public Law 107-188.

H.R. 3763 (S. 2673)

    To protect investors by improving the accuracy and 
reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the 
securities laws, and for other purposes. ``Corporate and 
Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act 
of 2002.'' Passed the House, amended, April 24, 2002. Passed 
the Senate, amended, July 15, 2002. The Senate requested a 
conference July 15, 2002, and appointed conferees July 17, 
2002. The House agreed to a conference July 17, 2002, and 
appointed conferees (including from the Committee on the 
Judiciary). Conference report filed in the House July 24, 2002 
(H. Rept. 107-610). The House agreed to the conference report 
July 25, 2002 (423 yeas; 3 nays). The Senate agreed to the 
conference report July 25, 2002 (99 yeas; 0 nays). Approved by 
the President July 30, 2002--Public Law 107-204.

H.R. 4546 (S. 2514)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year 
for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. ``National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.'' Passed the 
House, amended, May 10 (legislative day May 9), 2002. Passed 
the Senate, amended, June 27, 2002. The House requested a 
conference July 25, 2002, and appointed conferees (including 
from the Committee on the Judiciary). The Senate agreed to a 
conference July 26, 2002, and appointed conferees. The House 
appointed additional conferees July 27, 2002. Conference report 
filed in the House November 12, 2002 (H. Rept. 107-772). The 
House agreed to the conference report November 12, 2002, by 
voice vote. The Senate agreed to the conference report November 
13, 2002, by voice vote. Approved by the President December 2, 
2002--Public Law 107-314.

S. 1438 (H.R. 2586)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year 
for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. ``National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.'' Passed the 
Senate, amended, October 2, 2001. Passed the House, amended, 
October 17, 2001. The House requested a conference October 17, 
2001, and appointed conferees (including from the Committee on 
the Judiciary). The Senate agreed to a conference October 17, 
2001, and appointed conferees. Conference report filed in the 
House December 12, 2001 (H. Rept. 107-333). The House agreed to 
the conference report December 13, 2001 (382 yeas; 40 nays). 
The Senate agreed to the conference report December 13, 2001 
(96 yeas; 2 nays). Approved by the President December 28, 
2001--Public Law 107-107.


                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

   F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
      Wisconsin, Chairman \1\

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan          HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts          GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
JERROLD NADLER, New York             ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ED BRYANT, Tennessee \6\ \8\
ZOE LOFGREN, California              STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BOB BARR, Georgia
MAXINE WATERS, California            WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas \4\
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, FLorida               LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey \2\    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \5\
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California \3\       MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
                                     RIC KELLER, Florida
                                     DARRELL E. ISSA, California
                                     MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
                                     JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
                                     MIKE PENCE, Indiana \7\
                                     J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia \9\

----------
\1\ F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wisconsin, elected to the Committee as 
Chairman pursuant to House Resolution 19, approved by the House January 
7, 2001.
Republican Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 19, approved by the House January 7, 2001.
Democratic Members elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 25, approved by the House January 31, 2001.
\2\ Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey, resigned from the Committee 
effective February 7, 2001.
\3\ Adam B. Schiff, California, elected to the Committee pursuant to 
House Resolution 33, approved by the House February 8, 2001.
\4\ Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas, resigned from the House effective 
midnight August 6, 2001.
\5\ Joe Scarborough, Florida, resigned from the House effective 
September 6, 2001.
\6\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, elected to the Committee to rank after Mr. 
Goodlatte pursuant to House Resolution 249, approved by the House 
October 2, 2001.
\7\ Mike Pence, Indiana, elected to the Committee pursuant to House 
Resolution 249, approved by the House October 2, 2001.
\8\ Ed Bryant, Tennessee, resigned from the Committee effective May 16, 
2002.
\9\ J. Randy Forbes, Virginia, elected to the Committee pursuant to H. 
Res. 423, approved by the House May 16, 2002.

Tabulation of activity on legislation held at the full Committee

Legislation held at the full Committee............................   150
Legislation failed to be ordered reported to the House............     1
Legislation reported favorably to the House.......................    26
Legislation reported adversely to the House.......................     1
Legislation discharged from the Committee.........................    17
Legislation pending in the House..................................     6
Legislation failed passage by the House...........................     1
Legislation passed by the House...................................    37
Legislation pending in the Senate.................................     8
Legislation enacted into public law as part of another measure....     5
Legislation enacted into public law...............................    18
House concurrent resolutions approved.............................     3
House resolutions approved........................................     1
Legislation on which hearings were held...........................    10
Days of legislative hearings......................................    11
Days of oversight hearings........................................     4

                       Full Committee Activities

    During the 107th Congress, the full Judiciary Committee 
retained original jurisdiction with respect to a number of 
legislative and oversight matters. This included exclusive 
jurisdiction over antitrust and liability issues. In addition, 
a number of specific legislative issues were handled 
exclusively by the full Committee, including the 21st Century 
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, the No 
Fear Act, and the USA/Patriot Act.

                         Legislative Activities


                               ANTITRUST

    The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over all 
laws relating to antitrust. United States antitrust laws are 
tailored to ensure the competitive functioning of the 
marketplace--i.e. competition in the marketplace and not the 
protection of any individual competitor. There are two 
principal antitrust laws in the United States--the Sherman Act 
and the Clayton Act. Both are enforceable by the Antitrust 
Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC), and private persons. Other federal agencies 
have authority to examine competitive aspects of market 
transactions within their jurisdiction.

H.R. 768, the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2001''

    Summary.--H.R. 768 makes permanent an existing temporary 
antitrust exemption that allows colleges and universities that 
admit students on a need-blind basis to agree on common 
standardsfor assessing need for purposes of awarding 
institutional financial aid. The current temporary exemption is set to 
expire on September 30, 2001.
    Beginning in the mid-1950's, a number of prestigious 
private colleges and universities agreed to award institutional 
financial aid (i.e. aid from the school's own funds) solely on 
the basis of demonstrated financial need. Last year, 
institutional grant aid at all colleges and universities 
amounted to about $12.2 billion as compared to Federal grant 
aid of about $8.9 billion. These schools also agreed to use 
common principles to assess each student's financial need and 
to give essentially the same financial aid award to students 
admitted to more than one member of the group. Among the 
schools engaging in this practice were the Ivy Overlap Group 
(Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Penn, 
Yale, and MIT) and the Pentagonal/Sisters Overlap Group 
(Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Bowdoin, Dartmouth, Barnard, Bryn 
Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Radcliffe, Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, 
Colby, Middlebury, Trinity, and Tufts).
    From the 1950's through the late 1980's, the practice 
continued undisturbed. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the 
Department of Justice brought suit against the nine members of 
the Ivy Overlap Group to enjoin these practices. In 1991, the 
eight Ivy League schools (i.e. all of the Ivy Overlap Group 
except for MIT) agreed to a consent decree that for all 
practical purposes ended the practices of the Overlap Group. 
See United States v. Brown University, 1991 U.S. Dist. Lexis 
21168, 1993-2 Trade Cases 70,391 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
    In 1992, Congress passed a temporary antitrust exemption to 
allow the schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-
blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis. 
Higher Education Amendments of 1992, Sec. 1544, Pub. L. No. 
102-325, 106 Stat. 448, 837 (1992). This temporary exemption 
specifically prohibited any agreement as to the terms of a 
financial aid award to any specific student. By its terms, it 
expired on September 30, 1994.
    In the meantime, MIT continued to contest the lawsuit. 
After a non-jury trial, the district court ruled that the 
practices of the Overlap Group violated the antitrust laws, but 
specifically invited a legislative solution. United States v. 
Brown University, 805 F.Supp. 288 (E.D. Pa. 1992). On appeal, 
MIT won a reversal of the district court's decision. United 
States v. Brown University, 5 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1993). The 
appeals court held that the district court had not engaged in a 
sufficiently thorough antitrust analysis and remanded for 
further consideration. After that decision, the parties reached 
a final settlement.
    In 1994, Congress passed another temporary exemption from 
the antitrust laws. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, 
Sec. 568, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. 3518, 4060 (1994). 
This exemption resembled the one passed in 1992 in that it 
allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only and 
to use common principles of needs analysis. It also prohibited 
agreements on awards to specific students. However, unlike the 
1992 exemption, it also allows agreement on the use of a common 
aid application form and the exchange of the student's 
financial information through a third party. This exemption 
roughly mirrors the settlement reached in 1993. It was to 
expire on September 30, 1997.
    Under that exemption, financial aid officers from some of 
the affected schools in 1997 proposed a set of guidelines to 
determine eligibility for institutional aid. These guidelines 
address issues like expected contributions from non-custodial 
parents, treatment of depreciation expenses which may reduce 
apparent income, valuation of rental properties, and unusually 
high medical expenses. However, a number of schools were 
reluctant to join the discussions because of fears about the 
expiration of the exemption. In 1997, Congress extended the 
exemption again through September 30, 2001. The 1997 extension 
passed the Committee and the full House by voice vote. It 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
    Since that extension, the affected schools have made 
further progress. Seventeen prestigious colleges that were not 
part of the original overlap groups have joined the 
discussions. Thus, the exemption has encouraged these schools 
to adhere to need-blind admissions and need-based aid. That is 
particularly important when the cost of elite universities is 
increasingly beyond the reach of the middle class. See, e.g., 
Stuart Rojstaczer, ``Colleges Where the Middle Class Need Not 
Apply,'' The Washington Post, at A27, March 9, 2001. The 
presidents of the universities have tentatively agreed to a 
common set of principles affirming the primacy of need-based 
aid. In addition, they are discussing and testing guidelines 
based on the 1997 proposals of the financial aid officers. The 
presidents expect to announce agreement on the principles and 
guidelines in the next several months. In the past 2 months, 
Harvard, Princeton, and MIT have announced major new efforts to 
reduce the amount of loans that students must take out by 
substantially increasing their institutional grant aid. These 
efforts demonstrate that nothing in the exemption limits the 
ability of schools to respond to demonstrated need on an 
individual basis. As this progress shows, common treatment of 
these types of issues makes sense. The existing exemption has 
worked well so far. Progress is being made, and more schools 
are moving to need-blind admissions and need-based aid.
    The need-based financial aid system serves social goals 
that the antitrust laws do not adequately address--namely, 
making financial aid available to the broadest number of 
students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. Without it, 
the schools would be required to compete, through financial aid 
awards, for the very top students. Those very top students 
would get all of the aid available which would be more than 
their demonstrated need. The rest would get less than their 
demonstrated need or none at all. Ultimately, such a system 
would serve to undermine the principles of need-based aid and 
need-blind admissions. No student who is otherwise qualified 
ought to be denied the opportunity to go to one of the nation's 
most prestigious schools because of the financial situation of 
his or her family. H.R. 768 will help protect need-based aid 
and need-blind admissions and preserve that opportunity.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 768 was introduced by Rep. Lamar 
Smith (R-TX) on February 28, 2001, and was referred to the 
Judiciary Committee on the same day. On March 28, 2001, the 
Committee met in open session and reported the bill without 
amendment by voice vote (H. Rept. 107-32). On April 3, 2001, 
H.R. 768 passed the House on suspension of the rules by a vote 
of 414-0. On November 20, 2001, the bill was enacted into law 
after receiving the signature of President Bush (Public Law 
107-72).

H.R. 809, the ``Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 2001''

    Summary.--There are two primary federal antitrust statutes. 
Enacted in 1890, the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1-7) 
prohibits contracts or conspiracies in ``restraint of trade,'' 
or attempts toward market monopolization. The Clayton Act of 
1914 (15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 12-27) contains the damage provisions 
of the antitrust laws, and contains provisions requiring pre-
merger notification to antitrust authorities of specified 
acquisitions or merger. H.R. 809 makes miscellaneous changes to 
the antitrust laws. Three of these changes repeal outdated 
provisions; one clarifies a longstanding ambiguity regarding 
the application of the antitrust laws in the District of 
Columbia and the territories; and two correct typographical 
errors in recently passed laws.
    First, H.R. 809 repeals the Act of March 3, 1913, which 
required public proceedings for the taking of depositions for 
equitable suits brought by the United States under the Sherman 
Act. Second, the bill repeals provisions of the Panama Canal 
Act which bar the use of the Panama Canal to violators of U.S. 
antitrust laws.
    H.R. 809 also amends the Sherman Act to extend the 
prohibitions against monopolizing trade or commerce among the 
States or with foreign nations to monopolizing trade or foreign 
commerce in or among any U.S. Territories and the District of 
Columbia. In addition, the bill amends the Wilson Tariff Act of 
1894 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 8 and 9), which prohibits conspiracies in 
restraint of import trade, to repeal provisions that authorized 
any person injured in his business or property by this statute 
from recovering treble damages and the costs of litigation in 
Federal Circuit Court.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 809 was introduced by Committee 
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. on March 1, 2001. In 
addition to the Judiciary Committee, the bill was referred to 
the Committee on Armed Services. The Committee held a markup on 
March 8, 2001, and the bill was ordered favorably reported 
without amendment by voice vote (H. Rept. 107-17, part 1). H.R. 
809 was then referred to the Committee on Armed Services, which 
discharged the bill without further consideration. H.R. 809 was 
included without amendment in H.R. 2215, the 21st Century 
Department of Justice Authorization Act, and passed the House 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote on March 14, 2001. 
On November 2, 2002, this bill was signed into law by President 
Bush (Pub. Law 107-273).

H.R. 1253, the ``Free Market Antitrust Immunity Reform (FAIR) Act of 
        2001''

    Summary.--Ocean carriers and ports form the basis of an 
international trading system upon which America's economic 
vitality depends. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. merchandise exports 
and 85 percent of merchandise imports are carried over 
international shipping lanes, and in times of war ocean 
carriers play a critical transportation role. Because 
transportation costs are an important factor in the 
determination of market prices for goods shipped to and from 
the United States, the shipping industry directly affects the 
consumer choices of all Americans.
    To understand the discussion below, one must first 
understand the terms applied to the various participants in the 
ocean shipping industry. The businesses which own ships and 
sell the service of transporting cargo on those ships are known 
as carriers. While American carriers were central actors in 
this market for several decades, today all of the major 
carriers operating to and from the United States are foreign-
owned. The businesses which transport their goods on these 
carriers are commonly known as ``shippers.'' Shippers range in 
size from large retail operations like J.C. Penney or Wal-Mart 
to much smaller businesses. Carriers generally sell cargo space 
on their ships in relatively large units, and larger shippers 
generally receive lower rates. As a result, smaller shippers 
use several methods to consolidate their cargo into larger 
shipments in order to obtain lower rates. One of the primary 
methods that smaller shippers use is to ship through ``non-
vessel operating common carriers'' (known as ``NVOCCs'' or 
simply ``NVOs''). NVOs contract with carriers for larger cargo 
volumes, and then fill that space by consolidating numerous 
small shipments into one large shipment in order to obtain a 
volume-discounted rate.
    In addition to contracting with NVOs, shippers have also 
formed ``shippers'' associations'' of their own to obtain lower 
ocean transportation costs. Shippers' associations perform 
essentially the same consolidation and brokerage function as 
NVOs, but are generally owned cooperatively by shippers 
themselves. Finally, some shippers use businesses known as 
``freight forwarders'' or ``customs brokers'' to assist with 
their shipping needs. These businesses simply help shippers 
with the administrative burdens associated with importing or 
exporting goods. However, because freight forwarders and 
customs brokers do not consolidate transportation contracts on 
behalf of shippers, they are unable to obtain the discounted 
carrier transportation rates provided to shippers by NVOs and 
shippers' associations. All of these businesses conduct 
shipping activity through ports, which are more formally known 
as ``marine terminal operators.'' Shipping ports are owned by 
local governments, but are sometimes operated by private 
contractors selected by state or local governments. Some 
businesses also have their own private marine terminal 
facilities, but operations at these facilities are generally 
limited to the activities of the owning business and not open 
to the general public. Like ocean carriers, port authorities 
are exempt from antitrust scrutiny.
    Goods destined for export or import must be transported to 
and from ports for carriage. Interport transfer of goods is 
known as drayage. Trucking companies also transport cargo 
between ports and inland points. Truckers have long contended 
that ocean carriers occupy a dominant and unfair marketing 
position that has been used to set artificially low and 
discriminatory trucking prices. These trucking companies assert 
that ocean carriers abuse their antitrust immunity by 
collectively establishing secret ``voluntary rate guidelines'' 
which include inland transportation costs. According to 
trucking concerns, including the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, ocean carriers then contract with port drivers to 
deliver goods to and from ports at sub-market rates. Trucking 
businesses and unions which represent these drivers further 
contend that carriers discriminate against union truckers, and 
that these carriers use their dominant and united market 
position to extract unfair market concessions. Trucking 
interests further assert that this bargaining disparity is 
compounded by the fact that port drivers, the vast majority of 
whom operate as independent contractors, are prevented from 
organizing or taking collective action under federal law.
    Overcapacity has plagued the ocean shipping industry since 
its inception in the mid-1800s. This overcapacity arises for 
several reasons. The primary cause of shipping overcapacity is 
the presence of international policies designed to promote 
national-flag carriers and to promote indigenous shipbuilding 
capacity for employment purposes and to maintain maritime 
militarytransportation in time of war.\1\ Ocean liners are 
expensive to manufacture, requiring an extensive investment in both 
time and capital. Once built, ocean liners tend to last a long time, 
and their owners must use them for several years in order to recoup the 
costs of construction. In addition, these vessels cannot easily be 
converted to other uses in times of low demand. Thus, once transport 
ships are built, they tend to remain a part of total available capacity 
for several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ S. Rep. No. 105-61, at 3 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some governments have exacerbated overcapacity in the 
international shipping market by subsidizing their own liners. 
For example, Taiwan, the People's Republic of China, South 
Korea, and Japan provide direct and indirect financial support 
to domestic ocean carrier lines. This subsidization takes the 
form of both direct government ownership or payments or other 
favorable policies for national carrier owners. While there is 
growing international pressure to reassess whether ocean 
carriers should be accorded antitrust immunity, all other 
maritime nations currently exempt ocean carrier conferences and 
discussion groups from the application of antitrust or 
competition laws.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Supra, note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the late 1800s, overcapacity led to rate wars and 
vigorous competition among carriers. As early as 1875, carriers 
began to form ``conferences'' to privately and jointly set 
rates to avoid potentially self-destructive rate wars. From 
that time until World War I, the United States did not regulate 
these conferences. In the mid 1910s, Congress began to 
investigate these agreements and concluded that the conference 
system served the public interest by providing stability to 
U.S. ocean carriers and international commerce.\3\ Congress 
passed the Shipping Act of 1916 (``the 1916 Act'') to provide a 
statutory basis for this conclusion.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Id. In a 1915 report to Congress, the Alexander Committee, 
named after the then-Chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries, recommended providing legal protection to the conference 
system but also determined that conference practices should be 
regulated to ensure carriers did not abuse their market position at the 
expense of shippers.
    \4\ Shipping Act of 1916, ch. 451, 39 Stat. 728 (1916) (Those parts 
of the 1916 Act that have not been subsequently repealed are codified 
at 46 U.S.C. App. Sec. 801 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 1916 Act gave ocean carrier conferences antitrust 
immunity to set rates jointly. It also gave similar antitrust 
immunity to port authorities and operators. Recognizing the 
potential for anti-competitive practices associated with 
exempting carriers and port authorities from antitrust laws, 
the 1916 Act also established the United States Shipping Board, 
a predecessor of today's Federal Maritime Commission, to 
regulate the industry. The Board was given authority to review 
rates set by carrier conferences before they could take effect. 
The 1916 Act also created a common carrier obligation which 
required international shipping companies to carry the cargo of 
shippers on nondiscriminatory terms overseen by the Board.\5\ 
In subsequent judicial decisions, the Supreme Court broadly 
construed the scope of the antitrust immunity contained in the 
1916 Act. For example, in a 1932 decision, the Court held that 
carriers and their conferences can not be sued under the 
antitrust laws even if they failed to file their conference 
agreements with the regulating United States Shipping Board.\6\ 
Subsequently expansive interpretations of the 1916 Act 
triggered concern that the 1916 Act required legislative 
revision.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ A common carrier is required by law to convey passengers or 
freight without refusal if the approved fare or charge is paid in 
contrast to private or contract carriers. Black's Law Dictionary 275 
(6th ed. 1990).
    \6\ United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co., 284 U.S. 
474 (1932).
    \7\ See, e.g. Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570 
(1952) (in which the Court upheld a conference-set, dual-rate system 
against a private shipper seeking relief under the Sherman Act for 
anti-competitive practices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1961, Congress responded to these concerns by amending 
the Shipping Act of 1916. The 1961 legislation abolished the 
United States Shipping Board and replaced it with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (FMC) that exists today.\8\ In addition, 
Congress made important substantive changes to the 1916 Act in 
separate legislation known commonly as the ``1961 Amendments.'' 
\9\ Most importantly, the 1961 Amendments required the FMC to 
disapprove of any conference agreement it determined to be 
contrary to the public interest. The 1961 Amendments also 
instituted a mandatory public tariff filing system in order to 
give substance to the shipping companies' common carrier 
obligations. The public interest and mandatory public filing 
system expanded the FMC's authority to investigate and punish 
ocean carrier transgressions and authorized it to disapprove 
rates considered to be detrimental to United States commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 75 Stat. 840 (1961).
    \9\ Act of October 3, 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-346, 75 Stat. 762 
(1961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FMC subsequently issued regulations that specified the 
grounds upon which conference agreements would be considered 
inconsistent with the public interest. The regulations stated 
that agreements that were contrary to the pro-competitive goals 
of the antitrust laws would be considered presumptively 
invalid. In litigation stemming from the promulgation of these 
regulations, the Supreme Court began to narrow the antitrust 
exemption accorded to carrier conferences.\10\ Carriers 
asserted that this new policy substantially eroded their 
antitrust immunity and undermined the purposes of the 1916 Act. 
Carriers further contended that the FMC was ill-equipped to 
analyze the antitrust implications of carrier conference 
agreements and that this analysis resulted in costly and 
protracted delays.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See, e.g. Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 
U.S. 213 (1966). Federal Maritime Commission v. Aktiebol Svenska 
Amerika Linien, 390 U.S. 238 (1968).
    \11\ Senate Report, supra, note 8 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1984, Congress revisited the international shipping 
industry by enacting the Shipping Act of 1984 \12\ (``the 1984 
Act''). The 1984 Act represented the most substantive, 
comprehensive overhaul of the nation's shipping law since 1916. 
However, it maintained the basic compromise of the 1916 Act by 
preserving antitrust immunity for collective carrier 
ratesetting, while continuing to subject ocean carriers to 
common carrier obligations and continued regulatory scrutiny by 
the FMC. The principle innovation of the 1984 Act was to allow 
carriers to attempt to weaken the unity of carrier conferences 
by entering into contracts with individual shippers at rates 
discounted from established conference rates. The legislation 
also allowed conferences to enter into service contracts in 
which shippers receive a discounted rate (from the conference-
set schedule) in return for agreeing to ship a minimum amount 
of cargo with a particular carrier. However, the legislation 
specified that if a carrier entered into such service 
contracts, it had to offer the same terms to all similarly 
situated shippers and further required that these rates be 
publicly disclosed. The 1984 Act made several other important 
changes. The legislation strengthened carrier antitrust 
immunity by explicitly protecting carriers from the Clayton 
Antitrust Act. In addition, the 1984 Act formally recognized 
the existence of NVOs and shippers' associations, and gave them 
substantive rights to petition the FMC in instances of carrier 
violations. Finally, the 1984 Act set up an Advisory Commission 
to study the legislation's impact after it had been in effect 
for five and a half years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Shipping Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-237, 98 Stat. 67 
(codified at 46 U.S.C. App. Sec. 1701 et seq.,) repealed by the Ocean 
Shipping Reform Act of 1998, 112 Stat.1902 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since passage of the 1984 Act, the market power of 
traditional carrier conferences has declined. To some extent, 
conferences have been replaced by broader groups of carriers 
commonly known as discussion agreements. These broader groups 
are not officially recognized in either the statute or FMC 
regulations, but they are arguably encompassed within the 
statutory term ``cooperative working agreements'' defined in 
the 1984 Act. As with conferences, these agreements operate 
under protection from antitrust laws, but membership includes 
independent shippers as well as traditional conference 
carriers. In addition, the collective ratemaking authority of 
these agreements is limited to nonbinding recommendations. 
Shippers have expressed continued concern about the power of 
discussion agreements in a seller's market. While discussion 
agreements are purportedly voluntary bodies without joint 
ratemaking authority, some industry analyst assert that, as a 
practical matter, these bodies set rates jointly.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See Robert J. Bowman, Maritime Reform Will Re-Make Shipper-
Carrier Relationships, Global Logistics and Supply Chain Strategies, 
January/February, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Advisory Commission established by the 1984 Act filed 
its report in April of 1992. Although it did not come to a 
consensus, the Commission report highlighted a number of key 
concerns by various industry participants. These conclusions 
formed the basis of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 
(OSRA).\14\ OSRA's principle reform was to permit carriers to 
enter into service contracts with individual shippers on a 
confidential basis.\15\ In addition, carriers were no longer 
required to provide the same rates to other similarly-situated 
shippers. Rather than issuing mandatory rate guidelines, 
conferences were required only to publish voluntary 
schedules.\16\ Under OSRA, carrier conferences could continue 
to discuss and jointly set rates without losing their antitrust 
immunity. The 1998 Act did not afford the same rights to NVOs 
and other participants in discussion groups. NVOs may enter 
into confidential service contracts with carriers when they buy 
space, but they must still publicly disclose their shipping 
contracts through a public tariff filing system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-258, 112 
Stat. 1902 (codified as amended at 46 U.S.C. et seq. (2000)).
    \15\ See Paul Edelman, The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, Intl. 
Trade L. J., Summer 2000.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, OSRA expressly permits ocean carriers to set rates 
they will charge for inland transportation through ``joint 
rates by a conference, joint venture, or an association of 
ocean common carriers.'' \17\ Providing antitrust exemption to 
permit carriers to jointly set inland transportation rates in a 
noncompetitive context is strenuously opposed by independent 
transportation providers and trucking organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ 46 U.S.C. Sec. 1702 (11) and (12) (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While all other maritime nations have retained antitrust 
immunity for ocean carriers, the scope of this privilege has 
received increased scrutiny in recent years. The European 
Union, for example, has moved away from granting broad 
antitrust immunity for carriers to set shipping and inland 
transportation rates. Earlier this year, a European Court held 
that European carrier conferences were prohibited from 
collectively establishing joint inland transportation 
rates.\18\ This holding directly conflicts with existing U.S. 
law. International organizations, such as the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes the 
world's industrialized economies, have pointedly questioned the 
economic justification for continued exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ In Case T-96/95, Judgment of the Court of First Instance 
(Third Chamber), para. 12, (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, on April 22, 2002, the OECD issued a report 
recommending the abolition of antitrust immunity for ocean 
carriers.\19\ The report's authors concluded that they had 
``not found convincing evidence that the practice of discussing 
and/or fixing rates and surcharges among competing carriers 
offers more benefits than costs to shippers and customers.'' 
\20\ The report also made little distinction between carrier 
conferences and less formal discussion agreements, terming the 
latter ``soft cartels.'' Finally, the report concluded that 
``antitrust exemptions for [carrier] conference price-fixing no 
longer serve their stated purpose * * * and are no longer 
relevant.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 
Competition Policy in Liner Shipping: Final Report, April 16, 2002.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id. at 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1253 would lift the antitrust exemption currently 
accorded to ocean carriers which transport goods to and from 
the United States. The bill would not affect the antitrust 
exemption currently provided to port authorities. During the 
106th Congress, the Judiciary Committee held a legislative 
hearing on H.R. 3138, the ``Free Market Antitrust Immunity 
Reform (FAIR) Act of 1999.''
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1253 was introduced by Chairman 
Sensenbrenner on March 27, 2001. The following witnesses 
testified at the hearing: Charles James, Assistant Attorney 
General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of 
Justice; James P. Hoffa, President, International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters; Robert Coleman, President, Pacific Coast 
Forwarders and Customs Association; and Christopher Koch, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, World Shipping Council. 
H.R. 1253 received no further Committee consideration.

H.R. 1407, to amend title 49, United States Code, to permit air 
        carriers to meet and discuss their schedules in order to reduce 
        flight delays, and for other purposes

    Summary.--The Sherman Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1-7) 
prohibits contracts or conspiracies in ``restraint of trade,'' 
or attempts toward market monopolization. These provisions 
prohibit competitors from joint rate-setting or other practices 
which might be considered anticompetitive. On August 31, 1984, 
the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) issued an order granting 
antitrust immunity to airlines to meet and discuss their 
schedules. This action was taken to alleviate aviation system 
congestion and to reduce flight delays following the air 
traffic controller strike of 1981. Several airlines availed 
themselves of this immunity, but CAB's authority to grant 
antitrust immunity passed to the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) after its abolition in 1984. DOT extended antitrust 
immunity for airlines to discuss and set schedules in 1987, and 
in 1989, the Department of Justice was provided authority to 
grant antitrust immunity in this area. No further extensions 
were granted by the Department of Justice.
    H.R. 1407 amends Federal aviation law to authorize an air 
carrier to file with the Attorney General a request for: (1) 
authority to discuss with one or more other air carriers or 
foreign air carriers agreements or cooperative arrangements 
limiting flights at an airport during a time period when 
scheduled air transportation exceeds airport capacity; and (2) 
approval of such agreements or cooperative arrangements with 
respect to such limits on interstate air transportation. The 
bill also would direct the Attorney General, notwithstanding 
U.S. antitrust laws, to approve such requests if the following 
conditions are met. First, these discussions and resulting 
agreements are not adverse to the public interest. Second, 
these agreements will facilitate voluntary adjustments in air 
carrier schedules that could lead to a substantial reduction in 
travel delays and improvement of air transportation service to 
the public. Third, these arrangements will not substantially 
lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Finally, any 
resulting reduction in delays achieved by these agreements 
cannot be obtained by any other immediately available means.
    Furthermore, H.R. 1407 would authorize the Attorney General 
to: (1) approve such agreements and cooperative arrangements 
only if each air carrier or foreign air carrier providing 
service or seeking to provide service to an airport under such 
an agreement or cooperative arrangement has agreed to it; and 
(2) impose any terms or conditions on any approved agreement 
that are needed to protect the public interest and to protect 
air service to an airport that has less than .25 percent of the 
total annual boardings in the United States (non-hub and small 
hub airports). The bill would explicitly prohibit participants 
in approved discussions from: (1) discussing or entering into 
agreements regarding rates, fares, charges, or in-flight 
services; or (2) discussing particular city pairs, or 
submitting to other air carriers or foreign air carriers 
information on their proposed service or schedules in a fashion 
that indicates the involvement of city pairs.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1407 was introduced by Rep. Don 
Young (R-AK) and 26 co-sponsors on April 4, 2001. The bill 
sequentially referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the Committee on the Judiciary. On May 15, 
2001, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
reported H.R. 1407 with amendment by voice vote. It was 
referred to the Judiciary Committee on May 23, 2001, and was 
ordered favorably reported without amendment by voice vote on 
June 20, 2001. (H. Rept. 107-77, Part II). The bill was then 
placed on the Union Calender, but received no further 
consideration by the House.

H.R. 1542, the ``Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 
        2001''; H.R. 1697, the ``Broadband Competition and Incentives 
        Act of 2001''; H.R. 1698, the ``American Broadband Competition 
        Act of 2001''; H.R. 2120, the ``Broadband Antitrust Restoration 
        and Reform Act''

    Summary.--The version of H.R. 1542 which passed the floor 
on February 27, 2002, contained versions of the two amendments 
which were adopted by the Judiciary Committee. These amendments 
were negotiated between the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce 
Committees. The first amendment provides that, not less than 30 
days before offering interLATA high speed data service or 
Internet backbone service in an in-region State, a Bell 
operating company shall submit to the Attorney General a 
statement expressing the intention to commence providing such 
service, providing a description of the service to be offered, 
and identifying the geographic region in which the service will 
be offered. This statement shall not be made public except as 
may be relevant to any administrative or judicial proceeding.
    This amendment is important because of the long and 
checkered antitrust history of the telecommunications market. 
H.R. 1542 would eliminate the need to go through a regulatory 
process in deploying broadband, as the RBOCs will continue to 
be required to do for telephone services, and this amendment 
mandates that the antitrust enforcers at the Department of 
Justice will get 30 days notice before such service is offered.
    The second amendment provides that the savings clause found 
in section 601(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall 
be interpreted to mean that the antitrust laws are not repealed 
by, not precluded by, not diminished by, and not incompatible 
with the Communications Act of 1934, this Act, or any law 
amended by either such Act. This amendment, a version of which 
was adopted by the Judiciary Committee, is a response to 
concerns raised about any conflicting, confusing, or 
contradictory language found in the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals' opinion in Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp., 222 F. 3d 
390 (7th Cir. 2000). In Goldwasser, the Seventh Circuit Court 
of Appeals construed the savings clause found in section 
601(b)(1) (47 U.S.C. Sec. 152 note) of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996 (P.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56).


            The Telecommunications Act of 1996
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 arose from an antitrust 
consent decree. That consent decree, the Modified Final 
Judgement (MFJ), prevented the Regional Bell Operating 
Companies (RBOCs) from entering the long distance business 
because of their monopoly control over the local exchange. 
Congress structured the 1996 Act to offer the RBOCs a basic 
trade: the RBOCs were to open their local exchanges to 
competitors for interconnection and, in return, they were to be 
allowed entry into the long distance market.
    In particular, it added a new Sec. 271 to the 
Communications Act to provide criteria and a process for 
scrutinizing RBOC efforts to open their local monopolies. 47 
U.S.C. 271. Given the Justice Department's unique expertise in 
competitive matters, Congress expressly provided within 271 
that the Department would review RBOC compliance with the 
market-opening provisions of the act and that the Federal 
Communications Commission would give the Department's analysis 
substantial weight in making its decision with respect to an 
RBOC application to provide long distance service. 47 U.S.C. 
271(d)(2)(A). These provisions were included at the insistence 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. In providing this role for 
the Department, Congress sought to expand the Department's 
traditional enforcement authority in an effort to prevent 
anticompetitive harms.
    During the 5 years since enactment of the 1996 Act, the 
Department has fulfilled its statutory obligations in reviewing 
RBOC applications for entry into long distance service. In 
fact, after reviewing each of the first five petitions filed by 
RBOCs under the 1996 Act, the Department concluded that none of 
the RBOCs met its obligation under the act. The FCC concurred 
and ultimately denied each of the first five RBOC petitions.
    In 2000, the Justice Department recommended denial of two 
applications based on antitrust concerns--one involving SBC, 
the other involving Verizon. In each instance, the applicant 
withdrew and resubmitted its application, in an effort to 
remedy the antitrust concerns raised by the Justice Department. 
In five cases, including the two resubmitted applications--New 
York, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Massachusetts--the 
Department did not recommend rejection, but did indicate 
problems that needed to be addressed before approval. In those 
five instances, the FCC approved the applications. Thus, the 
Justice Department's Sec. 271 opinion has essentially 
determined the outcome of each application that the RBOCs have 
filed to date.


            Telecommunications Since the 1996 Act
    President Clinton signed the 1996 Act on February 8, 1996. 
At that time, the Internet was in its infancy. Most observers 
thought that the RBOCs would remain separate companies, that 
they would begin competing in long distance quickly, and that 
they might enter the cable business. By the same token, most 
observers thought that the long distance companies would remain 
separate companies, that they would begin competing in local 
service quickly, and that they probably would not enter the 
cable business. As for the cable companies, most observers 
thought that they would remain separate companies, that they 
might enter the telephone business, and that they would face 
substantial competition in the cable business from satellite 
companies and telephone companies.
    In the 5 years since the 1996 Act was signed, the Internet 
has changed everything. At that time, it was a technological 
marvel that was just becoming available to ordinary people and 
was hardly used for commerce. Since then, it has become a means 
for conducting a substantial and ever growing amount of 
commerce.
    In 1996, data traffic was not a substantial portion of the 
long distance business. Estimates vary as to what the 
percentage was, but it was probably less than 10%. Today, it is 
probably more than 50%. The demand keeps exploding. As a 
result, being a carrier of voice (i.e. traditional telephone 
calls) has become relatively less important and being a carrier 
of data has become relatively more important. Moreover, it is 
now possible to transmit voice telephone calls over the 
Internet thus blurring the distinction between voice and data.
    As anyone who has used the Internet knows, it can be 
frustratingly slow depending on what technology one is using. 
Both cable companies and telephone companies are upgrading 
their networks in many areas. At the same time, both of these 
technologies are getting better and faster, and they are also 
becoming capable of carrying voice (i.e. telephone calls), 
video (i.e. cable programming), and data (i.e. Internet 
content) through the same pipe. This is what is referred to as 
``convergence'' of the technologies.
    Most telecommunications companies, irrespective of whether 
they started as RBOCs, long distance companies, cable 
companies, or something else, now think that their future lies 
in being capable of providing a package of all of the 
``convergent'' services on a global basis. Because getting into 
a new part of this business from scratch requires massive 
investment, many companies have decided to buy another company 
rather than build from scratch. That has led to a wave of 
mergers.
    First, the RBOCs began to merge with each other. Bell 
Atlantic bought Nynex and GTE. SBC bought Pacific Telesis and 
Ameritech. Then, new competitors began to buy existing 
companies. WorldCom, a relatively new local competitor, bought 
MCI, one of the major long distance companies. WorldCom also 
tried to buy Sprint, but the deal failed because of antitrust 
concerns. Qwest, a relatively new long distance competitor, 
bought USWest, an RBOC.
    Finally, AT&T;, the biggest of the old line long distance 
companies, bought Tele-Communications, Inc. (``TCI'') and 
MediaOne. TCI and MediaOne were two of the largest cable 
companies in the nation. These mergers gave AT&T; ownership of 
many cable lines going into American homes. Again, estimates of 
the percentage vary depending on who is counting. At the same 
time, Microsoft has purchased a stake in AT&T; as part of an 
effort to accelerate the deployment of broadband services 
across the country.
    When Congress was considering the 1996 Act, most observers 
thought that controlling the transmission of telephone voice 
calls was the future. Now, most observers believe that 
controlling broadband communications lines, be they phone or 
cable, is the future. H.R. 1542 seeks to allow the RBOCs to 
leverage their monopoly control of the local exchange to 
control the broadband future.


            The Provisions of H.R. 1542
    Fundamentally, H.R. 1542, as reported by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, eliminates several of the most important 
restrictions on the monopoly power of the incumbent local 
exchange carriers. In addition, with respect to data, it 
completely undoes the basic trade that made the 1996 Act 
possible: the RBOCs would no longer have to open their networks 
in order to offer long distance data service.
    Section 4(a) of H.R. 1542 creates a new Sec. 232 of the 
Communications Act of 1934. Subsection (a) of that new 232 
provides for a sweeping prohibition of any Federal 
Communications Commission or State limits of any kind on any 
high speed data service, Internet backbone service, Internet 
access service, or network elements used to provide such 
services. Section 3(a) of H.R. 1542 defines the terms ``high 
speed data service,'' ``Internet backbone service,'' and 
``Internet access service'' in very broad terms. For example, 
high speed data service is defined as any packet-switched or 
successor technology that transmits information at a speed 
generally not less than 384 kilobits per second. This 
definition could easily include voice transmission over the 
Internet. The desire to let the Internet grow unfettered is 
understandable. However, this sweeping language could eliminate 
even basic anti-fraud protections as well as many other 
consumer protection statutes. In addition, this sweeping 
language could be read to eliminate the rights of the 
Commission and the State attorneys general to bring antitrust 
suits under 4, 4C, and 11 of the Clayton Act. 15 U.S.C. 15, 
15c, & 21.
    Section 4(b) of H.R. 1542 creates a new subsection (j) of 
Sec. 251 of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 251. Section 251 
sets forth the basic obligations of RBOCs and other incumbent 
local exchange carriers to open their local exchanges for 
competitors to interconnect. The new 251(j) contains exemptions 
that would generally eliminate their obligations to share the 
fiber optic parts of their network, to provide unbundled 
network elements for high speed data service, and to provide 
access to remote terminals as an unbundled network element. 
These obligations on incumbent local exchange carriers allow 
competitors the ability to provide competing high speed data 
service. In short, this provision allows the incumbents 
effectively to leverage their monopoly control over the local 
exchange and exclude competition in high speed data service. 
That is troublesome enough, but taken together with the broad 
definition of high speed data service, it could represent the 
potential remonopolization of the industry.
    Subsection 6(a) of H.R. 1542 inserts high speed data 
service and Internet access service into the definition of 
incidental interLATA services contained in Sec. 271(g) of the 
act. 47 U.S.C. 271(g). Under 271(b)(3), the RBOCs are allowed 
to provide incidental interLATA services without meeting the 
antimonopoly provisions of 271. 47 U.S.C. 271(b)(3). Thus, this 
provision moves high speed data service and Internet access 
service out of the 271 process altogether and allows the RBOCs 
to start providing them immediately without any further review 
by the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications 
Commission, or the States. Given the broad definitions of these 
terms, this provision undoes much of the basis of the 1996 Act. 
More specifically, this language would eliminate the role of 
the Department of Justice in reviewing much activity that would 
currently fall within the parameters of 271.
    Subsection 6(b) of H.R. 1542 creates a new Sec. 271(k) that 
would prohibit the RBOCs from offering in any in-region State 
any interLATA voice telecommunications service obtained by 
means of a high speed data access or Internet access service. 
This provision attempts to maintain the 271 restrictions for 
voice in the face of the broad definitions for the two key 
terms. However, it does not provide any definition of the term 
``interLATA voice telecommunications service.'' Apparently, 
this would be left to the FCC. Thus, in what claims to be a 
deregulatory bill, the purportedly fundamental distinction 
between voice and data is left undefined. However, regardless 
of how voice or data are defined or who defines them, this 
provision is intended to, and will, change the parameters of 
what the Justice Department will review in 271 applications.
    Finally, subsection 6(c)(2) of H.R. 1542 eliminates the 
act's requirement that the RBOCs must conduct their interLATA 
information services through a separate affiliate. The act's 
definition of ``information services'' appears to include high 
speed data access or Internet access service. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 
153(20). The separate affiliate requirement was a key provision 
designed to ensure that the RBOCs could not leverage their 
monopoly power over the local exchange to other lines of 
business. The elimination of this requirement simply adds to 
the elimination of any restriction on that monopoly power.
    In short, H.R. 1542, as reported by the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, reverses many of the basic antimonopoly provisions 
of the 1996 Act. In doing so, it eliminates potential antitrust 
actions by the FCC and the States and substantially limits the 
role of the Department of Justice in reviewing the monopoly 
power of the RBOCs.


            The Goldwasser Case
    One recent development in the courts particularly interests 
this Committee. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 included an 
antitrust savings clause that read as follows: ``Except as 
provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) [which are not relevant 
here], nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act 
shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the 
applicability of any of the antitrust laws.'' Sec. 601(b)(1) of 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It also included a general 
savings clause that read as follows: ``This act and the 
amendments made by this act shall not be construed to modify, 
impair, or supersede Federal, State, or local law unless 
expressly so provided in such act or amendments.'' 601(c)(1) of 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Until recently, it was 
widely thought that this language made clear that nothing in 
the Telecommunications Act in any way effected any implied 
repeal of the antitrust laws.
    Recently, however, the Seventh Circuit effectively read 
these savings clauses out of the law in Goldwasser v. Ameritech 
Corp., 222 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2000). It held:
    [S]uch a conclusion [i.e., that the complaint at issue 
alleged a freestanding antitrust claim] would then force us to 
confront the question whether the procedures established under 
the 1996 Act for achieving competitive markets are compatible 
with the procedures that would be used to accomplish the same 
result under the antitrust laws. In our view, they are not. The 
elaborate system of negotiated agreements and enforcement 
established by the 1996 Act could be brushed aside by any 
unsatisfied party with the simple act of filing an antitrust 
action. Court orders in those cases could easily conflict with 
the obligations the State commissions or the FCC imposes under 
the sec. 252 agreements. The 1996 Act is, in short, more 
specific legislation that must take precedence over the general 
antitrust laws, where the two are covering precisely the same 
field.
    This is not the kind of question that requires further 
development of a factual record, either on summary judgment or 
at a trial. We therefore agree with the district court that it 
was proper for resolution under rule 12(b)(6). There are many 
markets within the telecommunications industry that are already 
open to competition and that are not subject to the detailed 
regulatory regime we have been discussing; as to those, the 
antitrust savings clause makes it clear that antitrust suits 
may be brought today. At some appropriate point down the road, 
the FCC will undoubtedly find that local markets have also 
become sufficiently competitive that the transitional 
regulatory regime can be dismantled and the background 
antitrust laws can move to the fore. Our holding here is simply 
that this is not what Congress has mandated at this time for 
the ILEC duties that are the subject of the Goldwasser 
complaint. The district court thus correctly rejected the 
plaintiffs' antitrust theory.

          Id. at 401-02. The Committee believes that this 
        holding is wrong and plainly misstates the clear intent 
        of Congress in both savings clauses. However, for the 
        moment at least, it is the law in the Seventh Circuit. 
        Another case raising the same issue, Intermedia 
        Communications, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 
        Inc., is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit. 
        In that case, the Department of Justice and the Federal 
        Communications Commission have filed a joint amicus 
        brief arguing that the Seventh Circuit wrongly decided 
        Goldwasser with respect to this issue.

            Chairman Sensenbrenner's Amendment
    Chairman Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to address two 
of the antitrust problems in the bill. First, the Sensenbrenner 
amendment restores current law in Sec. 271 of the 
Communications Act with respect to Bell entry into long 
distance data service except that it makes the Justice 
Department the decisionmaker rather than the Federal 
Communications Commission. Second, it adds language clarifying 
the meaning of the antitrust savings clause in the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and reversing the 
misinterpretation of that clause in the Goldwasser case. The 
Committee adopted the Chairman's amendment by voice vote.
    A great deal of confusion has arisen over the meaning of 
the part of the Sensenbrenner amendment that addresses the 
Goldwasser decision. In light of that confusion, the Committee 
wishes to clarify the following matters. First, the 
clarification is directed only at that part of the Goldwasser 
decision that is quoted above in section E. This clarification 
is not intended to disturb other parts of the decision. Second, 
the clarification is not limited to the local exchange context, 
but would apply to any case in which a party claimed that the 
Communications Act in some way effected an implied repeal of 
the antitrust laws.
    Third, over the years, case law has added to antitrust law 
in ways that are not explicitly set out in the antitrust 
statutes, like the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the filed 
rate doctrine, the State action immunity doctrine, and other 
similar matters. The Committee believes these matters are part 
of the ``rights, obligations, powers, and remedies'' provided 
under the antitrust laws that the language in the provision 
intends to save. The provision is not intended to limit or 
eliminate these or other similar doctrines.
    Fourth, parties are free to sign contracts that waive their 
rights to bring antitrust actions or actions under the 
Communications Act. This language is not intended to override 
any otherwise valid contract provision that makes such a 
waiver.
    Finally, the Committee emphasizes again the general notion 
that the quoted portion of Goldwasser upset. With respect to 
conduct within the ambit of the Communications Act, the Act and 
the antitrust laws are parallel and complementary remedy 
systems. Conduct may violate the Act and not the antitrust 
laws; it may violate the antitrust laws and not the Act; it may 
violate both; or it may violate neither. When an action like 
Goldwasser is filed alleging conduct violating both the Act and 
the antitrust laws, a court should analyze the conduct to see 
if it violates the Act, and it should separately analyze the 
conduct to see if it violates the antitrust laws. The Committee 
understands the portion of Goldwasser quoted in section E, 
above, to hold that such conduct--at least if it relates to an 
incumbent local exchange carrier's obligations under Sec. 251 
of the Act before the local exchange market becomes 
competitive--can only be analyzed under the Act and not the 
antitrust laws.
    That is not what Congress intended in 1996. The courts may 
not simply read the antitrust savings clause out of the law. 
Accordingly, the Committee believes this clarification is in 
order to make it clear to the courts that the antitrust savings 
clause meant what its plain language said.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Tauzin introduced H.R. 1542 
on April 4, 2001. Congressman Conyers introduced H.R. 1697 on 
May 3, 2001. Congressman Cannon introduced H.R. 1698 on May 3, 
2001. Congressman Cannon introduced H.R. 2120 on June 12, 2001. 
All three bills were referred to the Committee. On May 22, 
2001, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1697, and H.R. 1698. 
The Committee received testimony from four witnesses: Honorable 
Terry Harvill, Commissioner, Illinois Commerce Commission, 
Chicago, Illinois; Honorable Bill Barr, Executive Vice 
President and General Counsel, Verizon, Washington, DC; Mr. 
Jeff Blumenfeld, Partner, Blumenfeld & Cohen, Washington, DC; 
and Mr. John Malone, President and Chief Executive Officer, The 
Eastern Management Group, Bedminster, New Jersey.
    The Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1542 on June 5, 2001. 
The Committee received testimony from four witnesses: Honorable 
Tom Tauke, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and External 
Affairs, Verizon, Washington, DC; Mr. Clark McLeod, Chairman 
and Co-Chief Executive Officer, McLeodUSA, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; 
Ms. Margaret Greene, Executive Vice President for Regulatory 
and External Affairs, BellSouth Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia; 
and Mr. Jim Glassman, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise 
Institute, Washington, DC.
    On June 13, 2001, the Committee conducted a markup session 
on H.R. 1542 and H.R. 2120. The Committee defeated the motion 
to report on H.R. 2120, by a 15-19 vote. The Committee 
adversely ordered reported, amended H.R. 1542, by voice vote. 
On June 18, 2001, the Committee filed its report, H. Rept. 107-
83 pt. II. On February 27, 2002, the House passed H.R. 1542, by 
a vote of 273-157.

H.R. 3288, the ``Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports (FANS) Act of 
        2001''

            Review of Major League Baseball's antitrust status and 
                    documents submitted by the Office of the 
                    Commissioner of Major League Baseball
    Summary.--The Committee on the Judiciary has maintained 
thorough oversight over the operation of Major League Baseball 
(MLB). While the jurisdiction of the Committee includes the 
operation of other professional sports leagues, MLB is the only 
professional sports league that enjoys a judicially created 
exemption to the antitrust laws. On November 6, 2001, MLB voted 
to contract two teams from the 2002 season roster to address 
the League's alleged financial crisis. As a result H.R. 3288, 
the ``Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports (FANS) Act of 
2001,'' which would have applied the antitrust laws to the 
contraction or relocation of Major League clubs, was introduced 
on November 14, 2001. On December 6, 2001, the Committee 
conducted a legislative hearing on H.R. 3288 that included: a 
detailed submission of financial statements by MLB; a careful 
review by the Committee to assess these and other related 
documents; and subsequent requests by the Committee for 
additional information. Although no legislative action was 
taken on H.R. 3288, MLB did not contract two teams from the 
2002 roster. In addition, wide concerns over inflated costs to 
baseball fans and supporting communities have been highlighted 
by: MLB's claim of financial peril and the increasing valuation 
of Major League Club sales; the increasing value of player's 
salaries; and threats of a labor strike by the Major League 
Baseball Players Association.

            History of Major League Baseball's antitrust status
    MLB is the only professional sport that enjoys a virtual 
exemption from the antitrust laws. In 1922, the Supreme Court 
held that ``exhibitions of baseball'' were not interstate 
commerce for the purposes of federal antitrust 
jurisdiction.\22\ In 1953 the Court reaffirmed that position, 
noting that ``if there are evils in this field which now 
warrant application of the antitrust laws it should be by 
legislation'' and not by judicial action.\23\ In 1972, the 
Court opined that the antitrust-exempt status of professional 
baseball an ``anomaly'' and an ``aberration'' in the 
application of the antitrust laws--both to business generally 
and to professional sports particularly, but that the 
``inconsistency or illogic'' of that situation would have to be 
``remedied by Congress and not by this Court.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of 
professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922).
    \23\ Toolson v. New York Yankess, 346 U.S. at 356, 357 (1953).
    \24\ Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. at 282, 284, 258 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Legislative history of baseball antitrust
    In the 103rd Congress, (1) the Senate Judiciary Committee 
voted not to report S. 500 (Sen. Metzenbaum, ``Professional 
Baseball Reform Act of 1993''); (2) H.R. 108 (Rep. Bilirakis, a 
measure to make the antitrust laws applicable to professional 
baseball teams and the leagues of which they are a part 
remained pending in the Economic and Commercial Law 
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee; (3) several 
measures--each titled ``Baseball Fans Protection Act''--to 
``encourage serious negotiation between the players and the 
owners of major league baseball'' by amending the Clayton Act 
to make the antitrust laws applicable to ``unilateral terms or 
conditions * * * imposed by any party that has been subject to 
an agreement between the owners of major league baseball and 
labor organizations representing the players of major league 
baseball * * *,'' were introduced immediately prior to or at 
the beginning of the 1994 baseball strike; (4) September 1994 
hearings before the Economic and Commercial Law Subcommittee of 
the House Committee on the Judiciary focused on labor-specific 
measures; (5) in November, 1994, H.R. 4994 (Rep. Synar, 
``Baseball Fans and Communities Protection Act,'' which 
appliedthe antitrust laws to MLB's labor negotiations but exempted 
``non-major league baseball club[s]'') was reported by the Judiciary 
Committee (H.Rept. 103-871), but not acted upon; and (6) S. 2380 (Sen. 
Metzenbaum, ``Baseball Fans Protection Act of 1994,'' which applied the 
antitrust laws to MLB's labor negotiations) was placed on the Senate 
calendar, but not acted upon by the full Senate. More than a dozen 
other measures that would have applied the antitrust laws to were 
introduced in the 104th Congress, many of which coincided with the 1994 
Baseball labor strike.
    In 1998 (105th Congress), the ``Curt Flood Act,'' Pub. L. 
105-297, was enacted (S. 53, 105th Congress). The Curt Flood 
Act establishes a new section Sec. 27 to the Clayton Act (15 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 12 et seq.) to clarify that major league 
baseball players are covered under the federal antitrust laws 
to the same extent as are other professional athletes. Although 
questions over the Act's efficacy have not been tested, the Act 
defines ``major league baseball players'' as persons who are or 
were parties to major league players' contracts, and 
specifically does not purport to affect in any way, inter alia: 
(1) professional baseball's relations with ``organized 
professional minor league baseball''; or (2) ``the agreement 
between organized professional major league baseball teams and 
the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues 
(``Professional Baseball Agreement'').'' The Act is intended to 
provide more autonomy for major league players by allowing them 
to market themselves as free agents and has little impact on 
MLB's antitrust status.
    The only statute which exempts professional sports leagues 
other than baseball from the antitrust laws is the Sports 
Broadcasting Act.\25\ This Act permits professional sports 
teams to pool their separate telecasting rights and the 
revenues received from these rights without violating the 
antitrust laws. As media rights are the most valuable economic 
contributor to the bottom line of individual sports franchises, 
this law plays a significant role in the ongoing debate over 
MLB's decision to contract two Major League clubs. While it is 
widely known that MLB's richest teams are located in the 
largest media markets and its poorest teams are located in the 
smallest media markets, ``revenue sharing'' of broadcasting 
revenues, or the lack thereof, creates a severe anti-
competitive perception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ See 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1291 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Major League Baseball owners decide to contract the League
    On the evening of November 6, 2001, the Associated Press 
reported that the MLB owners had made the decisions that day to 
contract the League by two teams. According to the news report, 
the owners:

          * * * would not specify which cities would be cut * * 
        *. The vote was 28-2, with the Minnesota Twins and 
        Montreal Expos opposing contraction * * *. Montreal, 
        Minnesota and the Florida Marlins recently have been 
        mentioned as the likeliest candidates, while Oakland 
        and Tampa Bay were discussed earlier this year.
          ``It makes no sense for Major League Baseball to be 
        in markets that generate insufficient local revenues to 
        justify the investment in the franchise,'' commissioner 
        Bud Selig said. ``The teams to be contracted have a 
        long record of failing to generate enough revenues to 
        operate a viable major league franchise.''
          Baseball's decision reverses nearly a half-century of 
        expansion during which the major leagues grew from 16 
        teams in 1960 to 30 since 1998, when Arizona and Tampa 
        Bay were added.
          The amount of money that would be paid to the 
        eliminated teams was not discussed during the meeting.
          This would be the first contraction by Major League 
        Baseball since the National League shrank from 12 teams 
        to eight following the 1899 season. No major league 
        team has moved since the Washington Senators became the 
        Texas Rangers in 1972.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Associated Press Newswire Report, ``Owners vote to eliminate 
two MLB teams,'' November 6, 2001.

    Based on this news, the Committee recognized the necessity 
of examining the antitrust implications of a League 
contraction. The Committee requested a Congressional Research 
Service memorandum from the American Law Division addressing 
the Antitrust Status of MLB as well as the impact of H.R. 3288 
on the contraction or relocation of Major League clubs. H.R. 
3288 establishes a provision of the Clayton Act to apply the 
antitrust laws to the elimination or relocation of a Major 
League club in the same manner that the antitrust laws are 
applied to the elimination or relocation of a franchise in any 
other professional sports business affecting interstate 
commerce. The bill would apply only to the elimination or 
relocation of Major League clubs and would allow the antitrust 
exemption to remain for the balance of MLB's operations, 
notably revenue sharing authorized in the Sports Broadcasting 
Act and minor league operations. The advocates of the bill 
proposed it as a remedy under the idea that, except for MLB's 
antitrust exemption, a decision by MLB's owners to consolidate 
would be found by a court to violate the federal antitrust 
laws. However, removing MLB's antitrust exemption only for the 
purposes of Major League club contraction or relocation, could 
permit the owners to act unilaterally to contract or relocate a 
club without agreement by the other owners. Therefore, while 
H.R. 3288 is narrowly tailored to the contraction or relocation 
of Major League clubs and presumably would prevent the owners 
from voting to contract or relocate a Major League club, the 
bill would not necessarily provide a predictable or desirable 
outcome.

            December 6, 2001 hearing on anti-trust issues in Major 
                    League Baseball
    While it was noticed as a Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3288, 
the ``Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports (FANS) Act of 
2001,'' the Full Committee hearing on December 6, 2001,included 
a comprehensive examination of MLB's antitrust status, the effect of 
multi-million dollar player salary contracts, and the use of public 
funds for stadiums to house Major League clubs and possibly attract new 
Major League clubs. The Committee Chairman's opening statement provided 
an eloquent explanation of the Committee's intent.

          In 1922, the judicial branch of government was there 
        to help Major League Baseball. In a unique decision, 
        the United States Supreme Court held that baseball was 
        not a business and thus not subject to the antitrust 
        laws. With minor modification, baseball's antitrust 
        exemption has survived to this day. It is an exemption 
        enjoyed by none of the other major league sports. 
        Seventy-nine years ago Major League Baseball consisted 
        of 16 teams clustered in the Northeast and Midwest. 
        Players were paid what was generously described as a 
        pittance. Ballparks were privately owned, and genuine 
        fan loyalty was built upon stars playing with the same 
        team for most of their careers. Today 30 teams play in 
        major cities throughout the country except one, the 
        Nation's Capital. Players receive astronomical 
        salaries, the newer parks were largely built with 
        taxpayers' money, and free agency sends the stars from 
        one team to another almost before they can warm their 
        places in the dugout. The major argument for using 
        taxpayers' funds to build new stadiums has been the 
        economic boom brought to a community by having a Major 
        League Baseball team.
          At this hearing we will receive testimony that 
        baseball is in dire financial straits and that the 
        antitrust exemption should remain. One of the many 
        questions which baseball must answer is why so many 
        teams are in financial peril with the protection of 
        special legal status when major league football, 
        basketball and hockey teams are not? Perhaps the help 
        given to baseball by the Supreme Court in 1922 really 
        has not been so helpful after all. And another question 
        to be answered by baseball is how a sport which grosses 
        over $3 billion a year is still not a business when the 
        presence of a team obviously stimulates business 
        throughout the lucky communities.
          For years baseball has told Congress that it can heal 
        itself, and it obviously has not done so, even though 
        this year baseball has had record attendance and the 
        best World Series in history. The numbers do not add 
        up. Success on the field and at the box office should 
        bring success to the bottom line. So maybe the Supreme 
        Court's help in 1922 has outlived its usefulness, and 
        the market should be allowed to work in baseball like 
        it has in other major sports.

    Legislative History.--Witnesses testifying at the hearing 
were Mr. Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Commissioner of Major League 
Baseball (Commissioner), The Honorable Jesse Ventura, Governor 
of Minnesota (Governor), Mr. Jerry Bell, President, Minnesota 
Twins, and Mr. Steven A. Fehr, outside counsel for the Major 
League Baseball Players Association. Also, all Members of the 
Minnesota House delegation accepted an invitation to 
participate in this hearing.
    The first witness, the Commissioner, identified MLB's 
economic problems, and discussed MLB's decision to contract two 
teams to advance the long-term economic interests of 
professional baseball. The decision to contract teams was 
justified to eliminate MLB's most severe financial burdens. The 
Commissioner testified that ``the consolidated loss for all 
thirty clubs in 2001 will be approximately $519 million. 
Twenty-five clubs lost money and five made money.'' He provided 
further details of the losses and directed attention to written 
documents distributed at the hearing (see below). The 
Commissioner testified that H.R. 3288, as introduced, would not 
be helpful to MLB and would severely undermine the franchise 
stability league owners have worked to achieve. Additionally, 
the Commissioner questioned how far the removal of the 
exemption would go since there was a 1998 change to the 
exemption in the area of labor relations.
    Governor Jesse Ventura, the 38th governor of Minnesota, 
testified against eliminating the Minnesota Twins and 
criticized Major League Baseball's ``failed logic'' in support 
of eliminating the Twins.\27\ The Governor emphasized that, in 
order to rectify the MLB situation, Congress simply has to pass 
a law that ``says the Sherman Act applies to all businesses 
without exception,'' and to make clear that there is no 
exemption for MLB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Id. at 27-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee then heard testimony from Jerry Bell, 
President of the Minnesota Twins. Mr. Bell testified to the 
need for a new revenue sharing approach in MLB to increase 
prospects for improving local revenues for clubs such as the 
Twins. Mr. Bell specifically noted the severe lack of local 
revenues in Minnesota and testified that the only way to 
generate sufficient local revenue was with a new ballpark.
    Finally, the Committee heard testimony from Steven A. Fehr, 
Outside Counsel for the Major League Baseball Players 
Association. Mr. Fehr testified that the players fully 
supported the FANS Act of 2002, and oppose contraction within 
the league. Mr. Fehr agreed with Gov. Ventura that passing the 
bill would remove all doubt that MLB is subject to antitrust 
laws.

                            LIABILITY ISSUES

H.R. 2037, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

    Summary.--H.R. 2037, the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
Arms Act,'' provides protections for those in the firearms 
industry from lawsuits arising out of the criminal or unlawful 
acts of people who misuse their products. The legislation would 
allow Congress to prevent one or a few state courts from 
bankrupting the national firearms industry and undermining all 
citizens' right to bear arms.
    A gun, by its very nature, must be dangerous. Tort law, 
however, rests upon a moral foundation which presupposes that a 
product may not be defined as defective unless there is 
something ``wrong'' with the product, rather than with the 
product's user. However, in the last several years, lawsuits 
have been filed against the firearms industry on theories of 
liability that would hold those in the firearms industry liable 
for the actions of others who use their products in a criminal 
or unlawful manner. Such lawsuits threaten to separate tort law 
from its basis in personal responsibility, and to force 
firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy, leaving potential 
plaintiffs asserting traditional claims of product 
manufacturing defects unable to recover more than pennies on 
the dollar in federal bankruptcy court.
    Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible 
for the criminal and unlawful use of its products by others are 
attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been 
achieved by legislation and the democratic process. An equally 
destructive dynamic of such lawsuits is created when plaintiffs 
seek to obtain through the courts stringent limits on the sale 
and distribution of firearms beyond the court's jurisdictional 
boundaries. Under the currently unregulated tort system, a 
state lawsuit in a single county could destroy a national 
industry and deny citizens nationwide the ability to keep and 
bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. These complaints have 
the practical effect of shutting down interstate commerce in 
firearms, and Congress has the power to protect interstate 
commerce. Such lawsuits directly implicate core federalism 
principles articulated by the United States Supreme Court.
    H.R. 2037 would allow Congress to fulfill its 
constitutional duty and exercise its authority under the 
Commerce Clause to prevent a few state courts from bankrupting 
the national firearms industry and denying all Americans their 
fundamental right to self-defense.
    Legislative History.--Representative Stearns introduced 
H.R. 2037, the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,'' 
on May 25, 2001. The Judiciary Committee held a mark-up session 
on H.R. 2037 on October 2, 2002, and reported the bill 
favorably as amended by the yeas and nays: 18-7. The Committee 
filed its report on October 8, 2002, H. Rept. 107-727, Part II.

H.R. 2341, the ``Class Action Fairness Act of 2002''

    Summary.--H.R. 2341 provides meaningful improvements in 
litigation management by allowing federal courts to hear large 
interstate class actions and by establishing new protections 
for consumers against abusive class action settlements. In 
making these improvements, H.R. 2341 does not limit access to 
the courthouse or alter any existing state or federal 
substantive law. Furthermore, it will help prevent a handful of 
state courts from usurping the authority of other states and 
the rights of their citizens.
    First, H.R. 2341 amends the current federal diversity-of-
citizenship jurisdiction statute (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332)--to 
allow large interstate class actions to be adjudicated in 
federal courts. Currently, federal courts have jurisdiction 
over (a) lawsuits dealing with a federal question and (b) cases 
meeting current diversity jurisdiction requirements--matters in 
which all plaintiffs are citizens of jurisdictions different 
than all defendants, and each claimant has an amount in 
controversy in excess of $75,000. H.R. 2341 would change the 
diversity jurisdiction requirement for class actions, generally 
permitting access to federal courts in class actions where 
there is ``minimal diversity'' (that is, any member of the 
proposed class is a citizen of a state different from any 
defendant) and the aggregate amount in controversy among all 
class members exceeds $2 million. In that way, H.R. 2341 
recognizes that large interstate class actions deserve federal 
court access because they typically affect more citizens, 
involve more money, and implicate more interstate commerce 
issues than any other type of lawsuit.
    Secondly, it implements long needed protections for 
consumers against abusive settlements. These protections are 
established in the ``Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights'' 
(Bill of Rights), which is located in Section 3 of the bill. 
The Bill of Rights would: (1) establish new ``Plain English'' 
requirements (non-legal jargon) so that class members can 
better understand class action settlement notices and how these 
notices effect their rights; (2) enhance judicial scrutiny of 
coupon settlements; (3) provide judicial scrutiny over 
settlements that would result in a net monetary loss to 
plaintiffs; (4) prohibit unjustified payments, also known as 
bounties, to class representatives; and (5) protect out-of-
state class members against settlements that favor class 
members based upon geographic proximity to the courthouse.

            Federal diversity jurisdiction
    While federal courts have jurisdiction over questions or 
disputes concerning federal law, Article III of the 
Constitution empowers Congress to establish federal 
jurisdiction over any law when there is diversity--disputes 
``between citizens of different States.'' Diversity 
jurisdiction is premised on concerns that state courts might 
discriminate against out of state defendants. Since 1806, with 
some exceptions, the federal courts have followed the rule of 
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, which states that federal jurisdiction 
lies only where all plaintiffs are citizens of states different 
than all defendants.\28\ This is known as the ``complete 
diversity'' rule.\29\ In a class action, only the citizenship 
of the named plaintiffs is considered for determining 
diversity, which means that federal diversity jurisdiction will 
not exist if the named plaintiff is a citizen of the same state 
as the defendant, regardless of the citizenship of the rest of 
the class. See Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969). And, 
since the early days of the country, Congress has imposed a 
monetary threshold--now $75,000--for federal diversity 
claims.\30\ However, the amount in controversy requirement is 
satisfied in a class action only if all of the class members 
are seeking damages in excess of the statutory minimum.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).
    \29\ The Supreme Court has regularly recognized that the decision 
to require complete diversity, and to set a minimum amount in 
controversy, are political decisions not mandated by the Constitution. 
See, e.g., Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrian, 490 U.S. 826, 829 n.1 
(1989). It is therefore the prerogative of the Congress to broaden the 
scope of diversity jurisdiction to any extent it sees fit, as long as 
any two adverse parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states. 
See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530-31 (1967).
    \30\ See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a).
    \31\ See Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These jurisdictional statutes were originally enacted years 
ago, well before the modern class action arose, and they lead 
to perverse results. For example, under current law a citizen 
of one state may bring in federal court a simple $75,001 slip-
and-fall claim against a party from another state. But if a 
class of 25 million consumers living in all 50 states brings 
claims collectively worth $15 billion against the manufacturer, 
the lawsuit usually must be heard in state court. The current 
statutes also allow attorneys to game the system to keep class 
actions out of federal court. Attorneys often name irrelevant 
parties to their class actions in an effort to ``destroy 
diversity''--that is, to keep the case from qualifying for 
federal diversity jurisdiction. In fact, plaintiff's counsel 
have made statements about a case to prevent a defendant from 
removing the case to federal court (e.g., ``plaintiffs seek 
only a very small amount of money in this case''). After one 
year, however, the same counsel will recant those statements, 
since at that point, current statutes bar removal of the case 
to federal court.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Hearings on H.R. 1875 and 2005: the ``Interstate Class Action 
Jurisdiction Act of 1999'' and ``Workplace Goods Job Growth and 
Competitiveness Act of 1999'' Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 
106th Cong., 1st Sess. 57 (July 21, 1999) (prepared statement of John 
Beisner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Removal statute

    The general federal removal statute provides, inter alia, 
that any civil action brought in a State court of which U.S. 
district courts have original jurisdiction, may be removed by 
the defendant(s) to the appropriate Federal court.\33\ Removal 
is based on the same general assumption as diversity 
jurisdiction, that an out-of-state defendant may become a 
victim of local prejudice in State court.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a).
    \34\ See David P. Currie, Federal Jurisdiction at 140 (3rd ed. 
1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A defendant must file for removal to Federal court within 
30 days after receipt of a copy of the initial pleading (or 
service of summons if a pleading has been filed in court and is 
not required tobe served on the defendant).\35\ An exception 
exists beyond the 30-day deadline when the case stated by the initial 
pleading is not removable. If so, a notice of removal must be filed 
within 30 days of receipt by the defendant of ``a copy of an amended 
pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which it may first be 
ascertained that the case [is removable].'' In no event may a case 
where Federal jurisdiction is based on diversity be removed more than 
one year from commencement of the action.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(b).
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Act
    H.R. 2341 establishes the following six requirements to 
enhance the rights of members of a class action:
          (1) Judicial scrutiny over coupon and other noncash 
        settlements--requires the court to conduct a hearing to 
        determine whether a coupon or noncash settlement is 
        fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members;
          (2) Protections against net losses by class members--
        requires the court to make a written finding that non-
        monetary benefits to class members outweigh the 
        monetary loss of a proposed settlement in which any 
        class member is obligated to pay sums to class counsel 
        that would result in a net loss to the class member;
          (3) Protections against discrimination based on 
        geographic location--prohibits settlements providing 
        greater awards to class members on the basis they are 
        in closer geographic proximity to the court;
          (4) Prohibit the payment of bounties--prohibits 
        settlements providing additional awards to class 
        representatives other than awards approved by the court 
        for reasonable time or costs associated with the class 
        member's obligation as a class representative;
          (5) Clearer and simpler settlement information--
        establishes a new ``Plain English'' requirement for any 
        written and broadcast notices concerning a proposed 
        class action settlement; and
          (6) Pleading requirements for class actions--
        establishes the following pleading requirements for 
        class actions:
                  (a) The complaint shall specify with 
                particularity the nature and amount of all 
                relief sought on behalf of any class member, 
                and the nature of the injury allegedly caused 
                to members of the class.
                  (b) In actions asserting that the defendant 
                acted with a particular state of mind, the 
                complaint shall state with particularity the 
                facts, if proven, with respect to each alleged 
                act demonstrating that the defendant acted with 
                the required state of mind.
                  (c) Any defendant may move to dismiss a 
                complaint based on failure to comply with the 
                provisions of this section. All discovery shall 
                be stayed during the pendency of a motion to 
                dismiss.
    H.R. 2341 expands federal diversity jurisdiction by 
amending 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 to grant original jurisdiction in 
federal court to hear interstate class actions where any member 
of the proposed class is a citizen of a state different from 
any defendant and the total amount in controversy is at least 
$2,000,000. This would include civil actions where a named 
plaintiff purports to act on behalf of other at least 100 other 
members of the same action on the grounds that claims involve 
common questions of law or fact, and would apply to any class 
action before or after the entry of a class certification 
order. An interstate class (i.e. federal diversity 
jurisdiction) action would not include:
          (1) Intrastate cases--cases in which a ``substantial 
        majority'' of the class members and defendants are 
        citizens of the same state and the claims will be 
        governed primarily by that state's law;
          (2) Limited scope cases--cases involving fewer than 
        100 class members or where the aggregate amount in 
        controversy is less than $2 million; and
          (3) State action cases--cases where the primary 
        defendants are states or state officials, or other 
        governmental entities against whom the district court 
        may be foreclosed from ordering relief.
    Other class actions excluded from this expanded diversity 
jurisdiction are specific actions, including claims brought by 
shareholders that solely involve:
          (1) Section 16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 
        and section 28 (f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act 
        of 1934;
          (2) The internal affairs or governance of a 
        corporation or other form of incorporated business 
        enterprise; and
          (3) The rights, duties, and obligations relating to 
        any security.
    H.R. 2341 establishes a new section providing for removal 
of class actions to federal court where the action is filed in 
State court and the federal court has original jurisdiction. 
While the existing general removal provisions contained in 
chapter 89 of Title 28 would continue to apply, the new removal 
section overrides circumstances where these statutes may be in 
conflict. Generally, the new removal provision preserves all 
facets of the expanded diversity jurisdiction established by 
the bill and provides three distinctive features:
          (1) Unnamed class members (plaintiffs) may remove to 
        federal court class actions in which their claims are 
        being asserted within 30 days after formal notice. 
        Under current rules only the defendants are allowed to 
        remove.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ In 1875, the right to remove was extended to plaintiffs as 
well as defendants, but the experiment was short-lived, and in 1887, 
the predecessor of 28 U.S.C. 1441 once again restricted removal to 
defendants only. In individual cases, this reflects the fact that the 
plaintiff has chosen voluntarily to submit to the jurisdiction of the 
state court by choosing to file suit there. This rationale does not 
apply in the case of putative plaintiff class members who did not 
control the decision as to where to bring a class action; See 28 U.S.C. 
1446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (2) Removal of class actions to federal court would 
        be available to (a) any defendant without the consent 
        of all defendants, (b) any named plaintiff class member 
        without the consent of all members, or (c) any unnamed 
        plaintiff class member after the class has been 
        certified by a state court. Current removal rules--
        which apply only to defendants--require the consent of 
        all defendants.
          (3) Section 1446 of Title 28 requires that a notice 
        of removal be filed within 30 days of the receipt by 
        the defendant of a copy of the pleading which gives 
        notice of grounds for removal. However, that section 
        bars the removal of cases to federal court after one 
        year, even if the basis for removal does not occur 
        until after that time. H.R. 2341 would eliminate the 
        bar to removal of class actions after one year, and 
        would apply the same removal notice rules to 
        plaintiffs.
    Under H.R. 2341, if a removed class action is found not to 
meet the requirements for proceeding on a class basis, the 
federal court would dismiss the action without prejudice. 
Plaintiffs would then be permitted to re-file their claims in 
state court, presumably in a form amended either to fall within 
one of the types of cases not considered interstate class 
actions, or to be maintainable as a class action under federal 
Rule 23. The statute of limitations on individual class 
members' claims in such a dismissed class action would not run 
during the period the action was pending in federal court.
    Finally, H.R. 2341 provides for an immediate appeal of an 
order by a Federal District Court granting or certifying class 
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. Accordingly, discovery pursuant to the certification 
order at issue will be stayed until the Federal Circuit court 
has ruled on the appeal in question. However, the court may 
order discovery by motion and a showing of necessity by a party 
to the action.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2341 was introduced by 
Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Rick Boucher on June 27, 2001 and 
ultimately garnered 56 cosponsors. The full committee conducted 
a hearing on the bill on February 6, 2002, those testifying 
include: Ms. Hilda Bankston of Jefferson County, Mississippi; 
Mr. John Beisner, Esq., O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Mr. Peter 
Detkin, Vice President, Assistant General Counsel, Intel 
Corporation; and Mr. Andrew Friedman, Esq., Bonnett, Fairbourn, 
Friedman & Balint. Following two days of markup on March 6th 
and 7th, the full committee ordered the bill reported to the 
House, as amended, by a vote of 16 ayes to 10 nays. H.R. 2341 
was reported to the House on March 12, 2002, (House Report No. 
107-370. By a vote of 233 ayes to 190 nays, the House passed 
H.R. 2341 on March 13, 2002. While the Senate Judiciary 
Committee conducted a hearing on July 31, 2002 on companion 
legislation S. 1712 no additional legislative activity was 
conducted on this legislation by the Senate.

H.R. 2926, the ``Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization 
        Act''

    Summary.--Litigation management provisions were necessary 
to address the exposure of air carriers to potentially 
limitless and bankrupting lawsuits for damages arising out of 
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. H.R. 2926 included 
provisions creating a ``September 11th Victims Compensation 
Fund'' to be administered by a Special Master. The Fund was 
created to provide compensation to any individual (or relatives 
of a deceased individual) who was physically injured or killed 
as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of 
September 11, 2001. H.R. 2926 also included provisions 
providing that notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
liability for all claims, whether for compensatory or punitive 
damages, arising from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of 
September 11, 2001, against any air carrier shall not be in an 
amount greater than the limits of the liability coverage 
maintained by the air carrier. H.R. 2926 also provided that 
there shall exist a Federal cause of action for damages arising 
out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes of American 
Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 
175, on September 11, 2001, that would be the exclusive remedy 
for damages arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes 
of such flights. The substantive law for decision in any such 
suit shall be derived from the law, including choice of law 
principles, of the State in which the crash occurred unless 
such law is inconsistent with or preempted by Federal law. H.R. 
2926 also provided that the United States District Court for 
the Southern District of New York shall have original and 
exclusive jurisdiction over all actions brought for any claim 
(including any claim for loss of property, personal injury, or 
death) resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related 
aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001. H.R. 2926 also provided 
that nothing in such provisions shall in any way limit any 
liability of any person who is a knowing participant in any 
conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act.
    Legislative History.--On September 21, 2001, H.R. 2926 was 
referred to the House Judiciary Committee. That same day, H.R. 
2926 passed the House by the yeas and nays, 356-54, with 2 
Members voting present. On September 22, 2001, H.R. 2926 was 
signed by the President and became Public Law No. 107-42.

H.R. 3210, the ``Terrorism Risk Insurance Act''

    Summary.--As introduced, H.R. 3210 contained a prohibition 
on punitive damages and a provision providing that a defendant 
would be liable only for the amount of noneconomic damages 
allocated to the defendant in direct proportion to the 
percentage of responsibility of the defendant for the harm to 
the claimant. These provisions applied only in actions brought 
for damages claimed by an insured pursuant to, or in connection 
with, any commercial property and casualty insurance. These 
provisions failed to protect innocent Americans and American 
businesses who were the victims of terrorist attacks and who 
might be sued by non-insureds for damages arising out of 
terrorist attacks.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3210 was introduced by 
Representative Oxley, Chairman of the House Financial Services 
Committee, on November 1, 2001. On November 19, 2001, it was 
referred sequentially to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
for a period ending not later than November 26, 2001 for 
consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as 
fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to 
clause 1(k), rule X. On November 26, 2001, H.R. 3210 was 
discharged by the Committee on Judiciary. Pursuant to H. Res. 
297, H.R. 3357 was adopted as an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3210. H.R. 3210 passed the House on November 
29, 2001, by the yeas and nays, 227-193. On November 14, 2002, 
the conference report on the bill, H. Rept. 107-779, was agreed 
to by the House by voice vote. On November 26, 2002, H.R. 3210 
was signed by the President and became Public Law No. 107-297.

H.R. 4600, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act 
        (the HEALTH Act)

    Summary.--A national insurance crisis is ravaging the 
nation's health care system. Skyrocketing insurance rates have 
caused major insurers to drop coverage, and decimated the ranks 
of doctors and other health care providers by forcing them to 
abandon patients and practices, particularly in high-risk 
specialties such as obstetrics and emergency medicine. The 
problem is particularly acute for practitioners in managed 
care, where prescribed fixed costs prevent them from recouping 
insurance costs. The HEALTH Act, modeled after California's 
quarter-century old and highly successful health care 
litigation reforms, addresses the current crisis and will make 
health care delivery more accessible and cost-effective in the 
United States. Its time-tested reforms will make medical 
malpractice insurance affordable again, encourage health care 
practitioners to maintain their practices, reduce health care 
costs for patients, and save billions of dollars a year in 
federal taxpayer dollars by significantly reducing the 
incidence of wasteful ``defensive medicine'' without increasing 
the incidence of adverse health outcomes. Its enactment will 
particularly help traditionally under-served rural and inner 
city communities, and women seeking obstetrics care. It will 
create a ``fair share'' rule, by which damages are allocated 
fairly, in direct proportion to fault, reasonable guidelines--
but not caps--on the award of punitive damages, and a rule 
preventing unfair and wasteful windfall double-recoveries. 
Finally, it will accomplish reform without in any way limiting 
compensation for 100% of plaintiffs' economic losses, their 
medical costs, their lost wages, their future lost wages, 
rehabilitation costs, and any other economic out of pocket loss 
suffered as the result of a health care injury. The HEALTH Act 
also does not preempt any State law that caps non-economic 
damages, such as those for pain and suffering.
    Legislative History.--Rep. Greenwood, along with Rep. Cox, 
Murtha, Toomey, Moran of Virginia, Peterson of Minnesota, 
Stenholm, Lucas of Kentucky, Pickering, and Weldon of Florida, 
introduced H.R. 4600 on April 25, 2002. The Judiciary Committee 
held a mark-up session on H.R. 4600 on July 23, 2002, and on 
September 10, 2002, when it reported the bill favorably as 
amended by voice vote. The Committee filed its report on 
September 25, 2002, H. Rept. 107-693, Part I. On September 26, 
2002, the House passed H.R. 4600 by the yeas and nays: 217-203.

                     MATTERS HELD AT FULL COMMITTEE

H.R. 7, the ``Community Solutions Act''

    Summary.--Government should ensure that members of 
organizations seeking to take part in government programs 
designed to meet basic and universal human needs are not 
discriminated against because of their religious views. The 
rules for participation in programs of government funding 
through grants and cooperative agreements, and through indirect 
forms of assistance, for the provision of social services must 
assess eligibility to participate without regard to the 
religious character of an organization, and any religious 
beliefs that organization might hold, or the intensity of those 
beliefs, should not be a basis for rejecting their 
participation out-of-hand. Indeed, faith-based organizations 
often allow their beneficiaries greater and more flexible 
access to the social services they offer.
    These so-called ``charitable choice'' principles, embodied 
in H.R. 7, allow for the public funding of faith-based 
organizations on the same basis as other nongovernmental 
organizations and permit them to maintain their religious 
character by choosing their staff, board members, and methods. 
These principles also protect the rights of conscience of their 
clients and ensure that alternative providers that are 
unobjectionable to them on religious grounds are available.
    ``Charitable choice'' is not new. Examples of existing laws 
that include ``charitable choice'' provisions are the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, P.L. 106-310, 
42 U.S.C. Sec. 300x-65; the Community Services Block Grant Act 
of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-285, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9920; the Welfare 
Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 604a; and the 
Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, P.L. 106-554, 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 290kk-1. Each was signed into law by President 
Clinton.
    H.R. 7 simply seeks to apply the tested principles of 
charitable choice, which in the case of welfare services have 
been federal law for five years, to cover additional federal 
programs, bringing greater clarity and constitutional adherence 
to a wider scope of federal funding programs. The charitable 
choice language in H.R. 7 has been carefully tailored to 
respond to discussions of earlier versions of the provision. 
New language emphasizes that government funding of a religious 
service provider is not intended to endorse religion but rather 
to purchase effective assistance; makes it clearer that 
beneficiaries may not be coerced into religious observance, but 
instead inherently religious activities such as worship and 
proselytization must be privately funded, voluntary, and 
offered separately from the government-funded services; 
requires religious organizations to sign a certificate 
acknowledging this duty of non-coercion; clearly obligates 
government to inform clients of their religious liberty rights; 
emphasizes that the civil rights exemption that allows 
religious organizations to take religion into account in hiring 
decisions does not remove their obligation to respect the other 
non-discrimination requirements in federal law from which they 
are not already exempt; requires religious organizations to 
keep direct government funds separate from other funds to 
enable government to audit the books of a religious 
organization without entangling itself in strictly religious 
matters; emphasizes that religious organizations that receive 
federal funds are held to the same performance standards as 
well as the same accounting standards as other grantees; 
requires religious organizations to conduct an annual self 
audit to ensure compliance and corrective action; provides for 
$50 million in new federal funding for technical assistance to 
novice and small nongovernmental organizations to help ensure 
that they have the knowledge and administrative capacity to 
comply with these and other federal requirements; and clarifies 
how charitable choice principles apply when an organization 
that receives federal funds in turn subgrants funds to other 
organizations.
    Under H.R. 7, religious organizations receiving grants 
under covered programs may not use the provided funds for 
``sectarian instruction, worship, or proselytization,'' and a 
beneficiary's taking advantage of a social service program 
cannot be conditioned on taking part in such activities. 
Existing charitable choice law, part of the Welfare Reform Act 
of 1996, contains an explicit protection of a beneficiary's 
right to ``refus[e] to actively participate in a religious 
practice,'' thereby insuring a beneficiary's right to avoid any 
unwanted religious practices, and a similar provision in H.R. 7 
makes clear that participation, if any, in sectarian 
instruction, worship, or proselytization must be voluntary and 
noncompulsory.
    H.R. 7 also requires a religious organization receiving 
funds under a covered program to sign a certificate of 
compliance that certifies that the organization is aware of and 
will comply with the provisions against the use of government 
funds for inherently religious activities. This certificate, 
which has the purpose of impressing upon both the government 
grantor and the faith-based organization the importance of both 
voluntariness and the need to separate sectarian instruction, 
worship, and proselytization, must be filed with the government 
agency disbursing the funds.
    Subsection (g) of the Community Solutions Act also protects 
beneficiaries of charitable choice programs by requiring the 
presence of an alternative that is unobjectionable to 
beneficiaries on religious grounds when a religious 
organization is providing social services. Subsection (g) also 
requires the appropriate Federal, State, or local governmental 
agency to give notice to beneficiaries receiving services under 
the covered programs of their right to an alternative that is 
unobjectionable to them on religious grounds.
    Further, charitable choice principles prohibit faith-based 
organizations taking part in programs covered by Title II of 
H.R. 7 from discriminating on the basis of religion against 
those who seek to be beneficiaries of such programs. Subsection 
(m) of the Community Solutions Act also provides that 
intermediaries authorized to act under a grant or other 
agreement to select nongovernmental organizations to provide 
assistance under any program covered by Title II of H.R. 7 have 
the same duties under Title II as the government when selecting 
or otherwise dealing with subgrantors, but the intermediary 
grantor, if it is a religious organization, shall retain all 
other rights of a religious organization under Title II.
    Misguided understandings of the Constitutional have for too 
long deterred Federal, State, andlocal governments from even 
inviting religious organizations to participate in informational 
meetings designed for those willing to compete for social service 
funds. H.R. 7 simply make clear to the federal government, states, and 
localities, that if they provide a grant to or enter into a cooperative 
agreement with religious organizations under charitable choice 
principles, they need not fear that their actions are unconstitutional.
    Legislative History.--Representative Watts, Representative 
Hall, and Speaker Hastert introduced H.R. 7, the ``Community 
Solutions Act,'' on March 29, 2001. On June 7, 2001, the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution held an oversight hearing on 
the ``Constitutional Role of Faith-Based Organizations in 
Competitions for Federal Social Service Funds.'' The following 
witnesses testified at the hearing: Carl Esbeck, Senior Counsel 
to the Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of 
Justice; Douglas Laycock, Associate Dean for Research and Alice 
McKean Young Regents Chair in Law, The University of Texas 
School of Law; David N. Saperstein, Adjunct Professor of Law; 
Director, Religious Action, Center of Reform Judaism, 
Georgetown University Law Center; Ira C. Lupu, Louis Harkey 
Mayo Research Professor of Law, The George Washington 
University School of Law. On April 24, 2001, the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution held an oversight hearing on ``State and 
Local Implementation of Existing Charitable Choice Programs.'' 
The following witnesses testified at the hearing: Dr. Amy 
Sherman, Senior Fellow, Welfare Policy Center, Hudson 
Institute; Reverend Donna Lawrence Jones, Cookman United 
Methodist Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Charles Clingman, 
Executive Director, Jireh Development Corporation, Cincinnati, 
Ohio; Reverend J. Brent Walker, Executive Director, Baptist 
Joint Committee on Public Affairs. On June 28, 2002, the 
Judiciary Committee held a mark-up session on H.R. 7 and 
reported the bill favorably as amended by the yeas and nays: 
20-5. The Committee filed its report on July 12, 2001, H. Rept. 
107-138, Part II. On July 19, 2001, the House passed H.R. 7 by 
the yeas and nays: 233-198.

H.R. 169, the ``Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination 
        and Retaliation Act of 2001''

    Summary.--Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 169, the 
``Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act of 2001,'' (No FEAR Act) on January 3, 2001. 
The bill requires that Federal agencies be accountable for 
violations of discrimination and whistleblower protection laws. 
H.R. 169 provides Federal employees throughout the Federal 
Government with additional on-the-job protection from illegal 
discrimination, retaliation, and other mistreatment by 
deterring and punishing government misconduct toward them.
    H.R. 169, the No FEAR Act, was in response to a year-long 
congressional investigation under the direction of Chairman 
Sensenbrenner as the Chairman of the Committee on Science of 
civil rights violations at the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). When the EPA was questioned on its behavior, the agency 
responded that it had a great diversity record. When questioned 
about notifying employees of their rights under the various 
whistleblower provisions, the EPA responded that it was only 
required to notify the employees under one of the laws, not the 
others. When asked how the agency pays for judgements and 
settlements for discriminating or retaliating, the EPA 
responded such payments were made of the general treasury--not 
the Federal agencies. Following the hearings and the 
investigation, Federal employees in other agencies began 
contacting the Committee on Science with allegations of similar 
problems. Immediately after the October 2000 hearing, Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Representatives Sheila Jackson Lee and Connie 
Morella introduced the No FEAR Act to rectify the three 
problems highlighted in the investigation. The bill was 
reintroduced on the first day of the 107th Congress.
    Legislative History.--On May 9, 2001, the Committee on the 
Judiciary held a legislative hearing on H.R. 169, the No FEAR 
Act. The four witnesses that testified were: Kweisi Mfume, 
President & CEO of the National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People; J. Christopher Mihm, Director of Strategic 
Issues for the General Accounting Office; Bobby L. Harnage, 
Sr., National President of the American Federation of 
Government Employees, AFL-CIO; and Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, 
Ph.D, private citizen. The National Whistleblower Center also 
provided written testimony to the Committee regarding the need 
for the bill to protect whistleblowers. On May 23, 2001, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill, with an amendment in the nature of substitute, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present. The bill was reported to 
the House on June 14, 2001 (H. Rept. 107-101, Part I). On 
October 2, 2001, the bill passed the House by a recorded vote 
of 420 yeas to 0 nays (roll no. 360). On April 23, 2002, the 
bill passed the Senate with amendments by unanimous consent. On 
April 30, 2002, the House agreed to the Senate amendments by a 
recorded vote of 412 yeas to 0 nays (roll no. 117). The 
President signed the bill on May 15, 2002, and it became Public 
Law 107-174.

H.R. 741, the ``Madrid Protocol Implementation Act''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative Howard Coble, H.R. 
741 implements the Madrid Protocol, an international trademark 
treaty. It makes the process of registering marks in other 
countries more convenient and far less expensive for American 
citizens and businesses.
    Legislative History.--On March 8, 2001, the Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported H.R. 741 without 
amendment, by voice vote. On March 13, 2001, the Committee 
reported S. 741 to the House (H. Rept. 107-19). On March 14, 
2001, the House passed H.R. 741 under suspension of the rules, 
by voice vote. The provisions of H.R. 741 were later 
incorporated into H.R. 2215, the ``21st Century Department of 
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,'' which is Public Law 
107-273.

H.R. 802, the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 2001''

    Summary.--Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced H.R. 
802, the ``Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 2001,'' 
on February 28, 2001. While law enforcement agencies at all 
levels present their own awards and medals to those who 
demonstrate bravery, the Federal Government has no medal in 
recognition of acts of courage and valor demonstrated by public 
safety officers. This bill establishes a national medal, to be 
given by the President in the name of the United States 
Congress, to public safety officers who display extraordinary 
valor above and beyond the call of duty. The Public Safety 
Medal of Valor will be the highest national award for valor by 
a public safety officer. The Attorney General may select up to 
five recipients of the medal each year. The legislation creates 
a Medal of Valor Review Board, composed of members appointed by 
Congress and the President, to make recommendations to the 
Attorney General as to persons deserving of the medal. The 
Board will be staffed by a new office within the Department of 
Justice known as the National Medal of Valor Office.
    Legislative History.--On March 8, 2001, the Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill, H.R. 
802, by voice vote, a quorum being present. The bill was 
reported to the House on March 12, 2001 (H. Rept. 107-15). The 
House passed the bill on March 22, 2001, by a recorded vote of 
414 yeas to 0 nays (Roll no. 59). On May 14, 2001, the Senate 
passed the bill by unanimous consent. The President signed the 
bill on May 30, 2001, and it became Public Law 107-12.

H.R. 860, the ``Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial 
        Jurisdiction Act of 2001''

    Summary.--Introduced by Representative F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., H.R. 860 would allow a designated U.S. 
district court (a so-called ``transferee'' court) under the 
multidistrict litigation statute to retain jurisdiction over 
referred cases arising from the same fact scenario for purposes 
of determining liability and punitive damages, or to send them 
back to the respective courts from which they were transferred. 
In addition, the legislation would streamline the process by 
which multidistrict litigation governing disasters are 
adjudicated.
    Legislative History.--On March 8, 2002, the Committee met 
in open session and favorably reported H.R. 860 without 
amendment, by voice vote. H.R. 860 was reported by the 
Committee to the House on March 12, 2001 (H. Rept. 107-14). On 
March 14, 2001, the House passed H.R. 860 under suspension of 
the rules, by voice vote. The provisions of H.R. 860 were later 
incorporated into H.R. 2215, the ``21st Century Department of 
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,'' which is Public Law 
107-273.

H.R. 861, to make technical amendments to Section 10 of Title 9, United 
        States Code (Pub. L. No. 107-169)

    Summary.--Title 9 of the United States Code pertains to 
domestic and international arbitration law. Chapter 1 of title 
9 contains the title's general provisions, including section 
10. Subsection 10(a) enumerates the grounds for which a Federal 
district court may vacate an arbitration award and authorizes 
the court to order a rehearing, under certain circumstances. As 
drafted, subsection 10(a) consists of five paragraphs, four of 
which enumerate the grounds for vacating an arbitration award. 
The fifth paragraph, however, is clearly intended to be a 
separate provision of subsection 10(a) as it specifies the 
basis of the court's authority to direct a rehearing by the 
arbitrator.
    H.R. 861 corrects this drafting error, which has existed 
from the legislation's original enactment in 1925, by simply 
converting the fifth paragraph into a separate subsection of 
section 10, namely, subsection 10(b), and making conforming 
grammatical and technical revisions to section 10. H.R. 861 is 
identical to legislation introduced by Representative George W. 
Gekas (R-PA) and passed by the House in the 105th and 106th 
Congresses.
    Legislative History.--Representative Gekas introduced H.R. 
861 on March 6, 2001. Given the noncontroversial nature of H.R. 
861 (for example, it has often been referred to as the ``Comma 
Bill''), no hearings were held on this legislation and it was 
retained by the Committee for its consideration. On March 8, 
2001, the Committee ordered favorably reported the bill without 
amendment by voice vote. Thereafter, the Committee filed its 
report on March 12, 2001 as H. Rept. 107-16.
    On March 14, 2001, the House passed the bill under the 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 413 to 0. H.R. 861 was 
received in the Senate on the following day and referred to the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Thereafter, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee reported the bill without amendment and 
without a written report on December 13, 2001. On April 18, 
2002, the Senate passed H.R. 861 without amendment by unanimous 
consent. The bill was thereafter signed into law on May 7, 2002 
as Public Law 107-169.

HR. 1209, the ``Child Status Protection Act'' (Public Law 107-208)

    Summary.--The Immigration and Nationality Act provides two 
avenues for family-based immigrants to acquire permanent 
resident status. Immediate relatives (spouses, unmarried 
children under 21, and parents) of United States citizens may 
receive such status without numerical limitation. Certain other 
relatives of U.S. citizens (unmarried sons and daughters 21 or 
over, married sons and daughters, and siblings) and of 
permanent resident aliens (spouses, unmarried children under 
21, unmarried sons and daughters 21 or over) may receive such 
status as family-based preference immigrants, which are subject 
to numerical limitations each year.
    Under prior law, the date at which the age of an alien was 
measured for purposes of eligibility for an immigrant visa was 
the date the adjustment of status application filed on his or 
her behalf was processed by INS, not the date that the 
preceding immigrant visa petition was filed on their behalf. 
With the INS taking up to 3 years to process applications, 
aliens who were under 21 when their petitions were filed often 
found themselves over 21 by the time their applications were 
processed. When a child of a U.S. citizen ``ages out'' by 
turning 21, the child automatically shifted from the immediate 
relative category to the family first preference category. This 
put the child at the end of long waiting list for a visa. H.R. 
1209 provides that the determination of whether the unmarried 
son or daughter of a citizen is considered a child (under 21) 
is to be made using the alien's age as of the time an immigrant 
visa petition is filed on his or her behalf.
    This rule also applies: (1) when permanent resident parents 
petition for immigrant visas for their sons and daughters and 
later naturalize (making the sons and daughters potentially 
eligible for immediate relative visas); and (2) when citizen 
parents petition for immigrant visas for their married sons and 
daughters, and the sons and daughters later divorce (making 
them potentially eligible for immediate relative visas).
    The Act also extends age-out protection to cover:
     Children of Permanent Residents. When a child of a 
permanent resident turns 21, he or she goes from the second 
preference ``A'' waiting list to the second preference ``B'' 
waiting list, which is much longer.
     Children of Family and Employer-Sponsored 
Immigrants and Diversity Lottery Winners.When an alien receives 
permanent residence as a preference-visa recipient or a winner of the 
diversity lottery, a minor child receives permanent residence at the 
same time. After the child turns 21, the parent has to apply for him or 
her to be put on the second preference ``B'' waiting list.
     Children of Asylees and Refugees. When an alien 
receives asylum or is granted refugee status, a minor child 
receives permanent residence at the same time as the parent. 
After the child turns 21, the parent has to apply for him or 
her to be put on the second preference ``B'' waiting list.
    Finally, the Act fixes a troubling anomaly in the 
immigration law. Under prior law, when a permanent resident 
naturalized who had sponsored adult sons and daughters for 
preference visas, they moved from the second preference ``B'' 
category (for the adult sons and daughters of permanent 
residents) to the first preference category (for the adult sons 
and daughters of citizens). Normally, the wait for a first 
preference visa is much shorter than the wait for a second 
preference ``B'' visa. However, currently this is not the case 
for the sons and daughters of immigrants from the Philippines. 
The line actually gets longer for the sons and daughters when 
the parent naturalizes. The Act ameliorates this impact by 
allowing an adult son or daughter of a naturalized citizen who 
has already been sponsored for permanent residence to choose 
not to be transferred from the second preference ``B'' category 
to the first preference category.
    Legislative History.--On March 26, 2001, Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims Chairman George Gekas introduced H.R. 
1209. On April 4, 2001, the Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 
1209 reported by a voice vote. On April 20, 2001, the Judiciary 
Committee reported H.R. 1209 (H. Rept. 107-45). On June 6, 
2001, the House passed H.R. 1209 under suspension of the rules 
by a vote of 416-0. On May 16, 2002, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee ordered H.R. 1209 reported, as amended, and reported 
H.R. 1209 without a written report. On June 13, 2002, the 
Senate passed H.R. 1209, as amended, by unanimous consent. On 
July 22, 2002, the House passed H.R. 1209, as amended, by the 
Senate under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. On August 
6, 2002, the President signed H.R. 1209 into law (Public Law 
107-208).

H.R. 1701, the ``Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act''

    Summary.--While H.R. 1701 establishes a ``Federal floor'' 
for consumer protection in rental-purchase transactions in many 
states, it preempts the existing law regulating rent-to-own 
transactions in Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and 
North Carolina. Provisions dealing with civil liability, 
government liability, and criminal liability were sequentially 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 1701 was introduced by the 
Congressman Walter Jones on May 3, 2001 and ultimately garnered 
83 cosponsors. H.R. 1701 was reported, as amended, by the 
Committee on Financial Services on June 27, 2002. (House Report 
No. 107-590 Part I) and provisions within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on the Judiciary were sequentially referred for a 
time not later than September 9, 2002. The Committee on the 
Judiciary conducted no hearings on H.R. 1701, and ordered 
reported the bill, as amended, on September 5, 2002 by a vote 
of 14 ayes to 12 nays. The Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 1701 on September 9, 2002, (House Report No. 107-590 Part 
II). On September 18, 2002, the House of Representatives passed 
H.R. 1701 by a vote of 215 ayes to 201 nays. H.R. 1701 was 
received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, no legislative action was 
taken.

H.R. 2068, to revise, codify, and enact without substantive change 
        certain general and permanent laws, related to public 
        buildings, property, and works, as title 40, United States 
        Code, ``Public Buildings, Property, and Works''

    Summary.--H.R. 2068 was prepared by the Office of the Law 
Revision Counsel as part of the program, required by 2 U.S.C. 
285b, to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and 
revision of the general and permanent laws of the United 
States. The bill makes no substantive change in existing law. 
Rather, the bill removes ambiguities, contradictions, and other 
imperfections from existing law and repeals obsolete, 
superfluous, and superseded provisions.
    H.R. 2068 was introduced on June 6, 2001, and referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary in accordance with clause 
1(k)(16) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives. Upon introduction, the bill was circulated for 
comment to interested parties including committees of Congress 
and agencies and departments of the Government. The Office of 
the Law Revision Counsel reviewed and considered all comments, 
contacting parties to resolve outstanding questions. Some 
comments, suggesting substantive changes, could not be 
incorporated in the restatement because this bill makes no 
substantive change in existing law. Other comments, proposing 
changes to improve organization and clarity, were incorporated 
in the restatement. The Office of the Law Revision Counsel has 
prepared an amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
reflects the changes resulting from the review and comment 
process.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced 
H.R. 2068 on June 6, 2001, and it was referred to the 
Committee. On May 8, 2002, the Committee ordered reported H.R. 
2068, with an amendment, by voice vote. On June 11, 2002, the 
House passed amended H.R. 2068, by a voice vote. On August 1, 
2002, the Senate passed H.R. 2068, without amendment by 
unanimous consent. H.R. 2068 was signed by the President on 
August 21, 2002, and became Public Law 107-217.

H.R. 2137, the ``Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act of 2001''

    Summary.--The last half of the 20th century saw an 
explosion of federal criminal statutes. According to a study 
conducted by the Task Force on Federalization of Criminal Law 
of the Criminal Law Section of the American Bar Association, 
``[m]ore than 40% of the federal criminal provisions enacted 
since the Civil War have been enacted since 1970.'' This 
explosion of lawmaking has resulted in numerous technical 
mistakes which litter the criminal code. This legislation 
corrects those mistakes.
    H.R. 2137, introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner is 
cosponsored by Reps. Conyers, Smith of Texas, and Scott of 
Virginia. The bill makes over 60 clerical and technical 
corrections to title 18and other criminal laws. The technical 
amendments are related to criminal law and procedure. This bill makes 
over 60 separate technical changes to various criminal statutes by 
correcting missing and incorrect words, margins, punctuation, 
redundancies, outmoded fine amounts, cross references, and table of 
sections. These amendments resulted from suggestions and extensive 
consultation between the majority and minority and the Office of 
Legislative Counsel and the Office of Law Revision Counsel.
    Legislative History.--Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced 
H.R. 2137 on June 12, 2001, and it was referred to the 
Committee. On June 26, 2001, the Committee conducted a markup 
session on H.R. 2137. On June 26, 2001, the Committee ordered 
H.R. 2137 reported by a voice vote. On July 10, 2001, the 
Committee filed its report, H. Rept. 107-126. On July 24, 2001 
the House passed amended, H.R. 2137 by a vote of 374-0. For 
further action see H.R. 2215, which became Public law 107-273 
on November 2, 2002.

H.R. 2215, the ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
        Authorization Act'' (Public Law Number 107-273)

    Summary.--H.R. 2215, the ``21st Century Department of 
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,'' is a comprehensive 
authorization of the United States Department of Justice 
(``DOJ'' or the ``Department'').
    The Department of Justice has not been formerly authorized 
since 1979. Since that time, several attempts to authorize the 
Department have failed either because of poor timing or because 
the authorization bills were compromised by controversial 
amendments. H.R. 2215 represents the first statutory 
authorization of the Department and its various components in 
nearly a quarter century. H.R. 2215 also contains several 
additional legislative proposals, many of which passed the 
House during the 107th Congress. Through authorization, 
legislative committees establish management objectives and 
provide expertise and guidance to the Appropriations Committee.
    The following is a detailed summary of H.R. 2215, as signed 
into law on November 2, 2002.
    Section 101 authorizes appropriations to carry out the work 
of the various components of the Department of Justice for 
fiscal year 2002. Section 102 authorizes appropriations to 
carry out the work of the various components of the Department 
of Justice for fiscal year 2003. Section 103 authorizes the 
Attorney General to transfer 200 additional Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys from among the six litigating divisions at the 
Justice Department's headquarters (Main Justice) in Washington, 
D.C., to the various U.S. Attorneys offices around the country. 
Section 104 adds 94 additional U.S. Attorneys to work with 
State and local law enforcement for identification and 
prosecution of violations of Federal firearms laws, especially 
in and around schools.
    Section 201 sets out the Attorney General's authority to 
use appropriated funds to carry out his official duties. 
Section 202 requires the Attorney General to submit a report to 
Congress if: (1) any officer of the Department of Justice 
establishes a formal or informal policy to refrain from 
enforcing any provision of Federal law, or any rules, 
regulations, programs or policies within the responsibility of 
the Attorney General on the grounds that such a provision is 
unconstitutional or within the jurisdiction of the judicial 
branch: (2) the Attorney General decides to challenge the 
constitutionality of any Federal law, rule, regulation, or 
policy, or declines to defend the constitutionality of Federal 
law rule, regulation, or policy; or (3) approves the settlement 
of a claim against the United States that exceeds or likely to 
exceed $2 million, or any agreement, consent decree or order 
that provides injunctive or other nonmonetary relief that 
exceeds 3 years. Section 203 amends the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that grants or 
contracts to the Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Programs 
are used for law enforcement or law enforcement support. 
Section 204 makes miscellaneous amendments to the Department. 
Section 204 makes technical amendments to section 524(c) of 
title 28, United States Codes, clarifies the Attorney General's 
authority to transfer property of marginal value, and requires 
the use of standard criteria for the purpose of categorizing 
offenders, victims, actors, and those acted upon in any data, 
records, or other information acquired, collected, classified, 
preserved, or published by the Attorney General for any 
statistical, research, or other aggregate reporting purpose. It 
also requires the Attorney General to notify Congress in 
writing of any civil asset forfeiture award greater than 
$500,000. Section 205 requires the Attorney General to submit 
to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of each 
House of Congress a report: (1) identifying and describing 
every grant, cooperative agreement that was made for which 
additional or supplemental funds were provided in the 
immediately preceding year; (2) identifying and reviewing every 
Office of Justice Programs grant, cooperative agreement, or 
programmatic contract. Section 206 provides clarifying 
amendments to title 28, United States Code, relating to the 
enforcement of Federal criminal law. Section 207 allows the 
payment of a retention bonus and other extended assignment 
incentives to retain law enforcement personnel in U.S. 
territories, commonwealths and possessions.
    Section 301 repeals open-ended authorization of 
appropriations for the National Institute of Corrections and 
United States Marshals Service. Section 302 makes several minor 
clarifying amendments to title 18, United States Code. Section 
303 requires the President (as he may judge necessary and 
expedient) to submit to the House and Senate Committees on the 
Judiciary proposed legislation authorizing appropriations for 
the Department of Justice for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. 
Section 304 directs the Attorney General to conduct a study 
within six months of enactment to assess the number of untested 
rape examination kits that currently exist nationwide and 
submit the findings to Congress. Section 305 would require the 
Attorney General to report to Congress on the use of DCS 1000 
(Project Carnivore) under a title 18 U.S.C. 3123 order, which 
is a pen register or trap and trap order and under a title 18 
U.S.C. 2518 order, which is a wiretap order. Generally, law 
enforcement will need a wiretap order, pen/trap register or 
search warrant for surveillance, depending the information 
sought. A pen register captures the outgoing numbers or email 
addresses (the to's) and a trap and trace device captures the 
incoming numbers or email addresses (the from's). A wiretap 
allows law enforcement to intercept live communications. DCS 
1000 is an electronic surveillance system used by the FBI to 
filter and conduct electronic surveillance through wire tap, 
pen register and trap and trace investigations for 
communications occurring over computer networks. The system is 
installed on the network of an Internet Service Provider to 
monitor communications on the network and record messages sent 
or received by a targeted user. The Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) initially called the system ``Carnivore'' 
because the system could get to ``the meat'' of an enormous 
quantity of data. The FBI has explained that the system 
provides the FBI with the ability to intercept and collect only 
the communications subject to the lawful order and ignore 
communications the FBI is not authorized to intercept. The 
reports will provide Congress with a better understanding of 
the FBI's use of this system.
    Section 306 requires the Attorney General to submit (within 
six months of enactment of this Act) a report to the chairman 
and ranking member of the House and Senate Committees on the 
Judiciary, detailing the distribution and allocation of 
appropriated funds, attorneys and per-attorney workloads, for 
each Office of United States Attorney except those at the 
Justice Management Division. Section 307 expands the purposes 
for truth-in-sentencing and violent offender grants to allow 
use of these funds to establish separate detention facilities, 
correctional staff and an ombudsman for juvenile offenders. 
Section 308 provides the Inspector General discretion to 
investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing or 
administrative misconduct by an employee of the Department of 
Justice, and allows the Inspector General to refer such 
allegations to the Office of Professional Responsibility or the 
internal affairs office of the appropriate component of the 
Department of Justice. Also requires the Inspector General to 
refer allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys, 
investigators, or law enforcement personnel (where the 
allegations relate to official authority) to the Counsel, 
Office of Professional Responsibility. Section 309 requires the 
Inspector General to appoint an official from the IG's office 
to supervise and coordinate independent oversight of programs 
and operations of the FBI until September 30, 2004. Also 
requires the Inspector General to submit to the chairman and 
ranking member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees an 
oversight plan of the FBI within 30 days after enactment of 
this Act. Section 310 authorizes $2 million to the Department 
to increase the Office of Inspector General by 25 employees, to 
fund expanded audit coverage of Office of Justice Programs 
(OJP) and to conduct special reviews of efforts by the FBI to 
implement recommendations of the Inspector General. This 
section further authorizes $1.7 million to the FBI to increase 
staffing of the Office of Professional Responsibility by 10 
special agents and 4 full time support employees.
    Section 311 requires the Attorney General to report to 
Congress (not later than 45 days after the end of fiscal year 
2002) on the number of investigations and prosecutions 
involving Federal law enforcement officials, Federal judges and 
other Federal officials in the FY 2002. Section 312 authorizes 
eight new permanent judgeships as follows: five judgeships in 
the Southern District of California, two judgeships in the 
Western District of Texas, and one judgeship in the Western 
District of North Carolina. It would also convert four 
temporary judgeships to permanent judgeships--one each in the 
Central District of Illinois, the Southern District of 
Illinois, the Northern District of New York, and the Eastern 
District of Virginia. Additionally, section 312 creates seven 
new temporary judgeships, one each in the Northern District of 
Alabama, the District of Arizona, the Central District of 
California, the Southern District of Florida, the District of 
New Mexico, the Western District of North Carolina, and the 
Eastern District of Texas. Finally, it extends the temporary 
judgeship in the Northern District of Ohio for five years.
    Section 401 creates a Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) 
in the Department of Justice, under the general authority of 
the Attorney General. The Office shall be headed by a Director 
who reports directly to the Attorney General and has final 
authority over all grants, cooperative agreements and contracts 
awarded by VAWO. The compromise version gives the Attorney 
General the discretion to place VAWO wherever he deems 
appropriate at the Department. Section 403 states that this 
Title shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this amendment.
    Section 1101 provides for an increase in funds available 
for grants to the Boys and Girls Club for FY 2002-2005. The 
funds will allow the Boys and Girls Clubs to increase outreach 
efforts and increase membership nationwide.
    Section 2001 provides that the short title of this Act 
shall be the ``Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment 
Act of 2001.'' Section 2101 authorizes the use of Residential 
Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Grants for treatment and 
sanctions both during incarceration and after release. Section 
2102 would allow states to use RSAT funds to establish 
nonresidential aftercare programs as well. Additionally, this 
section requires that 10% of any funds under the RSAT program 
shall be used to make grants to local correctional facilities. 
Section 2103 allows revocation of probation or supervised 
release if an individual tests positive for illegal controlled 
substances more than 3 times over the course of 1 year. Section 
2201 requires the National Institute of Justice to conduct a 
study alternative drug-testing technologies and report its 
conclusions to Congress within one year after enactment of the 
Act. Section 2202 requires the President, in consultation with 
the Attorney General, and Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, to deliver a review of all Federal drug and substance 
abuse treatment and prevention programs and to recommend to 
Congress ways in which those programs could be streamlined, 
consolidated, simplified, coordinated, and made more effective.
    Section 2203 provides authority to expand research and 
disciplinary trials with treatment centers of the National Drug 
Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network.
    Section 2301 reauthorizes the Drug Courts program. However, 
this section improves the current system by consolidating all 
drug court programs into one office and incorporating the 
evaluation methods suggested by the General Accounting Office. 
Section 2302 authorizes appropriations for the Drug Courts 
Office to provide grants to states. Section 2303 requires the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) to assess the effectiveness of 
programs established with grants provided by the Drug Courts 
office, including specific data to be evaluated.
    Section 2411 establishes a Federal Reentry Center 
Demonstration project, under which individualized plans will be 
developed to reduce recidivism by offenders to be released from 
the Federal prison population. Section 2421 authorizes the 
Attorney General to make grants of up to $1 million to States, 
Territories, and Indian tribes to establish demonstration 
projects to promote successful reentry of criminal offenders.
    Section 2501 amends the Controlled Substances Act. Current 
law provides for a 3-year moratorium on a State's ability to 
preclude physicians, by regulation, from prescribing schedule 
III, IV, or IV drugs for maintenance or detoxification 
treatment (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(I)). The moratorium ends on 
October 17, 2003. This section would prevent States from 
precluding the use of such drugs for maintenance or 
detoxification treatment for 3 years after the FDA approval of 
any drug in these categories. Section 2502 transfers a 
methamphetamine study requirement from the Institute of 
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences to the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse. Section 2503 authorizes not less than 
$5 million for FY03 for regional antidrug training by the DEA 
for law enforcement entities in the South and Central Asia 
region. Section 2504 authorizes $75,000 for FY03 and FY04 to 
establish an exchange program for prosecutors, judges, and 
policy makers of Thailand to observe U.S. Federal prosecutors.
    Section 3001 raises the penalty for using physical force or 
attempting physical force to tamper with a witness from a 
maximum imprisonment of 10 years to a maximum imprisonment of 
20 years. This section also adds a conspiracy section to the 
tampering and retaliating against a witness statutes so that 
whoever conspires to commit any of the offenses shall be 
subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the 
offense the commission of which was the object of 
theconspiracy. Section 3002 corrects certain statutes in title 18 and 
title 28 to allow for both the imposition of a fine and a sentence of 
imprisonment. Section 3003 allows Federal District Courts to reinstate 
any charges that are dismissed as a result of a plea agreement if the 
guilty plea is vacated on the motion of the defendant.
    Section 3004 amends the statute that allows the United 
States to appeal an order of a District Court dismissing an 
indictment to clarify that any part of any count of the 
dismissed indictment may be appealed. Section 3005 clarifies 
that the longer periods of supervised release set forth in 
title 21 for certain drug related crimes are not superseded by 
the shorter terms set forth in the general supervised release 
statute of title 18. Section 3006 clarifies that in certain 
cases where the court has reduced the term of imprisonment 
because the defendant is over the age of 70 and has served at 
least 30 years, the court may impose a period of supervised 
release.
    Section 3007 clarifies that the need to provide victims 
with restitution in a case is a factor to be considered by the 
court in determining whether to include a term of supervised 
release in a defendant's sentence.
    Section 4001 makes over 60 separate technical changes to 
various criminal statutes by correcting missing and incorrect 
words, margins, punctuation, redundancies, outmoded fine 
amounts, cross references, and other technical and clerical 
errors. This section incorporates H.R. 2137, which was reported 
from the House Judiciary Committee on July 10, 2001, and which 
passed the House on July 23, 2001. Section 4003 makes 
additional minor, technical corrections to Federal criminal 
statutes. Section 4004 further repeals outdated provisions in 
the criminal code. Section 4005 makes technical amendments to 
the USA Patriot Act. Section 4006 makes technical corrections 
to the International Convention for the Suppression of 
Terrorist Bombings.
    Section 5001 amends the Paul Coverdell National Forensic 
Sciences Improvement Act of 2000 to permit local crime labs to 
receive grants. Section 5002 authorizes necessary funds for 
fiscal years 2002 through 2007 for the Center for Domestic 
Preparedness of the Department of Justice; the Texas 
Engineering Extension Service of Texas A&M; University; the 
Energetic Materials Research and Test Center of the New Mexico 
Institute of Mining and Technology; the Academy of 
Counterterrorist Education at Louisiana State University; the 
National Exercise, Test, and Training Center of the Department 
of Energy, located at the Nevada test site; the National Center 
for the Study of Counter-Terrorism and Cyber-Crime at Norwich 
University; and the Northeast Counterdrug Training Center at 
Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.
    Section 11101 authorizes grants for the construction of 
memorials to honor the men and women in the United States who 
were killed or disabled while serving as law enforcement or 
public safety officers. Section 11002 adds sections 1956 and 
1957 of Title 18 (money laundering) to the list of ``banking 
law violations'' where a prosecutor can disclose grand jury 
information to a Federal or State financial institution 
regulatory agency. Section 11003 expands the uses for grant 
funds and changes the name from the Office of State and Local 
Domestic Preparedness Support to the Office of Domestic 
Preparedness. Section 11004 allows the Attorney General to 
exchange NCIC information with the United States Sentencing 
Commission. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has stated that this 
provision is necessary to help complete a study on recidivism 
rates that they have been charged by Congress to complete. The 
Sentencing Commission is currently working with the FBI, which 
supports this provision.
    Section 11005 amends section 151 of the Foreign Relations 
Act, fiscal years 1990 and 1991 (5 U.S.C. 5928 note), to 
prohibit the ``Secretary of State from denying a request by the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to authorize a danger pay 
allowance under title 5 section 5928 for any employee of the 
FBI. Under title 5 section 5928, ``an employee serving in a 
foreign area may be granted a danger pay allowance on the basis 
of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime 
conditions which threaten physical harm or imminent danger to 
the health or well-being of the employee.'' The note stated 
that the Secretary of State may not deny a request by the Drug 
Enforcement Administration. This section expands this note to 
cover the FBI.
    Section 11006 provides for increases in the tuition 
allotments for police corps officers scholarship/reimbursement 
from $10,000 to $13,333 per year. It reauthorizes the program 
for four more years and increases the stipend for training from 
$250 to $400 per week. It also eliminates the $10,000 direct 
payment to participating police agencies. Section 11007 amends 
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA). RECA 
was enacted to affirm the responsibility of the Federal 
Government to compensate individuals who were harmed by 
radioactive fallout from atomic testing, or were harmed by 
being a test site participant, or in the mining of the uranium 
necessary for the production of nuclear weapons. This section 
contains technical amendments to this Act.
    Section 11008 incorporates S. 1099, the ``Federal Judiciary 
Protection Act of 2001,'' which passed the Senate on December 
20, 2001. Section 11008 enhances penalties for threatening or 
attempting to impede Federal officials carrying out their 
official duties. Section 11009 incorporates H.R. 1007 and S. 
166, of the same name. S. 166 passed the Senate on May 14, 2001 
and H.R. 1007 was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee 
on July 19, 2001. This section directs the United States 
Sentencing Commission to review and amend the Federal 
sentencing guidelines to provide an appropriate enhancement for 
any crime of violence or drug trafficking in which the 
defendant used body armor. This section also prohibits the 
purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by convicted 
violent felons.
    Section 11010 amends Federal law to clarify that a law 
enforcement officer does not need to be present for a warrant 
to be served or executed ``for service or execution of a search 
warrant directed to a provider of electronic communication 
service or remote computing service for records or other 
information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such 
service.'' Due to the nature of electronic communications, much 
of this information is in the possession of Internet Provider 
Services (ISPs) and law enforcement officials often serve such 
warrants over facsimile machines and are not present at the 
site of the ISP. The ISP accept theses warrants. In a recent 
child pornography case, a Michigan Federal district court, in 
U.S. v. Bach, however, ruled that this procedure was an 
unreasonable search and seizure. The Court found that a police 
officer had to be present at the time. This section makes it 
clear that a police officer does not have to be present at the 
time a warrant is served.
    Section 11011 requires the Attorney General to conduct a 
study of offenders with mental illness who are released from 
prison or jail to determine how many such offenders qualify for 
Medicaid, SSI, or SSDI, and other government aid. Section 11012 
makes technical corrections and revisions to the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act. Section 11013 expands the use of 
the Department's Three Percent Debt Collection Fund. This fund 
was established by Section 108 of P.L. 103-121. The language of 
that Act permits the Department to credit three percent of 
allcivil debt collections resulting from Department debt collection 
activities to the Working Capital Fund (the Three Percent Fund) and to 
use those deposits to the Fund only for the costs of processing and 
tracking civil debt collection litigation. Section 11014 reauthorizes 
funds for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) for FY 
2003 and 2004. Under this program, the Federal government provides 
payments to states who house illegal or criminal aliens. Section 11015 
reforms the Department of Justice's practice for using annuity brokers 
in structured settlements in two ways. First, it directs the Attorney 
General to establish a list of annuity brokers who meet minimum 
qualifications for providing annuity brokerage services in connection 
with structured settlements entered by the United States. Second, this 
provision permits the United States Attorney (or his designee) involved 
in any settlement negotiations (except those negotiated exclusively 
through the Civil Division of the Department of Justice) to have the 
exclusive authority to select an annuity broker from the list of such 
brokers established by the Attorney General, provided that all 
documents related to any settlement comply with Department of Justice 
requirements.
    Section 11016 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
specify that processing fees for certain entry documents shall 
be deposited in the Land Border Inspection Fee Account as 
offsetting receipts. Section 11017 extends the authority of the 
U.S. Parole Commission to continue operations for an additional 
three years. This section also requires the Attorney General to 
prepare a report to Congress on the most efficient entity to 
administer the District of Columbia supervised release program. 
Section 11018 incorporates H.R. 4858, to ``Improve Access to 
Physicians in Medically Underserved Areas,'' which was reported 
by the House Judiciary Committee on June 24, 2002, and passed 
the House on June 25, 2002. This section extends authorization 
for a waiver to permit certain foreign medical doctors to 
practice medicine in underserved areas without first leaving 
the United States. Aliens who attend medical school in the 
United States on ``J'' visas must leave the U.S. after school 
to reside abroad for two years before they may practice 
medicine in the U.S. In 1994, Congress created a waiver of the 
two-year requirement for foreign doctors who commit to 
practicing medicine for no less than three years in the 
geographic area or areas which are designated by the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health 
care professionals. The waiver limited the number of foreign 
doctors to 20 per state so that under-served areas in all 
states receive doctors. Section 11018 increases the numerical 
limitation on waivers to 30 per state. It also extends the 
deadline for the authorization of the waiver until June 1, 
2006.
    Section 11019 restores two provisions of Rule 16 of the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that were inadvertently 
omitted when the Supreme Court transmitted a revision of the 
Rules to Congress on April 29, 2002. Section 11020 incorporates 
H.R. 860, the ``Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act 
of 2002,'' which was reported by the House Judiciary Committee 
on March 8, 2001 and passed the House on March 14, 2001. It 
would streamline the process by which multidistrict litigation 
governing disasters are adjudicated. Section 11021 authorizes 
judges in the Southern District of Ohio to hold court in St. 
Clairsville, Ohio. Section 11022 states that during any period 
that the Federal Aviation Administration has in effect 
restrictions on airline passengers to ensure their safety, a 
person who purchases wine while visiting a winery can ship wine 
to another state provided that the purchaser could have carried 
or brought the wine into the state to which the wine is 
shipped.
    Section 11023 would require the FBI to implement the 
Webster Commission Implementation Report. In response to the 
Robert Hanssen espionage case, former Director Freeh of the FBI 
asked Judge Webster to conduct a review of the FBI's internal 
security functions and procedures and recommend improvements. 
The March 31, 2002, Webster Report included strong criticism 
and several recommendations to improve the security at the FBI. 
This section would require the FBI to submit a plan for 
implementing the recommendations of the Commission by no later 
than six months after the enactment of this Act. Section 11024 
authorizes the establishment of a police force within the FBI 
to provide protection for FBI buildings and personnel in areas. 
For example, FBI police provide security and protection at the 
main headquarters building in Washington, D.C., the FBI academy 
at Quantico, Virginia, and the Criminal Justice Information 
Services Complex in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Additionally, 
the FBI police will be authorized to provide these security 
services at the FBI's larger field offices. Section 11025 
requires the Director of the FBI to submit to Congress a report 
on the information management and technology programs of the 
FBI including recommendations for any legislation needed to 
enhance the effective of such programs. The report is due no 
later than nine months after the date of enactment of this Act. 
Section 11026 requires the Comptroller General of the United 
States to submit a report on the issue of how statistics are 
reported and used by Federal law enforcement agencies. The 
report is due no later than nine months after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    Section 11027 authorizes $30 million over three years for 
the Attorney General to make grants to State criminal justice, 
Byrne, or other designated agencies to develop rural States' 
capacity to assist local communities in the prevention and 
reduction of crime, violence, and substance abuse. Section 
11028 incorporates H.R. 1296 and S. 1140, the ``Motor Vehicle 
Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001,'' which 
was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 31, 
2001. It requires that whenever a motor vehicle franchise 
contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a 
controversy arising out of or relating to the contract, 
arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if both 
parties consent in writing after such controversy arises. This 
section also requires the arbitrator to provide the parties 
with a written explanation of the factual and legal basis for 
the decision. The section provides that its provisions shall 
apply only to contracts entered into, modified, renewed or 
extended after the date of enactment. This section does not 
amend the Federal Arbitration Act.
    Section 11029 permits the U.S. District Court for the 
Southern District of Iowa to hold court in Rock Island, 
Illinois, from January 1, 2003 through July 1, 2005, while the 
Davenport, Iowa courthouse undergoes renovation. Section 11030 
incorporates H.R. 2623, the ``Posthumous Citizenship 
Restoration Act of 2001.'' In 1990, Congress passed the 
Posthumous Citizenship for Active Duty Service Act (Pub. L. No. 
101-249). This permitted the next-of-kin or another 
representative to file a posthumous citizenship claim on behalf 
of a United States non-citizen war veteran who died as a result 
of military service to our nation. Currently, the request for 
the posthumous citizenship must be filed no later than two 
years after the date of enactment of the Act (March 6, 1990), 
or two years after the date of the person's death, whichever 
date is later.
    This provision establishes an additional two-year period 
for the family members of deceased non-citizen veterans to file 
posthumous citizenship claims. This will give families who 
missed the opportunity to file posthumous citizenship claims on 
behalf of their deceased relatives when the law was enacted in 
1990 another opportunity to file for citizenship. The provision 
retains the two-year filing window for deaths which may occur 
after the bill's grace period expires.
    Section 11030A pertains the status for aliens with lengthy 
adjudications. Prior to the enactment of the American 
Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-
313), an alienpossessing a H-1B nonimmigrant visa was 
authorized work in the U.S. for up to six years. The Act provided for 
an extension of H-1B status beyond 6 years in one year increments, as 
long as an employment based immigrant visa petition or employment based 
adjustment of status application has been filed and at least 365 days 
have elapsed since the filing of the petition or a labor certification 
application on the alien's behalf (In many instances, labor 
certifications are required to be approved by the Department of Labor 
before an employment based immigrant visa petition or adjustment of 
status application can be filed.). This provision was added to the 
Immigration and Nationality Act so that employers would not have to 
dismiss H-1B workers after 6 years because their petitions for 
immigrant visas or applications for adjustment of status were caught in 
processing backlogs. Growing delays in the processing of labor 
certifications have in certain instances prevented employers from 
taking advantage of the 2000 Act, since their labor certifications had 
not been approved in time for them to be able to file immigrant visa 
petitions or adjustment of status applications by the required date. 
Thus, this provision eliminates the requirement that an immigrant visa 
petition or adjustment of status application have been filed. As long 
as 365 days have elapsed since the filing of a labor certification 
application (that is filed on behalf of or used by the alien) or an 
immigrant visa petition, H-1B status can likewise be extended in one 
year increments. This will be true even if the alien has since obtained 
a non-H-1B nonimmigrant status. If an application for a labor 
certification or adjustment of status or a petition for a immigrant 
visa petition is denied, the extended H-1B status ends at that point.
    Section 11030B amends the Immigration and Nationality Act 
to permit a United States citizen grandparent or U.S. citizen 
legal guardian to apply for naturalization on behalf of a child 
born outside of the U.S., who has not acquired citizenship 
automatically under section 320 of the INA, if the child's U.S. 
citizen parent has died during the preceding five years.
    Section 11031 sets forth new procedures for certain 
investors to remove conditional resident status. They must meet 
three conditions: (1) they filed an I-526 petition and had it 
approved by the INS between January 1, 1995 and August 31, 
1998; (2) they obtained conditional resident status; and (3) 
before the date of enactment of this bill they filed an I-829 
to remove their conditional resident status. Section 11032 
provides similar procedures for EB-5 investors whose I-526 
petitions were approved, but who never became conditional 
residents because the INS never acted on their adjustment of 
status applications or because they remained overseas. This 
subsection states that the INS must approve applications under 
this section within 180 days after enactment.
    Section 11033 requires the INS to publish implementing 
regulations within 120 days of enactment. Until regulations are 
promulgated, the INS may not deny a pending I-829 petition or 
adjustment of status application relating to an alien covered 
under the terms of sections 11031 or 11032, or commence or 
continue removal proceedings against affected EB-5 investors. 
Section 11034 states that the terms used in this title shall 
have the meaning given such terms in section 101(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA''), unless otherwise 
provided. Section 11035 defines full-time employment for 
purposes of section 203(b)(5) of the INA as a position 
requiring at least 35 hours a week. Section 11034 amends 
section 203(b)(5) of the INA to eliminate the ``establishment'' 
requirement for EB-5 investors. Instead of showing that they 
have ``established'' a commercial enterprise, Investors need 
only that they have ``invested'' in a commercial enterprise. 
This section also amends section 216A of the INA to eliminate 
the ``establishment'' requirement for EB-5 investors who have 
filed I-829 petitions. They also must show that they have 
``sustained'' their investment actions over the two-year 
period. This section also clarifies that a ``commercial 
enterprise'' may include a limited partnership. The changes 
made by this section apply to I-526 and I-829 petitions pending 
on or after the date of enactment.
    Section 11037 amends section 610(a) of the 1993 Commerce, 
State, Justice appropriations act to clarify that an EB-5 
regional center can promote increased export sales, improved 
regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic 
capital investment.
    Section 11041 names this subtitle the ``Judicial 
Improvements Act of 2002, which pertains to judicial discipline 
procedures. It is based upon H.R. 3892 and S. 2713, of the same 
name. H.R. 3892 passed the House on July 22, 2002. S. 2713 was 
reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 31, 2002. 
These amendments ``tighten'' the existing statute that permits 
individuals to file misconduct complaints against federal 
judges and magistrates. As a result, the statute will be easier 
to locate and use, and will clarify the responsibilities of the 
chief judge in a given circuit who initially reviews a 
complaint.
    Section 11043 makes technical and conforming amendments to 
title 28 relating to the judicial discipline amendment. Section 
11044 states that if any part of this subtitle is found 
unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act will not be 
affected.
    Section 11051 incorporates H.R. 2325, ``the Antitrust 
Modernization Commission Act of 2001.'' Section 11052 
establishes and states that the responsibilities of the 
Commission are to examine whether the antitrust laws are in 
need of modernization, to solicit the views of all concerned 
parties, to evaluate proposals, and to prepare and submit a 
report to Congress and the President. Section 11054 sets out 
the membership of the Commission, which will have 12 members, 
with four appointed by the President, two each by the majority 
and minority leaders of the Senate, and two each by the Speaker 
and minority leader of the House. The President's nominees will 
include two members of the opposing party, to be chosen by that 
party's Congressional leaders. The President will choose the 
chair of the Commission, while the Congressional leaders from 
the other party will choose the vice chair. Section 11055 
describes the compensation of those who serve on the 
Commission. Section 11056 states that the chairperson of the 
Commission may appoint and terminate an executive director and 
other necessary staff, and use experts and consultants. Section 
11057 states that the Commission may hold such hearings and 
take such testimony as it considers appropriate, may take 
testimony under oath, and obtain information directly from any 
executive agency or court. Section 11058 states that the 
Commission shall submit a detailed report to Congress and the 
President within three years after its first meeting, including 
recommendations for legislative and administrative action the 
Commission considers appropriate. Section 11059 states that the 
Commission shall cease to exist 30 days after it submits its 
report. Section 11060 authorizes $4 million to carry out this 
subtitle.
    Section 12101 provides that the short title of this 
subtitle may be cited as the ``Consequences for Juvenile 
Offenders Act of 2002.'' Section 12102 incorporates, H.R. 863, 
the ``Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2002,'' into 
the bill. H.R. 863 passed the House on October 16, 2001 by 
voice vote. This subtitle incorporates H.R. 863 to authorize 
the Department of Justice to make grants to States and local 
governments to strengthen their juvenile justice systems. The 
subtitle allows the States and localities flexibility in using 
the grant funds and provides an illustrative list of possible 
uses for the grant money. The grant money may be used for a 
range of purposes from the hiring of more judges, prosecutors 
and corrections personnel to supporting juvenile gun courts, 
drug court programs and accountability-based school safety 
programs. The flexibility allows States and localities to 
strengthen their juvenile justicesystems in way that best meet 
their needs. To be eligible for the grant funds, a State must have or 
agree to implement a system of graduated sanctions for juvenile 
offenders. Under the bill, the graduated sanctions system must ensure 
that sanctions are imposed on juveniles offenders for every offense, 
that the sanctions escalate in intensity with each subsequent more 
serious offense, that the courts will be flexible in applying sanctions 
that address the specific problems of the individuals offender, and 
that consideration is given to public safety and victims of crime. 
Additionally, this subtitle provides that a state or locality may still 
qualify for a grant even if its system of graduated sanctions is 
discretionary, allowing juvenile courts to not participate. If an 
application's system is discretionary, however, then the non-
participating juvenile courts must report at the end of the year why 
they did not impose graduated sanctions.
    Section 12201 states that this subtitle may be cited as the 
``Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002.'' 
This section incorporates H.R. 1900, which passed the House on 
September 20, 2002. Section 12202 states the findings of 
Congress on the seriousness of juvenile crime. Section 12203 
describes the purpose of this subsection: to assist State and 
local governments in preventing acts of juvenile delinquency 
and holding offenders accountable.
    Section 12204 modifies and adds to the definitions under 
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act (JJDPA). Section 12205 
modifies the duties of the Administrator of the Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Section 12206 
makes a technical correction to the JJDPA to comply with the 
current title of the House Education and Workforce Committee.
    Section 12207 amends section 207 of the JJDPA to require an 
annual evaluation of the effectiveness of programs under this 
title. Section 12208 makes technical changes to clarify the 
process by which States and territories receive funding under 
the Act. Section 12209 eliminates specific state plan 
requirements and modify the list of activities eligible for 
funding under the formula grant program. Section 12210 creates 
a new Part C that establishes the Juvenile Delinquency 
Prevention Block Grant and sets forth the allocation of funds, 
state plan requirements and criteria and eligibility for state 
and local grants. Section 12211 creates new authority for 
research, training, technical assistance and information 
dissemination regarding juvenile justice matters through the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
    Section 12212 permits the administrator to award grants for 
developing, testing, and demonstrating new initiatives and 
programs for the prevention, control or reduction of juvenile 
delinquency. Section 12213 authorizes such sums as may be 
appropriate to carry out Title II of this act. Section 12214 
modifies the administrator's authority to establish rules, 
regulations, and procedures. Section 12215 amend section 299C 
of the JJDPA to state, among other things, that no funds shall 
be paid to a residential program unless the State in which it 
is located has minimum licensing standards. Section 12216 
amends the JJDPA by adding a requirement that funds not be used 
to support the unsecured release of juveniles charged with a 
violent crime.
    Section 12217 amends the JJDPA by adding a new section to 
clarify that nothing in Titles I or II (a) prevents otherwise 
eligible organizations from receiving grants, or (b) should be 
construed to modify or affect existing federal or state laws 
related to collective bargaining rights of employees. Section 
12218 permits the administrator to receive surplus Federal 
property and lease it to eligible entities for use in juvenile 
facilities or for delinquency prevention and treatment 
activities. Section 12219 allows the administrator to issue 
rules to carry out this title.
    Section 12220 amends JJDPA to add a new section requiring 
that materials funded by this act for the purpose of hate 
crimes prevention shall not abridge or infringe upon the 
constitutionally protected rights of free speech, religion, and 
equal protection of juveniles or their parents or legal 
guardians. Section 12221 sets forth technical and conforming 
amendments. Section 12222 reauthorizes Title V of the JJDPA, 
which provides for grants for delinquency prevention programs 
and activities. Section 12223 establishes the effective date of 
the act and states that amendments made by the act shall apply 
to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2002.
    Section 12301 amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 5037 to modify current 
federal law regarding the sentencing of juvenile delinquents. 
Specifically, it (1) provides authority to impose a term of 
juvenile delinquency supervision to follow a term of official 
detention, (2) provides authority to sanction a violation of 
probation when a person adjudicated a juvenile delinquent is 
over 21 at the time of the violation, and (3) makes technical 
corrections in response to the Supreme Court's decision in 
United States v. R.L.C.
    Section 13101 states that the short title of this subtitle 
is the ``Patent and Trademark Authorization Act of 2002.'' This 
section incorporates H.R. 2047, which passed the House on 
November 16, 2001, and S. 674, which passed the Senate on June 
26, 2002. Section 13102 authorizes the Patent and Trademark 
Office (PTO) to receive appropriations for fiscal years 2003 
through 2008 in amounts equal to those fees collected by the 
agency in each such fiscal year. The Director of the PTO must 
submit estimates of the fees for the next fiscal year to the 
Committees on Appropriations and Judiciary of the Senate and 
the Committees on Appropriations and Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives no later than February 15 each fiscal year. 
Section 13103 requires the Director to develop a user-friendly 
electronic system for the filing and processing patent and 
trademark applications. The system must be completed within 3 
years of the date of enactment of this legislation. This 
section authorizes not more than $50,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2003, 2004 and 2005 to carry out this Section. Section 
13104 requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit annual 
updates to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary on 
the implementation of the ``21st Century Strategic Plan,'' 
which was issued on June 3, 2002, and any amendments to that 
plan. Section 13105 modifies the sections of Title 35 of the 
U.S. Code that instruct the Director to determine whether 
substantial new questions of patentability are raised by 
requests for prior art citations to the Office, ex parte 
reexaminations of patents, or inter partes reexaminations of 
patents.
    Section 13106 amends 35 U.S.C. Section 315 by adding the 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as a venue where a 
third party requester may appeal, or be a party to an appeal 
of, a final decision on patentability. Section 13201 may be 
cited as the ``Intellectual Property and High Technology 
Technical Amendments Act of 2002.'' This section incorporates 
S. 320, of the same name, which passed the Senate on February 
13, 2002, and the House on March 13, 2001.
    Section 13202 of the bill clarifies the Patent Act's inter 
partes reexamination section by stipulating that it will apply 
to the proper parties and operate as envisioned. Section 13203 
clarifies the status and authority of the Deputy Director of 
the PTO and conforms the membership of the Trademark Trial and 
Appeal Board and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 
to include the Deputy Director. Section 13204 is technical in 
nature and clarifies the effective date of international 
applications which may qualify for the provisional rights based 
on early publication. Section 13205 contains a safeguard that 
the PTO will only rely on information published in English in 
patent applications as it makes the essential determination of 
novelty during the examination of a patent application. This 
limits the evidence from foreignapplications that may be 
considered ``prior art'' and could affect patentability. This is an 
important safeguard for independent inventors and small American 
businesses that do not have access to expensive translation services 
and the foreign patent offices.
    Section 13206 contains a series of highly technical 
clerical amendments developed by the Office of Legislative 
Counsel upon its own initiative. Section 13207 makes technical 
corrections to Trademark Law by removing redundancies without 
foreclosing remedies. Section 13208 corrects a clerical error 
pertaining to the section of the law cited relating to the 
adjustment of trademark fees and the consumer price index. 
Section 13209 makes amendments to Title I of IPCORA to 
eliminate existing ambiguities. Section 13210 makes several 
technical amendments and revisions to Title 17. Section 13211 
makes additional technical and conforming amendments.
    Section 13301 amends the Copyright Act to encompass 
performances and displays of copyrighted works in digital 
distance education under appropriate circumstances. The section 
expands the scope of works to which the amended section 110(2) 
exemption applies to include performances of reasonable and 
limited portions of works other than nondramatic literary and 
musical works
    Section 13401 incorporates the ``Madrid Protocol 
Implementation Act.'' Section 13402 incorporates H.R. 741 (of 
the same name), which passed the House on March 14, 2001. This 
section streamlines the process by which holders of 
applications or registrations before the Patent and Trademark 
Office (PTO) may file an international application for 
trademark protection at the PTO and requires the PTO Director 
to transmit the application to the WIPO International Bureau. 
Section 13403 states that the effective date of the act shall 
commence on the date on which the Madrid Protocol enters into 
force with respect to the United States or 1 year after the 
date of enactment, whichever occurs later.
    Section 14101 incorporates the ``Antitrust Technical 
Corrections Act of 2001,'' which made minor antitrust-related 
amendments. It is identical to H.R. 809 and S. 809. H.R. 809 
was reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 12, 2001, and 
passed the House on March 14, 2001. S. 809 was reported by the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on March 15, 2001. Section 14102 
amends the Panama Canal Act, which prohibits ships owned by 
persons who are violating the antitrust laws from passing 
through the Canal. Section 14103 establishes the effective 
dates for these provisions.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2215 was introduced by Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers on June 19, 2001. 
Several Judiciary Committee Subcommittees conducted hearings on 
this bill. The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security conducted an oversight hearing on May 3, 
2001 and received testimony from four witnesses: Louie 
McKinney, Acting Director for the United States Marshals 
Service; Donnie Marshall, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration; Thomas Pickard, Deputy Director for the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation; and Kathleen Sawyer, Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons.
    On May 9, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law conducted an oversight hearing and received 
testimony from five witnesses: Mark Calloway, Director of the 
Executive Office for the United States Attorneys; John Cruden, 
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and 
Natural Resources Division; Martha Davis, Acting Director of 
the Executive Office for United States Trustees; Stuart 
Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Division; Barbara Underwood; Acting Solicitor General of the 
United States.
    On May 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security conducted a second oversight hearing and 
received testimony from five witnesses: Michael Horowitz, Chief 
of Staff of the Department's Criminal Division; Ralph Justus, 
Acting Director of the Community Oriented Policing Services 
Program (COPS); and Mary Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney 
General for the Office of Justice Programs. Also on May 15, 
2001, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims conducted an 
oversight hearing and received testimony from five witnesses: 
Roy Beck, Executive Director of Numbers USA.com; John Lacey, 
Chairman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission; Peggy 
Philbin, Acting Director for the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review; Kevin Rooney, Acting Commissioner of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); and Bishop Thomas 
G. Wenski, Auxiliary Bishop of Miami on behalf of National 
Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration. In 
addition, Attorney General Ashcroft testified before the Full 
Committee during a June 6, 2001, oversight hearing.
    On Wednesday, June 20, 2001, the Committee reported H.R. 
2215, as amended, by voice vote (H. Rept. 107-125). H.R. 2215 
passed the House under suspension of the rules on July 23, 
2002. On October 30, 2002, the bill was reported by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The Senate passed its amended version of the bill 
on December 20, 2002. The bill then proceeded to conference. 
Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Representatives Henry Hyde (R-IL); 
George W. Gekas (R-PA); Howard Coble (R-NC); Lamar Smith (R-
TX); Elton Gallegly (R-CA); John Conyers (D-MI); Barney Frank 
(D-MA); Bobby Scott (D-VA); and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) were 
appointed House Judiciary Committee conferees. In addition, 
Representative Berman was appointed in lieu of Ms. Baldwin for 
consideration of section 312 (Additional Federal Judgeships) of 
the Senate amendment.
    The House filed the Conference Report (H. Rept. 107-685) on 
September 25, 2002. On September 26, 2002, the House agreed to 
the Conference Report by a vote of 400-4. On October 3, 2002, 
the Conference Report passed the Senate by voice vote. On 
November 2, 2002, the bill was signed by President Bush and 
became Public Law Number 107-273. On October 8, 2002, the house 
passed H. Con. Res. 503 to correct the enrollment of the bill 
H.R. 2215. The Senate agreed to H. Con. Res. 503 by Unanimous 
Consent on October 17, 2002.

H.R. 2458, the E-Government Act of 2002

    Summary.--H.R. 2458 establishes the Office of Information 
Policy in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to be 
administered by a Federal Chief Information Officer who shall 
provide direction, coordination, and oversight of the 
development, application, and management of information 
resources by the government. H.R. 2458 establishes an E-
government Fund in the Treasury to be used to fund interagency 
information technology projects and other innovative uses of 
information technology. H.R. 2458 also establishes an online 
federal telephone directory, an online national Library, and an 
individual Federal court websites. Lastly the legislation 
requires the Chief Information Officer and each agency to 
develop and post on the Internet a public domain directory of 
government websites.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 2458 was introduced on July 11, 
2001 by Congressman Turner. On November 11, 2002 the Committee 
on the Judiciary was granted a sequential referral for 
consideration of provisions of the bill for a period not later 
than November 14, 2002. On November 15, 2002 the bill passed 
the House without objection. On November 15, 2002 the Senate 
passed the bill without amendment by Unanimous Consent. On 
Decmber 17, 2002 the President signed H.R. 2458 and the bill 
became Public law 107-347.

H.R. 2882, to provide for the expedited payment of certain benefits for 
        a public safety officer who was killed or suffered a 
        catastrophic injury as a direct and proximate result of a 
        personal injury sustained in the line of duty in connection 
        with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

    Summary.--Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796, the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance (BJA) is allowed to determine whether or not a 
public officer has died as a direct or proximate cause of a 
personal injury sustained in the line of duty, and if such 
criteria is met the Bureau is directed to pay a monetary 
benefit to such officers surviving family members. After the 
tragedy of September 11, H.R. 2882 was introduced as a way to 
expedite the disbursement of those funds to the proper 
beneficiaries as determined by the Public Safety Officer 
Benefit Program outline. H.R. 2882 allowed that, upon 
certification by a public agency that a public safety officer 
employed by such agency was killed or suffered a catastrophic 
injury as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury 
sustained in the line of duty in connection with the rescue or 
recovery efforts related to the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance was 
authorized to make payment to qualified beneficiaries, with 
such payment to be made not later than 30 days after receipt of 
such certification.
    Legislative History.--On September 13, 2001, H.R. 2882 was 
introduced by Representative Nadler of New York, and 
subsequently referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 
that same day the Committee discharged the bill to the House 
without amendment. Also on that day, the House passed the bill 
H.R. 2882, 413-0. On that same day, the Senate considered H.R. 
2882 by unanimous consent and was subsequently signed into law 
by the President on September 18, 2001, becoming Public Law No. 
107-037.

H.R. 3162/H.R.2975, the ``Uniting and Strengthening America by 
        Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 
        Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001''

    Summary of crime related provisions.--On September 11, 
2001, terrorists attacked the United States and killed nearly 
3,000 United States citizens. These attacks demonstrated the 
immediate need for changes in U.S. Federal law to protect our 
Nation, our liberty, our economy and our citizens' within our 
own borders. The Committee immediately made the fight against 
terrorism its top priority. In response to the attacks, 
Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 2975, ``the Provide 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 
Act of 2001,'' (PATRIOT Act) on October 2, 2001. This bill was 
similar to the Administration's proposal.
    The legislation provided enhanced investigative tools and 
improved information sharing for the law enforcement and 
intelligence communities to combat terrorism and terrorist 
related crimes. The enhanced law enforcement tools and 
information sharing provisions assist in the prevention of 
future terrorist activities and the preliminary acts and crimes 
which further such activities. To protect the delicate balance 
between privacy and protection, the bill provided additional 
government reporting requirements, disciplinary actions for 
abuse, and civil penalties. The bill also provided for 
increased penalties for Federal terrorism offenses, eliminated 
the statute of limitations, and provided for extended post-
incarceration supervised release for persons convicted of such 
offenses. Additionally, the bill amended Federal money 
laundering laws, added new terrorism offenses, updated the 
bioterrorism laws, and adjusted existing federal criminal 
procedures relating to terrorism. The bill also changed 
immigration law to increase the Federal Government's ability to 
prevent foreign terrorists from entering the U.S., to detain 
suspected foreign terrorists and to deport foreign terrorists.
    Summary of immigration related provisions.--Under Title IV, 
subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border, authorizes sums 
necessary to triple the number of Border Patrol agents, INS 
inspectors and Customs Service personnel, along with supporting 
personnel and infrastructure, in each State (and port of entry) 
along the northern border. It also authorizes $50 million to 
both the INS and the Customs Service to make improvements in 
technology for monitoring the northern border and acquiring 
additional equipment at the northern border.
    The subtitle requires that the Attorney General and the FBI 
Director provide the INS and the State Department with access 
to the criminal history record information contained in the 
National Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification 
Index and certain other files in the form of extracts for the 
purpose of determining whether or not visa applicants or 
applicants for admission have criminal history records. The 
State Department can receive complete records upon submission 
of fingerprints and any required fee. The Department shall 
implement procedures for the taking of fingerprints and 
establish conditions for use of information received from the 
FBI to limit its redissemination, to ensure that it is used 
solely for visa issuance and admittance decisions, to secure 
its security and confidentiality and to protect any privacy 
rights of the subjects of the information.
    The Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall have 
two years to develop and certify a technology standard that can 
be used to verify the identity of persons applying for U.S. 
visas or seeking to enter the U.S. in order to conduct 
background checks and confirm identity. This shall be done 
through the National Institute of Standards and Technology and 
other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The 
technology standard shall be the technological basis for an 
electronic database system to share law enforcement and 
intelligence information necessary to confirm the identity of 
persons seeking to enter the U.S. This system shall be readily 
and easily accessible to consular officers responsible for the 
issuance of visas, federal inspection agents at border 
inspection points, and to law enforcement and intelligence 
officers responsible for the investigation or identification of 
aliens admitted to the U.S. Periodic reports shall be provided 
to Congress regarding the technology standard and the database 
system. Such sums as may be necessary are authorized to carry 
out these provisions.

            Subtitle B--Enhanced Immigration Provisions
    Under prior law, an alien was inadmissible and deportable 
for engaging in many terrorist activities only when the alien 
had used explosives or firearms. The subtitle provides that an 
alien using any weapon or dangerous device in terrorist 
activity is inadmissible and deportable.
    Under prior law, there was no general prohibition against 
an alien contributing funds or other material support to a 
terrorist organization, while there was a prohibition against 
soliciting membership in or funds from others for a terrorist 
organization. The subtitle provides that an alien is 
inadmissible and deportable for contributing funds or other 
material support to, or soliciting funds for, or membership in, 
an organization that has been designated as a terrorist 
organization by the Secretary of State, or for contributing to, 
or soliciting in or for, any non-designated terrorist 
organization, unless the alien can demonstrate that he did not 
know and should not reasonably have known that the funds or 
other material support or solicitation would further terrorist 
activity. However, inadmissibility or deportability for 
material support provided to an organization or individual who 
has committed terrorist activity shall not apply if the 
Attorney General or Secretary of State concludes that they 
should not.
    Prior immigration law did not define ``terrorist 
organization'' for purposes of making an alien inadmissible and 
deportable. The subtitle defines such an organization to 
include (1) an organization so designated by the Secretary of 
State (under a process provided for under prior and continuing 
law); (2) an organization otherwise publically designated by 
the Secretary of State as a terrorist organization, after 
finding that the organization engages in certain forms of 
terrorist activity or provides material support to further 
terrorist activity; and (3) any group of two of more 
individuals, whether organized or not, that engages in certain 
forms of terrorist activity. The subtitle clarifies that the 
Secretary of State can redesignate organizations as terrorist 
organizations and can revoke designations and redesignations.
    The subtitle provides that an alien is inadmissible if the 
alien is a representative of a political, social, or other 
similar group whose public endorsement of terrorism undermines 
the effort of the U.S. to eliminate or reduce terrorism. Also 
inadmissable will be an alien who has used his or her 
prominence to endorse or espouse terrorism or to persuade 
others to support terrorism, if this would undermine the 
efforts of the U.S. to reduce or eliminate terrorism, and an 
alien who is associated with a terrorist organization and 
intends, while in the U.S., to engage in activities that could 
endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the U.S. These 
provisions are similar to the ``foreign policy'' ground of 
inadmissibility, barring entry to an alien whose entry or 
proposed activities in the U.S. would have potentially serious 
adverse foreign policy consequences for the U.S.
    The subtitle provides that the spouses or children of 
aliens who are inadmissible for engaging in terrorist activity 
within the last five years are also inadmissible (with certain 
exceptions). The Secretary of State may determine that the 
amendments made by the foregoing provisions of this subtitle 
shall not apply with respect to actions by an alien taken 
outside the U.S. before the date of enactment of this Act upon 
the recommendation of a consular officer who has concluded that 
there are not reasonable grounds to believe that the alien knew 
or reasonably should have known that the actions would further 
terrorist activity.
    Under the prior regulatory regime, the INS could detain an 
alien for 48 hours before making a decision as to charging the 
alien with a crime or removable offense (except that in the 
event of emergency or other extraordinary circumstance, an 
additional reasonable time was allowed). The INS used this time 
to establish an alien's true identity, to check domestic and 
foreign databases for information about the alien, and to 
liaise with law enforcement agencies.
    This subtitle provides an alternative mechanism whereby the 
Attorney General can certify an alien as a suspected terrorist 
(or as having engaged in espionage and certain other offenses) 
and detain him for up to seven days before placing him in 
removal proceedings or charging him with a crime. If no charges 
are filed by the end of this period, the alien must be 
released. Otherwise, the Attorney General shall maintain 
custody of the alien until the alien is removed from the U.S. 
or found not to be inadmissible or deportable. The Attorney 
General must submit a report to Congress on the use of these 
provisions every six months.
    Under this mechanism, the Attorney General or Deputy 
Attorney General (with no further power of delegation) may 
certify an alien if they have reasonable grounds for their 
belief. The alien shall be maintained in custody irrespective 
of any relief from removal granted the alien, until the 
Attorney General determines that the alien no longer warrants 
certification. However, if an alien detained pursuant to this 
section is ordered removed as a terrorist (or on the other 
grounds allowing certification) but has not been removed within 
90 days and is unlikely to be removed in the reasonably 
foreseeable future, the alien may only be detained for 
additional periods in six month allotments if the Attorney 
General demonstrates that release will threaten the national 
security of the U.S. or the safety of the community or of any 
person.
    The Attorney General shall review his certification of an 
alien every six months. If the Attorney General determines in 
his discretion that the certification should be revoked, the 
alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney 
General deems appropriate. The alien may request each six 
months in writing that the Attorney General reconsider the 
certification and may submit documents or other evidence in 
support of that request.
    Judicial review as to certification or detention is limited 
to habeas corpus review. A final order of any circuit or 
district judge is subject to review on appeal only by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The law 
applied by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit shall be regarded as the rule of 
decision in all such habeas corpus proceedings. Habeas corpus 
review shall include review of the merits of a decision to 
certify an alien as a terrorist or to detain an alien despite 
the fact that removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable 
future.
    The subtitle provides that the Secretary of State may, on 
the basis of reciprocity, provide to aforeign government 
information in the State Department's visa lookout database and related 
information with regard to individual aliens at any time on a case-by-
case basis for the purpose of preventing, investigating, or punishing 
acts that would constitute crimes in the U.S., or with regard to any or 
all aliens in the database pursuant to conditions the Secretary 
establishes in an agreement with the foreign government in which that 
government agrees to use such information only for such purposes or to 
deny visas to person who would be inadmissible in the U.S.
    The subtitle also states the sense of Congress of the need 
to expedite implementation of the integrated entry and exit 
data system established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
    The subtitle amends the foreign student tracking system 
created by IIRIRA to clarify that the system applies to 
educational institutions such as air flight schools, language 
training schools, or vocational schools approved by the 
Attorney General to accept foreign students under ``F'', ``J'', 
or ``M'' student visas. The subtitle authorizes approximately 
$37 million to fully implement the tracking system by January 
1, 2003.
    Finally, the subtitle advances the date by which aliens 
wanting to be admitted through the visa waiver program must 
have machine-readable passports to October 1, 2003. However, 
between that date and the old deadline of October 1, 2007, the 
Secretary of State may waive this requirement with respect to 
aliens of particular countries if he determines that a country 
is making progress toward making such passports generally 
available and has taken appropriate measures to protect against 
misuse of its passports that are not machine readable.

            Subtitle C--Preservation of Immigration Benefits for 
                    Victims of Terrorism
    A number of aliens legally present in the United States 
were likely victims of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on 
September 11, 2001, were the family members of victims, or were 
caught up in the attacks' aftermath. This subtitle was designed 
to make certain modifications to the immigration law to provide 
humanitarian relief to these aliens. Most importantly, the 
subtitle provides permanent resident status through the special 
immigrant program to an alien who was the beneficiary of a 
petition filed on or before September 11 to grant the alien 
permanent residence as a family-sponsored or employer-sponsored 
immigrant, or the beneficiary of an application for labor 
certification filed on or before September 11, if the petition 
or application would otherwise have been rendered null because 
of the death or disability of the petitioner, applicant, or 
beneficiary, or the loss of employment due to physical damage 
of, or destruction of, the business of the petitioner or 
applicant, as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on 
September 11.
    Another of the provisions provides for the extension of 
status for aliens who were legally in a nonimmigrant status on 
September 11 and were the spouses and children of aliens who 
died as a direct result of the terrorist attacks, or who 
themselves had been disabled as a direct result of the 
terrorist attacks on September 11. The extension lasts until 
the later of the date that his or her status normally would 
have terminated or one year after the death or onset of 
disability.
    Legislative History.--On September 24, 2001, the Committee 
on the Judiciary held one hearing on the Administration's 
proposed legislation ``the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act 
of 2001,'' which formed the basis of H.R. 2975, ``the Provide 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 
Act of 2001,'' (PATRIOT Act). Testimony was received from four 
witnesses, representing the Department of Justice. The 
witnesses were: the Honorable John Aschroft, Attorney General; 
Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal 
Division; Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General; and Viet 
Dinh, the Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy. On 
October 3, 2001, the Committee met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill H.R. 2975, as amended, by a 36-0 
vote, a quorum being present. The bill was reported to the 
House on October 11, 2001 (H. Rept. 107-236). On October 12, 
2001, Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3108, which was 
incorporated as an amendment in the nature of a substitute into 
H.R. 2975. On October 11, 2001, the Senate passed its version 
of the bill, S. 1510, the ``Uniting and Strengthening America 
Act of 2001,'' (U.S.A. Act). The House passed H.R. 2975, as 
amended, on October 12, 2001, by a recorded vote (Roll No. 385) 
of 337 yeas to 79 nays. After informal negotiations, the House 
and Senate incorporated the two versions into H.R. 3162, the 
``Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate 
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 
2001,'' (The U.S.A. Patriot Act). H.R. 3162 also incorporated 
provisions of H.R. 3004, the ``Financial Anti-Terrorism Act,'' 
and H.R. 3160, the ``Bioterrorism Prevention Act of 2001.'' 
H.R. 3162 became Public Law 107-56 on 10/26/2001.

H.R. 3295, the ``Help America Vote Act of 2002'' (Public Law 107-252)

    Summary.--Reports of problems in Florida and elsewhere 
during the 2000 election raised concerns among the American 
public about specific failures and the overall integrity of the 
election system such as: voting fraud and irregularities; 
problems with ballots from military and overseas voters; the 
electoral college; and the effect of media projections of state 
outcomes before the polls have closed. Previously obscure 
details of voting and vote counting became the focus of public 
attention. More than 80 bills and resolutions were introduced 
in the 107th Congress to make broad-reaching or more limited 
changes to the electoral system in the U.S. The House and 
Senate each passed differing versions of election reform bills. 
Subsequently, a House/Senate conference committee was convened 
and resulted in passage of H.R. 3295, the ``Help America Vote 
Act of 2002,'' in response to the concerns of Americans raised 
by the 2000 Presidential elections. This legislation marked the 
first significant reforms to our electoral system in the U.S. 
since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1964.
    H.R. 3295 establishes a new federal commission to replace 
the Office of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal 
Election Commission and also to perform some new functions. 
Funding for the Commission is authorized for three fiscal years 
and members are appointed by the President. It also establishes 
two new boards, with broad-based state and local membership, to 
address various aspects of voting system standards. The main 
duties of the Commission include administering the grant 
programs, providing for testing and certification of voting 
systems, studying elections issues,and issuing voluntary 
guidelines for voting systems and other federally-mandated requirements 
in the bill. The Commission will not have any new rule-making 
authority.
    H.R. 3295 provides formula grants to replace punchcard 
systems, lever voting machines, and other general election 
administration improvements. With respect to voting systems and 
technology, H.R. 3295 requires voters be provided with an 
opportunity to correct errors and sets minimum requirements for 
voting systems to assure voting machinery meets minimum error 
rates.
    H.R. 3295 also provides grants to states to help ensure the 
disabled have access to the polling place and that the voting 
systems are fully accessible to those with disabilities.
    The final agreement also contains new anti-vote fraud 
provisions, including the following: (1) states are now 
required to maintain a computerized statewide voter 
registration list; (2) voter registration applicants must 
specifically affirm their American citizenship; (3) new voters 
who register by mail must provide proof of identity at some 
point in the process; \38\ (4) it is now a federal crime to 
conspire to commit voter fraud; (5) voters who do not appear on 
a registration list must be allowed to cast a provisional 
ballot, however, those ballots will be held and counted 
separately until verified a legal vote; (6) if a poll is held 
open beyond the time provided by state law, votes cast after 
that time will be cast provisionally and held separately; and 
(7) voters will be required to include either their driver's 
license number or the last four digits of their social security 
number on their voter registration form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Among the acceptable forms of identification are the 
following: utility bill, government check, bank statement, or driver's 
license. In lieu of the individual providing proof of identity, states 
may also electronically verify an individual's identity against 
existing state databases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And finally, H.R. 3295 leaves the specific methods of 
implementing the requirements to the discretion of the states 
but requires the OEA develop voluntary guidance to help states 
meet the requirements. In addition, states must establish 
administrative procedures to receive and act on complaints with 
regard to violations of the requirements set out in the Act.

            The Senate amendment sections within the Judiciary 
                    Committee's jurisdiction
    Both the House and Senate versions of the bill provided 
grants to state and local governments for replacing and 
improving registration and voting systems and improvements in 
election administration. However, the method of administering 
the grant programs were significantly different and of primary 
concern to the Committee. Under the Senate-passed amendment, 
Title II, parts A, B, and C, required the Civil Rights Division 
of the DOJ to promulgate implementation guidelines for states 
to meet federally mandated requirements for voting systems, 
provisional voting, voting information requirements, and voter 
registration. And, if states were not in compliance with such 
guidelines, the Attorney General was then to bring a civil 
action against any noncompliant states. The conference report 
eliminates the role of the DOJ in administering the grant 
programs.
    Under the final version conference report, states will now 
self-certify compliance with the Act, and if a state is found 
to be noncompliant, the DOJ will enforce the Act. In addition, 
section 311 of the Senate amendment was then eliminated in the 
conference report due to the change in responsibility for 
administration of the grant program from the Department of 
Justice to the newly created Election Assistance Commission.
    Section 101 of the Senate amendment describing Voting 
Systems Standards became section 301 of the conference report. 
The significant change to the original language was to Section 
101(a)(4) referring to alternative language accessibility. The 
conference report section 301(a)(4) made this provision 
consistent with the already existing requirements of section 
203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a).
    Section 102 of the Senate amendment providing for 
provisional voting was kept essentially the same in the 
conference report, however, one significant portion was added. 
Section 302(c) added language that now requires that if polls 
are held open after the poll-closing time as a result of a 
court order, those votes will be held separately from other 
provisional ballots.
    Section 104 of the Senate amendment provided for 
enforcement of Title I by the Assistant Attorney General of the 
Civil Rights Division to bring any civil actions for 
declaratory or injunctive relief. The role of the Civil Rights 
Division was eliminated from the final version, and enforcement 
power for the new law is found in Title IV and was given to the 
Attorney General. In addition, the safe harbor provision which 
protected states until January 1, 2010 from civil action for 
noncompliance with certain provision of the Act, such as 
provisional voting, was removed. This change now requires 
states to comply with the provisional voting and computerized 
statewide voter registration system by 2004, and to comply with 
the voting equipment requirements by 2006.
    Sections 501 (providing for the AG to review and report on 
existing electoral fraud statutes and penalties and provide 
such a report to Congress) and 502 (providing new criminal 
penalties for conspiracy to deprive voters of a fair election 
and providing false information when registering or voting) of 
the Senate amendments remained in the final version of the 
conference report.

            The House bill sections within the Judiciary Committee's 
                    jurisdiction
    Section 216 of the House bill remained exactly the same in 
the conference report. This section provides that 28 U.S.C. 
chapters 161 and 171 apply with respect to the liability of the 
Standards Board, and the Board of Advisors, such that there is 
no protection from personal liability for criminal acts of a 
member of the Standards Board or the Board of Advisors.
    Section 221 of the House bill covered voluntary election 
standards and made the Election Assistance Commission 
responsible for making periodic studies available to the public 
regarding election administration issues. The conference report 
changes this section in several ways. First,it makes election 
standards mandatory, and second, section 241(b)(5-13) makes the 
language more explicit with respect to blind and visually impaired 
voters, Native American or Alaska Native citizens, and other 
information regarding voter fraud, intimidation and eligibility.
    Title IV of the House bill became Section 601 of the 
conference report and remained the same. Section 601 amends 
Part B of subtitle II of 36 U.S.C. to establish the federally 
chartered Help America Vote Foundation to mobilize secondary 
school students to participate as nonpartisan poll workers and 
assistants. It permits the Attorney General to bring a civil 
action for relief for behavior by the foundation that is 
inconsistent with the purposes designated in the Act.
    Legislative History.--H.R. 3295, the ``Help America Vote 
Act of 2001'' was introduced on November 14, 2002, after 
several months of negotiation, by the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the House Administration Committee, Representatives 
Bob Ney (R-OH) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) (for themselves and 77 
original cosponsors). A markup was held by the House 
Administration Committee on November 15, 2001, and the bill was 
reported favorably to the House by a unanimous vote of the 
Committee. The House Administration Committee file H. Rept. 
107-325, on December 12, 2001. The following committees 
received referrals of H.R. 3295 at introduction: Armed 
Services, Science, Government Reform and Judiciary. The other 
three committees waived their jurisdiction, however, the 
Judiciary Committee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3295 on 
December 5, 2001. The particular provisions of the original 
bill that invoked Judiciary Committee jurisdiction included 
certain provisions of Title II, which required statutory 
compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973, 
et. seq.), as well as Title V provisions authorizing the 
Attorney General of the United States to bring a civil action 
against any state that did not satisfy the requirements of the 
title.
    The witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Cleta 
Mitchell, Election Law Attorney, Foley & Lardner; Philip D. 
Zelikow, Executive Director, National Commission on Federal 
Election Reform (The Ford/Carter Commission); John R. Lott Jr., 
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Lloyd J. 
Leonard, Legislative Director, The League of Women Voters; and 
Jim Dickson, Vice President of Government Affairs, American 
Association of People with Disabilities. Of significant concern 
to the Committee was the issue of voter fraud, enforcement of 
the proposed law by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and 
enforcement of current laws involving voting rights and voting 
fraud.
    The Armed Services, Science, Government Reform, and 
Judiciary Committees were discharged from further consideration 
of the bill on December 10, 2001. H.R. 3295 passed in the House 
on December 12, 2001 on a 362 to 63 vote and H.R. 3295 was 
referred to the Senate for consideration. The Senate passed 
H.R. 3295, amended, by a vote of 99 to 1 on April 11, 2002.
    The Senate appointed conferees on May 1, 2002, and the 
House appointed conferees on May 16, 2002. The following 
Members from the Committee on the Judiciary were appointed as 
conferees for the consideration of sections 216, 221, Title IV, 
sections 502, and 503 of the House bill and sections 101, 102, 
104, subtitles A, B and C of Title II, sections 311, 501 and 
502 of the Senate amendments, and modifications committed to 
conference: Chairman Sensenbrenner, Steve Chabot (R-OH), and 
Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI).
    On July 9, 2002, the House voted to instruct conferees to 
accept the Senate provision on standards for polling place 
accessibility. Additional instructions urging conferees to 
reach agreement by early October were passed on September 19, 
September 26, and October 2, 2002. A conference agreement was 
announced by the managers on October 4, 2002 and the conference 
report, H. Rept. 107-730, was filed on October 8, 2002. It was 
adopted by the House on October 10, 2002 on a vote of 357 to 
48, and by the Senate on October 16, 2002, on a vote of 92 to 
2. The President signed the bill into law on October 29, 2002 
(P.L. 107-252).

H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 
        2002 (Public Law 107-173)

    Summary.--Since September 11, 2001, the nation has learned 
how deeply vulnerable our immigration system is to exploitation 
by aliens who wish to harm Americans. H.R. 3525 makes needed 
changes to our immigration laws to fight terrorism and prevent 
such exploitation.
    H.R. 3525 authorizes an increase of INS inspectors and 
support staff by at least 200 full-time employees over the 
levels authorized in the USA-PATRIOT Act for fiscal years 2003-
06, and an increase of INS investigators and support staff by 
the same amount. The Act also authorizes sums necessary to 
increase the rate of pay for certain Border Patrol agents, 
inspectors and other INS personnel and necessary to train INS 
personnel in order to better protect U.S. borders and enforce 
the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act authorizes $150 
million in order for the INS to improve border security 
technology and to facilitate the flow of commerce and persons 
at ports of entry. The Act authorizes funds for the INS and 
State Department to improve facilities used by their employees.
    The Act provides that the State Department's machine-
readable visa fee shall be the higher of $65 or the actual 
cost, and that a $10 surcharge may be added for the issuance of 
a machine-readable visa in a nonmachine-readable passport.
    The Act requires the President to submit to Congress a 
report identifying federal law enforcement and intelligence 
community information needed by the State Department to screen 
visa applicants and by the INS to screen applicants for 
admission and to identify inadmissible and deportable aliens. 
This report replaces one that had been required by the USA-
PATRIOT Act. Based on the findings of this report, the 
President shall develop and implement a plan to require federal 
law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community to 
provide the necessary information to the State Department and 
INS. This plan shall establish conditions on the use of this 
information in order to limit its redissemination; to ensure 
that it is used solely for its intended purposes; to secure its 
accuracy, security and confidentiality; to protect privacy 
rights of subjects; to provide for data integrity; and to 
protect the sources and methods of intelligence information. 
Misuse of informationcarries criminal penalties. Until the plan 
is implemented, federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence 
community shall, to the extent practicable, share information with the 
State Department and the INS relevant to the admissibility and 
deportability of aliens.
    The Act advances the dates established by the USA-PATRIOT 
Act by which the Attorney General and the Secretary of State 
must develop and certify a technology standard that can be used 
to verify the identity of persons applying for U.S. visas.
    By the time the President begins implementing the 
information sharing plan, he must develop and implement an 
interoperable electronic data system to provide immediate 
access to information in databases of federal law enforcement 
agencies and the intelligence community relevant to determining 
whether to issue a visa or to determine the admissibility or 
deportability of an alien. As part of this system, the INS must 
fully integrate all its databases that process or collect 
information on aliens. In developing the system, the President 
shall consult with the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology and other appropriate agencies. The technology 
standard utilized shall be the one established by the USA-
PATRIOT Act. Information in the data system shall be readily 
and easily accessible to consular officers, federal officials 
responsible for determining the admissibility or deportability 
of aliens, or any federal law enforcement or intelligence 
officer responsible for the investigation or identification of 
aliens. The President shall develop appropriate limitations on 
access to the information. The system shall have the capacity 
to compensate for different spelling of names in different 
component databases. The system shall also be searchable in a 
linguistically sensitive basis that accounts for variations in 
name formats and transliterations and that incorporates 
advanced linguistic and other methods. Linguistically sensitive 
algorithms shall be developed and implemented within certain 
time frames for no fewer than four high priority languages 
selected by the Secretary of State. Such sums as are necessary 
are authorized to carry out this system.
    The President shall establish a Commission on Interoperable 
Data Sharing to provide oversight of the data system and 
monitor the associated privacy and other protections regarding 
the data.
    The Attorney General may hire and fix the compensation of 
(up to the rate payable at level III of the Executive Schedule) 
necessary scientific, technical, engineering, and other 
analytical personnel for purposes of the development and 
implementation of the system.
    The Act requires the Secretary of State to provide to the 
INS an electronic version of the visa file of each alien who 
has been issued a visa so that it is available to INS 
inspectors at ports of entry.
    In developing the integrated entry and exit data system for 
ports of entry required by the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended, the Attorney 
General and the Secretary of State shall use the technology 
standard required under the USA-PATRIOT Act; establish a 
database containing the arrival and departure data from 
machine-readable visas, passports and other documents; and make 
interoperable all security databases relevant to making 
determinations of inadmissibility of aliens.
    The Act requires that no later than October 26, 2004, the 
Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall issue to 
aliens only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and other 
travel documents that use biometric identifiers, employing the 
technology standard established pursuant to the USA-PATRIOT 
Act. Document authentication standards and biometric 
identifiers standards are to be employed from among those 
biometric identifiers recognized by domestic and international 
standards organizations. By this same date, the Attorney 
General shall install at all ports of entry equipment to allow 
biometric comparison and authentication of all U.S. visas and 
travel documents and passports issued by visa waiver program 
countries, also relying on the USA-PATRIOT Act technology 
standard. Also by this date, each country participating in the 
visa waiver program shall certify, as a condition for 
participation in the program, that it has a program to issue to 
its nationals machine-readable passports that are tamper-
resistant and incorporate biometric and document 
authentification identifiers that comply with International 
Civil Aviation Organization standards. On or after the October 
26, 2004, date, any alien applying for admission under the visa 
waiver program must present a passport that meets these 
requirements unless the passport was issued prior to that date. 
Not later than 180 days after enactment, a report must be 
submitted to Congress assessing the actions that will be 
necessary to carry out these plans by the October 2004 date. 
The Act authorizes such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
these plans.
    The Act requires the Secretary of State to maintain 
terrorist lookout committees that meet at least monthly at each 
U.S. mission in a foreign country to identify known or 
potential terrorists and to ensure that such information is 
brought to the attention of appropriate U.S. officials and 
entered into the appropriate lookout databases. The Act 
authorizes such sums as may be necessary to carry out these 
plans.
    The Secretary of State shall require that all consular 
officers responsible for adjudicating visa applications first 
receive specialized training in the effective screening of visa 
applicants who pose a threat to the safety or security of the 
U.S. Consular officers should also be provided with as much 
nonclassified information as possible regarding such visa 
applicants. The Act authorizes such sums as may be necessary to 
carry out these plans.
    The Act provides that no nonimmigrant visa may be issued to 
any alien who is a national of a country that is a state 
sponsor of international terrorism as determined by the 
Secretary of State, unless the Secretary determines that such 
alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security 
of the U.S.
    The Act provides that a country can only be designated into 
the visa waiver program if it certifies that it report to the 
U.S. on a timely basis the theft of blank passports issued by 
that country. The Attorney General must evaluate at least every 
two years the effect of each participating country's continued 
participation in the visa waiver program on the law enforcement 
and security interests of the U.S. Also, if the Attorney 
General and the Secretary of State jointly determine that a 
participating country is not reporting the theft of blank 
passports as required, the country shall beterminated from the 
program. Prior to the admission of any alien under the visa waiver 
program, the INS must determine that the alien does not appear on any 
of the appropriate lookout databases available to immigration 
inspectors.
    Once the law enforcement and intelligence data system is 
implemented, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State 
shall enter into the system the corresponding identification 
number for lost or stolen passports within 72 hours of 
receiving notification. The identification numbers of U.S. and 
foreign passports lost or stolen prior to the implementation of 
the data system shall be entered to the extent practicable.
    The Act requires the President to conduct a study of the 
feasibility of establishing a North American National Security 
Program to enhance the mutual security and safety of the U.S., 
Canada, and Mexico. The study shall consider the feasibility of 
establishing a program enabling foreign national travelers to 
the U.S. to submit voluntarily to a preclearance procedure and 
of expanding reinspection facilities at foreign airports.
    The Act requires that for each commercial vessel or 
aircraft transporting any person to any U.S. seaport or airport 
from abroad, the U.S. border officer at the port must be given 
manifest information about each passenger, crew member, and 
other occupant prior to its arrival. Similar departure 
manifests must be given when leaving the U.S. (unless the 
Attorney General authorizes their provision at a later date 
regarding certain vessels and aircraft making regular trips to 
the U.S.). Not later than January 1, 2003, manifest information 
must be transmitted electronically. No clearance papers will be 
granted until the manifest provisions are complied with. If a 
carrier refuses or fails to provide manifest information, or 
provides inaccurate or incomplete information, a fine of $1,000 
per traveler will be assessed. The Attorney General may waive 
the manifest provisions upon such circumstances and conditions 
as he may specify. The Act requires that the President conduct 
a study regarding the feasibility of extending the manifest 
requirements to commercial land carriers.
    The Act repeals the provision of immigration law requiring 
that arriving passengers on scheduled airline flights have 
their immigration processing completed within 45 minutes. 
However, the INS should staff ports of entry with the goal of 
meeting the 45 minute standard.
    The Act allows U.S. border inspection agencies to conduct 
joint U.S.-Canada inspections projects on the international 
border between the two countries.
    The Act modifies the electronic foreign student tracking 
system so that it monitors and verifies: (1) the issuance of an 
acceptance of a foreign student or an exchange visitor by an 
educational institution; (2) the transmittal of the 
documentation to the State Department; (3) the issuance of a 
visa to such alien; (4) the admission into the U.S. of the 
alien; (5) the notification of the institution that the alien 
has been admitted to the U.S.; (6) the enrollment of the 
student or participation in the exchange program; and (7) any 
change in institution by the alien or termination of studies or 
participation.
    Institutions must report within 30 days of a deadline for 
an alien registering for classes or commencing participation in 
an exchange program any failure of the alien to enroll or to 
commence participation. Not later than 120 days after the date 
of enactment, and until the electronic foreign student tracking 
system (as here amended) is fully implemented, a transitional 
program must be in place to provide much of this information.
    Not later than two years after enactment, and every two 
years thereafter, the INS shall conduct a review of the 
institutions certified to receive aliens under the student and 
exchange visitor nonimmigrant visa programs. The review shall 
determine the institutions' compliance with the record keeping 
and reporting requirements of the visa programs and of the 
electronic foreign student tracking system. Also, the Secretary 
of State shall conduct similar reviews of entities designated 
to sponsor exchange visitors. Material failure of an 
institution or entity to comply shall result in suspension for 
at least one year, or termination of the institution's approval 
to accept students or to sponsor exchange visitors.
    Finally, the Act extended to October 1, 2002, the deadline 
by which only the biometric border crossing identification 
cards required by the IIRIRA will be accepted. See discussion 
of H.R. 2276.
    Legislative History.--On December 19, 2001, Chairman F. 
James Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3525. On December 19, 2001, 
the House passed H.R. 3525 under suspension of the rules, as 
amended, by a voice vote. On April 18, 2002, the Senate passed 
H.R. 3525, as amended, by a vote of 97-0. On May 8, 2002, the 
House passed H.R. 3525, as amended, by the Senate by a vote of 
411-0 with 2 present. On May 14, 2002, the President signed 
H.R. 3525 into law (Public Law No. 107-173). See H. Res. 365.

H.R. 3925, the ``Digital Tech Corps Act''

    Summary.--Representative Tom Davis introduced H.R. 3925, 
the ``Digital Tech Corps Act,'' on March 12, 2002. The bill 
establishes an employee exchange program for information 
technology management personnel between the Federal Government 
and the private sector. H.R. 3925 provides Federal employees 
throughout the Federal Government with additional on-the-job 
training and education. Additionally, the bill will enhance the 
ability of Federal agencies to attract and retain quality 
information technology experts.
    H.R. 3925, the ``Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002'', is in 
response to a growing concern that the Federal Government is 
unable to attract and retain quality information technology 
experts. This problem is magnified with the increased use of 
technology throughout the Federal Government. The Government 
Accounting Office (GAO) found that the Federal Government faces 
a substantial human capital shortage that is estimated to 
intensify because 34 percent of the Federal workforce is 
eligible to retire in the next 5 years. This shortfall is even 
worse for the information technology fields. When a GAO 
official testified before the Government Reform Committee last 
summer on the earlier version of the bill, GAO explained that 
``estimated that fifty percent of thegovernment's technology 
workforce will be eligible to retire by 2006.'' \39\ Information 
technology is one of the top priorities for the Nation in all respects 
including national security, law enforcement and economic growth. This 
legislation addressed the human resource issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ H.R. Rep. No. 107-379, pt. 1, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislative History.--The Committee on Government Reform 
reported the bill, as amended, favorably on March 14, 2002. The 
legislation was then referred to the Committees on the 
Judiciary and Ways and Means for a 1-day referral on March 18, 
2002 and that referral was extended to April 9, 2002. The 
Committee on the Judiciary did not hold hearings on H.R. 3925, 
the ``Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002.'' On March 20, 2002, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 
The bill was reported to the House on April 9, 2002 (H. Rept. 
107-379, Part II). On April 10, 2002, the bill passed the House 
by voice vote. No further action was taken on the bill, H.R. 
3925, during the 107th Congress.

H.R. 5005/H.R. 5710, the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002'' (Public Law 
        Number 107-296)

    Summary.--The United States faces increasingly diffuse 
threats to its internal security. Given the overwhelming 
superiority of U.S. military power, hostile nations and 
terrorist organizations increasingly employ nonconventional 
methods to threaten the American people and institutions. A 
basic and fundamental role of the federal government under our 
Constitution is to protect the American people from domestic 
and foreign threats. Currently, the United States does not 
possess a coordinated assessment, reduction, and response 
program to protect the American homeland against these 
increasingly diverse threats. Federal antiterrorism and 
homeland defense responsibilities are dispersed over more than 
22 departments and agencies throughout the federal 
government.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ David. M. Walker, Comptroller General, General Accounting 
Office, Combating Terrorism, Selected Challenges and Related 
Recommendations, Report to Congressional Committees, September 20, 
2001, GAO-01-822, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon took more than 3,000 lives, caused approximately $100 
billion in economic losses, triggered U.S. military 
intervention in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime, and 
led to passage of an historic overhaul of federal law 
enforcement policies and priorities culminating in the 
enactment of the PATRIOT Act.\41\ The events of September 11th, 
2001 will reverberate for many years, if not decades.\42\ These 
events also lent impetus to House passage of legislation to 
tighten security at America's airports,\43\ reform the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service,\44\ and to enhance 
border security.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat 272 (codified as amended in 
scattered sections of 18 U.S.C.) (2001).
    \42\ See Michael E. O'Hanlon, et. al, Protecting the American 
Homeland, A Preliminary Analysis, The Brookings Institution, Brookings 
Institution Press, 2002 at 1, visited June 23, 2002), 
    \43\ ``Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act,'' 
Pub L. No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001).
    \44\ H.R. 3231, the ``Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and 
Accountability Act,'' 107th Congress (2002), (passed the House of 
Representatives, April 25, 2002).
    \45\ ``Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 
2002,'' Pub. L. No. 107-173, 116 Stat 543 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND HOMELAND SECURITY

    The creation of a Department of Homeland Security 
overwhelmingly implicates the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
the Judiciary. House Rule X provides the Judiciary Committee 
with jurisdiction over ``subversive activities affecting the 
internal security of the United States.'' \46\ The Committee 
also has jurisdiction over civil and criminal judicial 
proceedings.\47\ As a result, the Committee has jurisdiction 
over federal law enforcement activities undertaken by a number 
of federal departments and agencies, including the United 
States Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of 
Justice. The proposed Department's central, predominate purpose 
is to assess, prevent, and respond to terrorism and other 
threats affecting America's internal security. The Committee 
also has exclusive jurisdiction over the nation's immigration 
and naturalization laws,\48\ as well as the federal 
administrative practice and procedure which governs federal 
agencies.\49\ In addition, the proposed Department would 
incorporate a number of federal agencies over which the 
Judiciary Committee presently exercises exclusive legislative 
and oversight responsibilities. The centrality of the newly 
established Department's law enforcement mission necessitates 
careful consideration by this Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ See House Rule X (k)(18), Rules of the House of 
Representatives; see also Judy Schneider, House and Senate Committee 
Organization and Jurisdiction: Considerations Related to Proposed 
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Research Service, June 
10, 2002, RL31449, .
    \47\ House Rule X (k)(1).
    \48\ Id. at (k)(8).
    \49\ Id. at (k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Departmental components transferred by H.R. 5005 (as 
                    introduced) to the Department of Homeland Security 
                    within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee
            Immigration and Naturalization Service, including the 
                    Border Patrol
    Section 402 of H.R. 5005 would have transferred all 
operational assets and control over the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to the new Department's Border and 
Transportation Security Division. Transferring the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS) raises a number of critical 
questions. The proposal vests the Secretary of the new 
Department with authority to regulate the issuance of entry 
visas at United States diplomatic or consular offices overseas 
``through the authority of the Secretary of State.'' As a 
result, the Department of State would continue to exercise 
authority over the issuance of visas by United States embassies 
and consulates.

            United States Secret Service
    Section 720 of H.R. 5005 transfers the United States Secret 
Service to the new Department. However, the bill specifies that 
the Secret Service shall be maintained as a distinct entity 
with the new Department. The Committee on the Judiciary has 
authorizing jurisdiction over the Service. The bill maintains 
the present appointment of the Director of the Secret Service 
by the President, but transfers operation control of the 
Service from the Department of the Treasury. The measure 
maintains the security role the Secret Service has begun to 
provide at national security events, and retains the Service's 
core mission of protecting the President and his family. Crime 
prevention is central to the mission of the Secret Service. 
Under applicable statutes, the Secret Service engages in 
several law enforcement functions, such as anti-
counterfeiting,\50\ threats against the President or his 
successors,\51\ credit card fraud,\52\ computer crimes,\53\ and 
fraud against financial institutions.\54\ The Secret Service's 
core law enforcement functions would be maintained under the 
President's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 331-333 and 470-504 (2000).
    \51\ Id. at Sec. 871.
    \52\ Id. at Sec. 1029.
    \53\ Id. at Sec. 1030.
    \54\ Id. at Sec. 1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            National Infrastructure Protection Center, Federal Bureau 
                    of Investigation
    Section 202 of H.R. 5005 would have transferred operational 
control of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) 
of the F.B.I. to the new Department. NIPC, was established in 
1998 to ensure coordination among intergovernmental and private 
organizations to protect against terrorist threats to critical 
infrastructures.\55\ NIPC's mission is to serve as the federal 
government's focal point for threat assessment, warning, 
investigation, and response for threats or attacks against 
critical facilities, including telecommunications, computer, 
energy, banking and finance, water systems, government 
operations, and emergency services. A significant part of its 
mission involves establishing mechanisms to increase the 
sharing of vulnerability and threat information between the 
government and private industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ See Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Infrastructure 
Protection Center, [available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/
fbi/nipc/].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 22, 1998 President Clinton announced two new 
directives designed to strengthen U.S. defenses against 
terrorism and other unconventional threats: Presidential 
Decision Directives (PDD) 62 and 63. PDD-62 highlights the 
growing range of unconventional threats, including ``cyber-
terrorism'' and chemical, radiological, and biological weapons, 
and creates a new and more systematic approach to defending 
against them.\56\ PDD-63 focuses specifically on protecting the 
Nation's critical infrastructures from both physical and 
computer-based attacks.\57\ NIPC was established as a result of 
this Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Presidential Decision Directive 62, Protection Against 
Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas, May 22, 
1998.
    \57\ Presidential Decision Directive 63, Critical Infrastructure 
Protection, May 22, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Office for Domestic Preparedness of the Office of Justice 
                    Programs, Department of Justice
    The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) was established 
by the Attorney General in 1998 to develop and implement a 
national program to enhance the capacity of state and local 
agencies to respond to incidents of domestic terrorism, 
particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD), 
through coordinated training, equipment acquisition, technical 
assistance, and support for Federal, state, and local 
exercises.\58\ ODP fulfills this mission through a series of 
program efforts responsive to the specific requirements of 
state and local agencies; ODP works directly with emergency 
responders and conducts assessments of state and local needs 
and capabilities to guide the development and execution of 
these programs. Assistance provided by ODP is directed at a 
broad spectrum of state and local emergency responders, 
including firefighters, emergency medical services, emergency 
management agencies, law enforcement, and public officials. The 
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) (formerly The Office for 
State & Local Domestic Preparedness) is the program office 
within the Department of Justice (DOJ) responsible for 
enhancing the capacity of state and local jurisdictions to 
respond to, and mitigate the consequences of, incidents of 
domestic terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ See United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Overview, [available at: 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/about/ overview.htm].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            National Domestic Preparedness Office, Federal Bureau of 
                    Investigation
    Former Attorney General Janet Reno created the National 
Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO) on October 16, 1998, 
following a stakeholders conference that brought together 
leading members of the emergency response community. At this 
meeting, stakeholders recommended that all federal WMD 
preparedness assistance programs be coordinated by a single 
office. After consultation with the National Security Council, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and others, the 
Attorney General directed the Bureau to lead an interagency 
coordination effort now known as the NDPO.
    The NDPO's federal partners include the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, FBI, Department of Energy, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Department of Justice, Office for State and 
Local Domestic Preparedness Support, Department of Health and 
Human Services, and the National Guard Bureau. To coordinate 
and facilitate all federal WMD efforts to assist state and 
local emergency responders with planning, training, equipment, 
exercise, and health and medical issues necessary to respond to 
a WMD events. The NDPO's program areas encompass the six broad 
areas of domestic preparedness requiring coordination and 
assistance, including: Planning, Training, Exercises, 
Equipment, Information Sharing, and Public Health and Medical 
Services.

            Additional federal law enforcement functions transferred by 
                    H.R. 5005 to the Department of Homeland Security
            United States Coast Guard
    The President's proposal transfers the Coast Guard from the 
Department of Transportation to the new Department of Homeland 
Security. With approximately 43,600 full-time uniformed and 
civilian personnel, the Coast Guard would be the largest 
federal agency absorbed into the Department. The Coast Guard is 
the federal government's principal maritime law-enforcement 
agency. It has about 37,000 active-duty uniformed personnel, 
about 6,000 civilian personnel, about 8,000 reserve uniformed 
personnel, and an annual budget of $5.702 billion.\59\ It 
performs a variety of missions that it groups into four major 
roles--maritime law enforcement, maritime safety, marine 
environmental protection, and national defense. The Coast Guard 
also performs a variety of law enforcement functions, including 
maritime narcotics enforcement.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ United States Coast Guard, Overview, 1,5