Saturday, December 31, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Overcriminalized.com Legislative Update
From Overcriminalized.com:
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to deter public corruption, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/5/2011: Introduced in House
5/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would make myriad changes to Title 18 of the U.S. Code to expand the scope of a number of federal criminal laws targeting fraud, theft, bribery, embezzlement, racketeering, and other forms of so-called public corruption. H.R. 1793 would also increase the criminal penalties for certain public corruption offenses, expand the federal venue provisions for a wide range of federal offenses (including perjury and obstruction of justice), and broaden the applicability of the federal wiretap authorization statute. Specifically, the provisions of the bill make the following changes to Title 18 of the U.S. Code: (1) expand the scope of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343) to cover not just "money and property," but rather "money, property, or anything of value"; (2) broaden the scope of the federal venue provision (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) to allow for proper venue in "any district in which an act in furtherance of an offense is committed"; (3) increase the maximum criminal penalty for "theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal financial assistance" (18 U.S.C. § 666(a)) from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years imprisonment; (4) increase the maximum criminal penalty for the embezzlement, theft, purloining, or conversion or public money, property, or records (18 U.S.C. § 641) from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years imprisonment; (5) increase the maximum criminal penalty for bribery and graft (18 U.S.C. § 201) from 15 years imprisonment to 20 years imprisonment in cases involving a specific intent to influence, and from two years imprisonment to five years imprisonment in cases not involving such intent; (6) modify the language of the illegal gratuities portion of the bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)) to prohibit gratuities given because of an "official's or person's official position or any official act" and not solely because of "any official act"; (7) broaden the definition of an "official act" for the purposes of the illegal gratuities portion of the bribery statute; (8) extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting certain public corruption offenses; (9) increase the maximum criminal penalties for federal statutes prohibiting the inappropriate solicitation and acceptance of political contributions (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 602(a)(4), 600, 601(a), 606, 607(a)(2), and 610); (10) expand the predicate offenses available for the charging of RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1961; (11) broaden the applicability of the federal wiretap authorization statute (18 U.S.C. § 2516) to include certain public corruption offenses; (12) widen the scope of the federal venue provision for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions (see 18 U.S.C. § 1512(i)); (13) amend the federal honest services fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1346A) to prohibit undisclosed self-dealing by public officials; (14) clarify that the theft and bribery provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 666(c) shall apply "to the giving or receiving of 'anything of value' that is corruptly solicited, demanded, accepted or agreed to be accepted"; and (15) modify the certification process under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 for appeals by the United States of pre-trial evidentiary decisions rendered by the district courts. H.R. 1793 would also amend 28 U.S.C. § 360(a) to allow for the disclosure of confidential materials associated with formal complaints against federal judges to the U.S. Attorney General, grand juries, or law enforcement agencies when such complaints involve allegations of criminal offenses.
Sponsor: Miller (D - NC)
Official Title: A bill to provide for enhanced mortgage-backed and asset-backed security investor protections, to prevent foreclosure fraud, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/5/2011: Introduced in House
5/5/2011: Referred to House Financial Services Committee
Commentary: This bill, like its Senate counterpart (S. 824), would amend various provisions of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) (15 U.S.C. § 77aa et seq.), the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1631 et seq.), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) to broaden the scope of each act to include both mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. In addition, H.R. 1783 would increase the existing criminal penalties for violations of the TIA (15 U.S.C. § 77yyy). Currently, willful violations of the TIA, and false statements or material omissions related to any "application, report, or document filed or required to be filed under the provisions" of the TIA, are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines of up to $10,000, or both. H.R. 1783 would increase the maximum allowable criminal fine under section 77yyy from $10,000 to $40,000.
Sponsor: Heck (R - NV)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal offense relating to fraudulent claims about military service.
Status:
5/5/2011: Introduced in House
5/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: The original Stolen Valor Act (SVA), passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2006, broadened the provisions of federal law addressing the unauthorized purchase, solicitation, wear, manufacture, or sale of military decorations and medals. The SVA also made it a federal criminal offense to falsely represent oneself, either verbally or in writing, to have been "awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item." Under current law, violations of this provision are punishable by up to six months imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Enhanced sentences of up to one year imprisonment are also authorized for violations involving the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Navy Cross, the Air Force Cross, or Purple Heart medal. In July 2010, the U.S. District Court in Colorado ruled the SVA a "facially unconstitutional" violation of the First Amendment's free speech protections. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also found the SVA to be unconstitutional on free-speech grounds in August 2010. This bill, H.R. 1775, would nevertheless add to the original SVA and create a new federal criminal offense for certain misrepresentation made about U.S. military service. Specifically, H.R. 1775 would criminalize anyone who, "with intent to obtain anything of value," knowingly makes a misrepresentation about their "military service." Under the provisions of the bill, the term "military service" would be defined as: (1) service in the U.S. military; (2) service in a combat zone as a member of the U.S. military; (3) attainment of a specific rank in the U.S. military; and (4) receipt of "any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States; ... any of the service medals or badges awarded to members of such forces; or ... the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal." Violations of this new criminal provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to six months imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. If the misrepresentation involves claims that an "individual served in a combat zone, served in a special operations force, or was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor," it would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both.
Sponsor: Whitfield (R - KY)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/4/2011: Introduced in House
5/4/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
Commentary: This bill, like its House counterpart (S. 886), would amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.) to prohibit the use of "performance-enhancing drugs" in horseracing. H.R. 1733 does not include traditional criminal penalties, but it does debar violators from participating in their industry, a quasi-criminal penalty that Congress is increasingly imposing without the many protections that apply to investigations and prosecutions in the criminal context. The bill includes a very broad definition of performance-enhancing drug: "any substance capable of affecting the performance of a horse at any time by acting on the nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, digestive system, urinary system, reproductive system, musculoskeletal system, blood system, immune system (other than licensed vaccines against infectious agents), or endocrine system of [a] horse." It would forbid a person from entering a "horse in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager if the person knows the horse is under the influence of a performance-enhancing drug." It would also prohibit a person from "knowingly provid[ing] a horse with a performance-enhancing drug if the horse, while under the influence of the drug, will participate in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager." Further, the bill would proscribe all racing associations from conducting races subject to interstate off-track wagering unless the racing association has a policy in place that: (1) prohibits providing a performance-enhancing drug to a horse if the horse will participate in races while under the drug's influence; (2) prohibits racing a horse that is under the influence; (3) requires independent third-party testing for performance-enhancing drugs; and (4) requires reporting of third-party testing results to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Violations would primarily be punishable through civil penalties, enforced through either designated host racing commissions or through the FTC. The FTC would have the authority to enforce such violations as if they constituted contraventions of a FTC rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(1)(B)). In addition to these civil penalties, H.R. 1733 would create a quasi-criminal penalty framework that would ban any individual a designated host racing commission or the FTC finds has been involved in a violation from participating in all horseracing-related activities, and ban horses testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs from competing in future races subject to off-track wagering. An individual who provided performance-enhancing drugs or who raced a horse in violation of the bill would receive a suspension of at least 180 days for a first offense, a suspension of at least one year for a second offense, and a permanent ban for a third offense. Horses in violation of H.R. 1733 would receive a suspension of at least 180 days for a first offense, a suspension of at least one year for a second offense, and a suspension of at least two years for a third or subsequent offense. In addition to this quasi-criminal penalty structure and the civil penalties described above, the bill would also create a private right of action in federal court for any person who has "reason to believe that [their] interest ... is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of another person in a practice that violates" the provisions of H.R. 1733 or rules promulgated in accordance with the bill.
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to establish the supplemental fraud fighting account, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/5/2011: Introduced in Senate
5/5/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Ordered to be reported Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Reported to Senate by Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would extend the international money laundering statute (18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(2)(A)) to cover actions in violation of sections 7201 and 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. § 7201 and 26 U.S.C. § 7206), which prohibit willful attempts to evade or defeat federal tax law and proscribe fraud or false statements made in connection with any return, statement, or other federal tax document. Specifically, the vague and overly broad criminal offense in S. 890 would apply the federal international money laundering statute to anyone who "transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States" with intent "to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity" and "[to] engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code." Violations of this ambiguous provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to 20 years imprisonment, fines of up to $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument involved in the violation, or both. In addition, S. 890 would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6) to broaden the reach of the criminal statute outlawing the fraudulent trafficking of computer passwords or similar information by removing the federal jurisdictional hook in the provision. Currently, federal law prohibits such behavior if it "affects interstate or foreign commerce," or if the computer involved is "used by or for the Government of the United States." S. 890 would remove such limiting language and allow prosecution for fraudulent password trafficking on any "protected computer," which is undefined by the legislation or statute. The bill also seeks to amend 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) to expand the current prohibition on "fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information" to include organizational as well as personal identification materials. Despite existing civil and criminal remedies to combat the fraudulent use of organizational identification materials, S. 890 would allow prosecutors to pursue criminal sanctions against anyone who "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification" of any person or organization "with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law." Such violations would be punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both, if the offense involved one or more means of identification and the offense involved obtaining anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more in a one-year period. All other violations of this provision would be punishable by up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. On top of modifying these specific criminal statutes, S. 890 would also broaden the venue provision (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) for federal mail fraud offenses and would amend the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 527 note) to establish a supplemental fraud fighting account in the Department of Justice Working Capital Fund for the cost of the "investigation of and conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings relating to fraud offenses."
Sponsor: Udall (D - NM)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/4/2011: Introduced in Senate
5/4/2011: Referred to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
Commentary: This bill, like its House counterpart (H.R. 1733), would amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.) to prohibit the use of "performance-enhancing drugs" in horseracing. S. 886 does not include traditional criminal penalties, but it does debar violators from participating in their industry, a quasi-criminal penalty that Congress is increasingly imposing without the many protections that apply to investigations and prosecutions in the criminal context. The bill includes a very broad definition of performance-enhancing drug: "any substance capable of affecting the performance of a horse at any time by acting on the nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, digestive system, urinary system, reproductive system, musculoskeletal system, blood system, immune system (other than licensed vaccines against infectious agents), or endocrine system of [a] horse." It would forbid a person from entering a "horse in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager if the person knows the horse is under the influence of a performance-enhancing drug." It would also prohibit a person from "knowingly provid[ing] a horse with a performance-enhancing drug if the horse, while under the influence of the drug, will participate in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager." Further, the bill would proscribe all racing associations from conducting races subject to interstate off-track wagering unless the racing association has a policy in place that: (1) prohibits providing a performance-enhancing drug to a horse if the horse will participate in races while under the drug's influence; (2) prohibits racing a horse that is under the influence; (3) requires independent third-party testing for performance-enhancing drugs; and (4) requires reporting of third-party testing results to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Violations would primarily be punishable through civil penalties, enforced through either designated host racing commissions or through the FTC. The FTC would have the authority to enforce such violations as if they constituted contraventions of a FTC rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(1)(B)). In addition to these civil penalties, S. 886 would create a quasi-criminal penalty framework that would ban any individual a designated host racing commission or the FTC finds has been involved in a violation from participating in all horseracing-related activities, and ban horses testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs from competing in future races subject to off-track wagering. An individual who provided performance-enhancing drugs or who raced a horse in violation of the bill would receive a suspension of at least 180 days for a first offense, a suspension of at least one year for a second offense, and a permanent ban for a third offense. Horses in violation of S. 886 would receive a suspension of at least 180 days for a first offense, a suspension of at least one year for a second offense, and a suspension of at least two years for a third or subsequent offense. In addition to this quasi-criminal penalty structure and the civil penalties described above, the bill would also create a private right of action in federal court for any person who has "reason to believe that [their] interest ... is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of another person in a practice that violates" the provisions of S. 886 or rules promulgated in accordance with the bill.
Sponsor: Landrieu (D - LA)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/4/2011: Introduced in Senate
5/4/2011: Referred to Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
Commentary: This bill, much like its House counterpart (H.R. 1588), would amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) to require merchants offering goods under rental-purchase agreements to make detailed disclosures to consumers. The bill also creates a new criminal offense punishing any party that "willfully and knowingly gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which that person is required to disclose under the provisions of [the CCPA] or any regulation issued under this title [of the CCPA]." Violations of this provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines of up to $5,000, or both.
Sponsor: Stutzman (R - IN)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans.
Status:
4/15/2011: Introduced in House
4/15/2011: Referred to House Veteran Affairs Committee
5/3/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
5/5/2011: Mark up in the House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
5/5/2011: Forwarded to full committee by voice vote House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
5/12/2011: Mark up in the House Veteran Affairs Committee
5/12/2011: Ordered to be reported by voice vote House Veteran Affairs Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend section 8127 of Title 38, U.S. Code, to strengthen the enforcement penalties available to punish government contractors who misrepresent their business concerns as small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans or service-disabled veterans for the purpose of receiving favorable treatment in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contracting process. Under current law (38 U.S.C. § 8127(g)), any business concern contracting with the VA that misrepresents its status as a "small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans" is subject to debarment for "a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Secretary [of VA]." H.R. 1657 would amend section 8127(g) to mandate that such misrepresenting business concerns and all of their principals be subject to debarment from contracting with the VA for a period of at least five years.
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to require restitution for victims of criminal violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and for other purposes.
Status:
2/15/2011: Introduced in Senate
2/15/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Ordered to be reported Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Reported to Senate by Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: Section 3663A of Title 18, U.S. Code, mandates that those convicted of certain crimes pay restitution to the victims of those crimes. This bill, which is substantially similar to S. 3466 from the 111th Congress, would add a wide range of conduct prohibited by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, to the list of crimes for which restitution must be ordered as part of the sentence. Because restitution would be mandatory, federal courts would not have the discretionary authority to decide in any case that justice does not require or is contrary to ordering restitution. Under 33 U.S.C 3319(c), any person who "negligently" or "knowingly" violates a number of provisions of the Clean Water Act can be prosecuted. In addition, any person who "knowingly" violates any of those provisions and "who knows at the time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury" is subject to increased punishment.
Table of Contents
New:
New:
- H.R. 1793: Clean Up Government Act of 2011
- H.R. 1783: Foreclosure Fraud and Homeowner Abuse Prevention Act of 2011
- H.R. 1775: Stolen Valor Act of 2011
- H.R. 1733: Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act of 2011
- S. 890: Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act of 2011
- S. 886: Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act of 2011
- S. 881: Consumer Rental-Purchase Agreement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to deter public corruption, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/5/2011: Introduced in House
5/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would make myriad changes to Title 18 of the U.S. Code to expand the scope of a number of federal criminal laws targeting fraud, theft, bribery, embezzlement, racketeering, and other forms of so-called public corruption. H.R. 1793 would also increase the criminal penalties for certain public corruption offenses, expand the federal venue provisions for a wide range of federal offenses (including perjury and obstruction of justice), and broaden the applicability of the federal wiretap authorization statute. Specifically, the provisions of the bill make the following changes to Title 18 of the U.S. Code: (1) expand the scope of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343) to cover not just "money and property," but rather "money, property, or anything of value"; (2) broaden the scope of the federal venue provision (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) to allow for proper venue in "any district in which an act in furtherance of an offense is committed"; (3) increase the maximum criminal penalty for "theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal financial assistance" (18 U.S.C. § 666(a)) from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years imprisonment; (4) increase the maximum criminal penalty for the embezzlement, theft, purloining, or conversion or public money, property, or records (18 U.S.C. § 641) from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years imprisonment; (5) increase the maximum criminal penalty for bribery and graft (18 U.S.C. § 201) from 15 years imprisonment to 20 years imprisonment in cases involving a specific intent to influence, and from two years imprisonment to five years imprisonment in cases not involving such intent; (6) modify the language of the illegal gratuities portion of the bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)) to prohibit gratuities given because of an "official's or person's official position or any official act" and not solely because of "any official act"; (7) broaden the definition of an "official act" for the purposes of the illegal gratuities portion of the bribery statute; (8) extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting certain public corruption offenses; (9) increase the maximum criminal penalties for federal statutes prohibiting the inappropriate solicitation and acceptance of political contributions (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 602(a)(4), 600, 601(a), 606, 607(a)(2), and 610); (10) expand the predicate offenses available for the charging of RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1961; (11) broaden the applicability of the federal wiretap authorization statute (18 U.S.C. § 2516) to include certain public corruption offenses; (12) widen the scope of the federal venue provision for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions (see 18 U.S.C. § 1512(i)); (13) amend the federal honest services fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1346A) to prohibit undisclosed self-dealing by public officials; (14) clarify that the theft and bribery provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 666(c) shall apply "to the giving or receiving of 'anything of value' that is corruptly solicited, demanded, accepted or agreed to be accepted"; and (15) modify the certification process under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 for appeals by the United States of pre-trial evidentiary decisions rendered by the district courts. H.R. 1793 would also amend 28 U.S.C. § 360(a) to allow for the disclosure of confidential materials associated with formal complaints against federal judges to the U.S. Attorney General, grand juries, or law enforcement agencies when such complaints involve allegations of criminal offenses.
Sponsor: Miller (D - NC)
Official Title: A bill to provide for enhanced mortgage-backed and asset-backed security investor protections, to prevent foreclosure fraud, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/5/2011: Introduced in House
5/5/2011: Referred to House Financial Services Committee
Commentary: This bill, like its Senate counterpart (S. 824), would amend various provisions of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) (15 U.S.C. § 77aa et seq.), the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1631 et seq.), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) to broaden the scope of each act to include both mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. In addition, H.R. 1783 would increase the existing criminal penalties for violations of the TIA (15 U.S.C. § 77yyy). Currently, willful violations of the TIA, and false statements or material omissions related to any "application, report, or document filed or required to be filed under the provisions" of the TIA, are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines of up to $10,000, or both. H.R. 1783 would increase the maximum allowable criminal fine under section 77yyy from $10,000 to $40,000.
Sponsor: Heck (R - NV)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal offense relating to fraudulent claims about military service.
Status:
5/5/2011: Introduced in House
5/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: The original Stolen Valor Act (SVA), passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2006, broadened the provisions of federal law addressing the unauthorized purchase, solicitation, wear, manufacture, or sale of military decorations and medals. The SVA also made it a federal criminal offense to falsely represent oneself, either verbally or in writing, to have been "awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item." Under current law, violations of this provision are punishable by up to six months imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Enhanced sentences of up to one year imprisonment are also authorized for violations involving the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Navy Cross, the Air Force Cross, or Purple Heart medal. In July 2010, the U.S. District Court in Colorado ruled the SVA a "facially unconstitutional" violation of the First Amendment's free speech protections. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also found the SVA to be unconstitutional on free-speech grounds in August 2010. This bill, H.R. 1775, would nevertheless add to the original SVA and create a new federal criminal offense for certain misrepresentation made about U.S. military service. Specifically, H.R. 1775 would criminalize anyone who, "with intent to obtain anything of value," knowingly makes a misrepresentation about their "military service." Under the provisions of the bill, the term "military service" would be defined as: (1) service in the U.S. military; (2) service in a combat zone as a member of the U.S. military; (3) attainment of a specific rank in the U.S. military; and (4) receipt of "any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States; ... any of the service medals or badges awarded to members of such forces; or ... the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal." Violations of this new criminal provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to six months imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. If the misrepresentation involves claims that an "individual served in a combat zone, served in a special operations force, or was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor," it would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both.
Sponsor: Whitfield (R - KY)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/4/2011: Introduced in House
5/4/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
Commentary: This bill, like its House counterpart (S. 886), would amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.) to prohibit the use of "performance-enhancing drugs" in horseracing. H.R. 1733 does not include traditional criminal penalties, but it does debar violators from participating in their industry, a quasi-criminal penalty that Congress is increasingly imposing without the many protections that apply to investigations and prosecutions in the criminal context. The bill includes a very broad definition of performance-enhancing drug: "any substance capable of affecting the performance of a horse at any time by acting on the nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, digestive system, urinary system, reproductive system, musculoskeletal system, blood system, immune system (other than licensed vaccines against infectious agents), or endocrine system of [a] horse." It would forbid a person from entering a "horse in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager if the person knows the horse is under the influence of a performance-enhancing drug." It would also prohibit a person from "knowingly provid[ing] a horse with a performance-enhancing drug if the horse, while under the influence of the drug, will participate in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager." Further, the bill would proscribe all racing associations from conducting races subject to interstate off-track wagering unless the racing association has a policy in place that: (1) prohibits providing a performance-enhancing drug to a horse if the horse will participate in races while under the drug's influence; (2) prohibits racing a horse that is under the influence; (3) requires independent third-party testing for performance-enhancing drugs; and (4) requires reporting of third-party testing results to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Violations would primarily be punishable through civil penalties, enforced through either designated host racing commissions or through the FTC. The FTC would have the authority to enforce such violations as if they constituted contraventions of a FTC rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(1)(B)). In addition to these civil penalties, H.R. 1733 would create a quasi-criminal penalty framework that would ban any individual a designated host racing commission or the FTC finds has been involved in a violation from participating in all horseracing-related activities, and ban horses testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs from competing in future races subject to off-track wagering. An individual who provided performance-enhancing drugs or who raced a horse in violation of the bill would receive a suspension of at least 180 days for a first offense, a suspension of at least one year for a second offense, and a permanent ban for a third offense. Horses in violation of H.R. 1733 would receive a suspension of at least 180 days for a first offense, a suspension of at least one year for a second offense, and a suspension of at least two years for a third or subsequent offense. In addition to this quasi-criminal penalty structure and the civil penalties described above, the bill would also create a private right of action in federal court for any person who has "reason to believe that [their] interest ... is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of another person in a practice that violates" the provisions of H.R. 1733 or rules promulgated in accordance with the bill.
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to establish the supplemental fraud fighting account, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/5/2011: Introduced in Senate
5/5/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Ordered to be reported Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Reported to Senate by Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would extend the international money laundering statute (18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(2)(A)) to cover actions in violation of sections 7201 and 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. § 7201 and 26 U.S.C. § 7206), which prohibit willful attempts to evade or defeat federal tax law and proscribe fraud or false statements made in connection with any return, statement, or other federal tax document. Specifically, the vague and overly broad criminal offense in S. 890 would apply the federal international money laundering statute to anyone who "transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States" with intent "to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity" and "[to] engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code." Violations of this ambiguous provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to 20 years imprisonment, fines of up to $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument involved in the violation, or both. In addition, S. 890 would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6) to broaden the reach of the criminal statute outlawing the fraudulent trafficking of computer passwords or similar information by removing the federal jurisdictional hook in the provision. Currently, federal law prohibits such behavior if it "affects interstate or foreign commerce," or if the computer involved is "used by or for the Government of the United States." S. 890 would remove such limiting language and allow prosecution for fraudulent password trafficking on any "protected computer," which is undefined by the legislation or statute. The bill also seeks to amend 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) to expand the current prohibition on "fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information" to include organizational as well as personal identification materials. Despite existing civil and criminal remedies to combat the fraudulent use of organizational identification materials, S. 890 would allow prosecutors to pursue criminal sanctions against anyone who "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification" of any person or organization "with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law." Such violations would be punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both, if the offense involved one or more means of identification and the offense involved obtaining anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more in a one-year period. All other violations of this provision would be punishable by up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. On top of modifying these specific criminal statutes, S. 890 would also broaden the venue provision (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) for federal mail fraud offenses and would amend the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 527 note) to establish a supplemental fraud fighting account in the Department of Justice Working Capital Fund for the cost of the "investigation of and conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings relating to fraud offenses."
Sponsor: Udall (D - NM)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/4/2011: Introduced in Senate
5/4/2011: Referred to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
Commentary: This bill, like its House counterpart (H.R. 1733), would amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.) to prohibit the use of "performance-enhancing drugs" in horseracing. S. 886 does not include traditional criminal penalties, but it does debar violators from participating in their industry, a quasi-criminal penalty that Congress is increasingly imposing without the many protections that apply to investigations and prosecutions in the criminal context. The bill includes a very broad definition of performance-enhancing drug: "any substance capable of affecting the performance of a horse at any time by acting on the nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, digestive system, urinary system, reproductive system, musculoskeletal system, blood system, immune system (other than licensed vaccines against infectious agents), or endocrine system of [a] horse." It would forbid a person from entering a "horse in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager if the person knows the horse is under the influence of a performance-enhancing drug." It would also prohibit a person from "knowingly provid[ing] a horse with a performance-enhancing drug if the horse, while under the influence of the drug, will participate in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager." Further, the bill would proscribe all racing associations from conducting races subject to interstate off-track wagering unless the racing association has a policy in place that: (1) prohibits providing a performance-enhancing drug to a horse if the horse will participate in races while under the drug's influence; (2) prohibits racing a horse that is under the influence; (3) requires independent third-party testing for performance-enhancing drugs; and (4) requires reporting of third-party testing results to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Violations would primarily be punishable through civil penalties, enforced through either designated host racing commissions or through the FTC. The FTC would have the authority to enforce such violations as if they constituted contraventions of a FTC rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(1)(B)). In addition to these civil penalties, S. 886 would create a quasi-criminal penalty framework that would ban any individual a designated host racing commission or the FTC finds has been involved in a violation from participating in all horseracing-related activities, and ban horses testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs from competing in future races subject to off-track wagering. An individual who provided performance-enhancing drugs or who raced a horse in violation of the bill would receive a suspension of at least 180 days for a first offense, a suspension of at least one year for a second offense, and a permanent ban for a third offense. Horses in violation of S. 886 would receive a suspension of at least 180 days for a first offense, a suspension of at least one year for a second offense, and a suspension of at least two years for a third or subsequent offense. In addition to this quasi-criminal penalty structure and the civil penalties described above, the bill would also create a private right of action in federal court for any person who has "reason to believe that [their] interest ... is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of another person in a practice that violates" the provisions of S. 886 or rules promulgated in accordance with the bill.
Sponsor: Landrieu (D - LA)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/4/2011: Introduced in Senate
5/4/2011: Referred to Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
Commentary: This bill, much like its House counterpart (H.R. 1588), would amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) to require merchants offering goods under rental-purchase agreements to make detailed disclosures to consumers. The bill also creates a new criminal offense punishing any party that "willfully and knowingly gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which that person is required to disclose under the provisions of [the CCPA] or any regulation issued under this title [of the CCPA]." Violations of this provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines of up to $5,000, or both.
Sponsor: Stutzman (R - IN)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans.
Status:
4/15/2011: Introduced in House
4/15/2011: Referred to House Veteran Affairs Committee
5/3/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
5/5/2011: Mark up in the House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
5/5/2011: Forwarded to full committee by voice vote House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
5/12/2011: Mark up in the House Veteran Affairs Committee
5/12/2011: Ordered to be reported by voice vote House Veteran Affairs Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend section 8127 of Title 38, U.S. Code, to strengthen the enforcement penalties available to punish government contractors who misrepresent their business concerns as small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans or service-disabled veterans for the purpose of receiving favorable treatment in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contracting process. Under current law (38 U.S.C. § 8127(g)), any business concern contracting with the VA that misrepresents its status as a "small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans" is subject to debarment for "a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Secretary [of VA]." H.R. 1657 would amend section 8127(g) to mandate that such misrepresenting business concerns and all of their principals be subject to debarment from contracting with the VA for a period of at least five years.
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to require restitution for victims of criminal violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and for other purposes.
Status:
2/15/2011: Introduced in Senate
2/15/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Ordered to be reported Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Reported to Senate by Senate Judiciary Committee
5/19/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: Section 3663A of Title 18, U.S. Code, mandates that those convicted of certain crimes pay restitution to the victims of those crimes. This bill, which is substantially similar to S. 3466 from the 111th Congress, would add a wide range of conduct prohibited by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, to the list of crimes for which restitution must be ordered as part of the sentence. Because restitution would be mandatory, federal courts would not have the discretionary authority to decide in any case that justice does not require or is contrary to ordering restitution. Under 33 U.S.C 3319(c), any person who "negligently" or "knowingly" violates a number of provisions of the Clean Water Act can be prosecuted. In addition, any person who "knowingly" violates any of those provisions and "who knows at the time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury" is subject to increased punishment.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Overcriminalized.com Legislative Update
From Overcriminalized.com:
Table of Contents
New Criminal Law Proposals:
H.R. 3468: Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011
S. 1886: Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011
S. 1879: Child Abuse Reporting Enforcement Act
New Criminal Law Reduction Proposal:
S. 1853: Postal Service Protection Act of 2011
Updates:
H.R. 3321: America's Cup Act of 2011
H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
H.R. 2838: Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011
H.R. 2572: Clean up Government Act
S. 1794: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
S. 1301: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011
S. 847: Safe Chemicals Act of 2011
S. 678: Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act
H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3468: Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Meehan (R - PA)
Official Title: A bill to prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs.
Status:
11/17/2011: Introduced in House
11/17/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would apply the current statute regarding counterfeit goods and services and apply it to drugs. The current statute that would be adopted here prohibits the “intentional[]” trafficking or attempts to traffic goods, services, or labels, packaging and related identifiers, and “knowingly” using a counterfeit mark that will “likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.” A violation by an individual would be punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $4 million and a violation by non-individuals would be punishable by a fine up to $10 million. The bill would also add higher penalties for repeated offenders, with a violation by an individual being punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $8 million, and if not an individual, punishable by a fine up to $20 million. This bill is similar to S. 1886, except for 1) the maximum prison term for individuals (20 years in S. 1886 and life imprisonment in H.R. 3468); and 2) H.R. 3468 does not contain the sentencing commission directive that is present in S. 1886.
S. 1886: Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs.
Status:
11/17/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/17/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would apply the current statute regarding counterfeit goods and services and apply it to drugs. The current statute that would be adopted here prohibits the “intentional[]” trafficking or attempts to traffic goods, services, or labels, packaging and related identifiers, and “knowingly” using a counterfeit mark that will “likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.” A violation by an individual would be punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $4 million and a violation by non-individuals would be punishable by a fine up to $10 million. The bill would also add higher penalties for repeated offenders, with a violation by an individual being punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $8 million, and if not an individual, punishable by a fine up to $20 million. There is also a sentencing commission directive to review and, if necessary, amend the comparable penalties This bill is similar to H.R. 3468, except for 1) the maximum prison term for individuals (20 years in S. 1886 and life imprisonment in H.R. 3468); and 2) H.R. 3468 does not contain the sentencing commission directive that is present in S. 1886.
S. 1879: Child Abuse Reporting Enforcement Act
Sponsor: Menendez (D - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to ensure that states have enacted criminal statutes that require individuals to report child abuse to law enforcement or child protective agencies.
Status:
11/16/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/16/2011: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
Commentary: According to statements by the bill’s sponsor, this bill was written in reaction to the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State University. This bill would penalize states that do not enact a felony offense with a minimum of 1 year imprisonment “any person who, having reasonable cause to believe that a child has been subjected to child abuse or acts of child abuse, fails to report such information immediately” to the police or state child protection agency. Congress is attempting to enact this law at the state level through its spending power. If a state does not enact such a law, the bill would revoke all of the state’s federal social services allotments. There is no definition of “reasonable cause to believe” or “immediately,” which can potentially lead to serious issues of overcriminalization. This establishes that a crime can be committed without taking any action whatsoever.
S. 1853: Postal Service Protection Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sanders (I - VT)
Official Title: A bill to recalculate and restore retirement annuity obligations of the United States Postal Service, eliminate the requirement that the United States Postal Service pre-fund the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, place restrictions on the closure of postal facilities, create incentives for innovation for the United States Postal Service, to maintain levels of postal service, and for other purposes.
Status:
11/10/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/10/2011: Referred to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Commentary: Within this postal services bill is a provision for mitigating a federal offense. This bill would create an exception to the current prohibition on the mailing of “intoxicating liquors” by allowing certain wine and malt beverages. These beverages are mailable if the sender is a licensed winery or brewery that meets all appropriate local, state, and federals laws and regulations. The bill would permit the postal services to set the particular new regulations to allow for these postal deliveries. The mens rea provision already in the criminal code provides only a “knowingly” protection, so it is not clear how far that might extend to meet the exceptions.
H.R. 3321: America's Cup Act of 2011
Sponsor: Herger (R - CA)
Official Title: A bill to facilitate the hosting in the United States of the 34th America's Cup by authorizing certain eligible vessels to participate in activities related to the competition.
Status:
11/2/2011: Introduced in House
11/2/2011: Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
11/4/2011: House passage by roll call vote under suspension of the rules
11/7/2011: Received in Senate
11/7/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
11/17/2011: Senate Consideration
11/17/2011: Amended by the Senate
11/17/2011: Senate passage with amendment by unanimous consent
11/18/2011: Resolved differences between House and Senate
11/19/2011: Sent to President
11/29/2011: Signed by the President
Commentary: This bill would authorize marine vessels to take part as competitors or as support ships in the 34th America’s Cup boat race. The bill proposes that an Eligibility Certification must be obtained by any participating vessel. If the certification is not obtained, or if the vessel does not comply with the federal statute on coastwise endorsement, a violation would be punishable by up to one year imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, U.S. Code. This bill is related to H.R. 3270, H.R. 3311 and S. 1759.
H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
Sponsor: Smith (R - TX)
Official Title: A bill to facilitate the hosting in the United States of the 34th America's Cup by authorizing certain eligible vessels to participate in activities related to the competition.
Status:
10/26/2011: Introduced House
10/26/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
11/16/2011: Hearing Held by House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend several current criminal statutes to increase penalties or make definitional changes to the laws regarding online goods. These include online streaming of copyrighted materials, trafficking in inherently dangerous goods and services and foreign economic spying. The bill would also propose changes to the Sentencing Guidelines involving these crimes.
H.R. 2838: Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011
Sponsor: LoBiondo (R - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes.
Status:
9/2/2011: Introduced House
9/2/2011: Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
9/6/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
9/8/2011: Discharged House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
9/8/2011: Mark up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
9/8/2011: Reported to House by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
10/3/2011: Reported as amended by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
10/3/2011: Placed on House calendar
11/4/2011: House debate
11/4/2011: Left as unfinished business by House
11/16/2011: House Passage
11/16/2011: Received in Senate
11/16/2011: Referred to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
Commentary: This bill would create a new federal criminal offense for knowingly and willfully interfering with the maritime safety transmissions of the U.S. Coast Guard. This provision was part of a larger appropriations bill for the Coast Guard. A violation is considered a class E felony.
H.R. 2572: Clean up Government Act
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to deter public corruption, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/15/2011: Introduced House
7/15/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
7/26/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
12/1/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill is a revised version of H.R. 1793, which Rep. Sensenbrenner (R–Wisc.) introduced earlier in the 112th Congress, and which is also covered by Overcriminalized.com’s Legislative Update feature. This bill’s primary differences from H.R. 1793 are that it (1) removes 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 1962 from the list of statutes that the Sentencing Commission must reconsider; (2) extends the statute of limitations for public corruption offenses to 6 years (rather than the 10 years proposed by H.R. 1793); and (3) includes in the bill’s language regarding the benefits of self-dealing a requirement that the purpose of the action must be, in whole or in “material” part, self-dealing in order for the action to be a violation. In addition, this bill would decrease the protection of the “de minimis” threshold for federal embezzlement offenses by lowering it from $5,000 to $1,000. The bill would broaden the definition of the prohibited conduct (actus reus) for self-dealing by including instances when a public official is shown to have furthered the financial interest of an individual or entity who has given the public official “any thing or things of value” (except as expressly permitted by law or regulation).
S. 1794: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Blumenthal (D - CT)
Official Title: A bill to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.
Status:
11/2/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/2/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Vote to report Senate Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably
11/17/2011: Reported to Senate
11/17/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would amend existing section 1752 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code to reduce the protectiveness of the criminal-intent (mens rea) requirements in offenses involving conduct in “restricted” government buildings, grounds, or areas. Among other things, section 1752 currently prohibits any person or group of persons from: (1) “willfully” and “knowingly” entering or remaining in unauthorized Government buildings, grounds, or areas; (2) engaging in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” that “impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business” or is intended to do so; (3) obstructing or impeding ingress or egress to or from Government buildings, grounds, or areas; or (4) engaging in “any act of physical violence against any person or property” in Government buildings, grounds, or areas. Violations of current law carry criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Violations that involve the use of a firearm or that result in significant bodily injury may be punished by up to 10 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. H.R. 347 would restructure the language of Section 1752 defining the criminal offenses and reduce the level of criminal intent the Government must prove to establish a violation from a “willfully and knowingly” standard to a less-protective “knowingly” standard. The bill would not alter the existing criminal penalties. This is a companion bill to H.R. 347, which passed the House in March 2011.
S. 1301: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the waiver of the collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/29/2011: Introduced Senate
6/29/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
9/14/2011: Hearing Held by Senate Judiciary Committee
10/13/2011: Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably Senate Judiciary Committee
10/13/2011: Reported to Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Senate Judiciary Committee
10/13/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
11/17/2011: Written report reported by Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would codify several criminal provisions meant to punish human trafficking. First, the bill would add fraudulent foreign labor contracting as a category of offenses that fall under the racketeering statute. The bill would also extend the reach of the government’s enforcement of halting “any illicit sexual conduct with another person” in foreign places. The current statute defines “illicit sexual conduct” as sex with a minor that would be illegal under U.S. law if it occurred in a U.S. jurisdiction, or any commercial sex act with a minor. This bill would extend the reach of this restriction to those who are residing temporarily or permanently in a foreign country, and not merely those American citizens or alien permanent residents that are traveling in foreign commerce. Additionally, this bill would make it a criminal offense to “knowingly destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess, an actual or purported passport or other immigration document of another individual” while violating or intending to violate the fraud in labor contracting statute or the Immigration and Nationality Act, in regards to the bringing or harboring of certain aliens. It would also prohibit that same knowing action “in order to, without lawful authority, maintain, prevent, or restrict the labor of services of the individual.” There is also an additional offense of obstruction. A violation of one of these new offenses would be punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, U.S. Code.
S. 847: Safe Chemicals Act of 2011
Sponsor: Lautenberg (D - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure that risks from chemicals are adequately understood and managed, and for other purposes.
Status:
4/14/2011: Introduced in Senate
4/14/2011: Referred to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
11/17/2011: Hearing Held by Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health
Commentary: This bill is substantially similar to S. 3209 from the 111th Congress, which was also introduced by Senator Lautenberg. At present, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) establishes a regulatory scheme for chemical substances and mixtures that includes testing for safety and the regulation or prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, or use of substances or mixtures that present an “unreasonable” risk of harm to health or the environment. Section 2614 of Title 15, U.S. Code, prohibits specified acts relating to the covered substances, including failing to comply with a rule or regulation promulgated by the EPA Administrator. Section 2615 of Title 15 specifies the civil and criminal penalties for such violations. This bill would change the criminal-intent (mens rea) requirement for section 2615 from “knowingly or willfully” to simply “knowingly.” It would also increase the maximum term of incarceration for knowing violations of section 2615 from one year to five years and increase the maximum fine from $25,000 per day of violation to $50,000 per day. In addition, S. 847 would create a new offense under the TCSA for any person who “knowingly violates any provision of [the] Act and who knows at the time that the violation places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.” A violation by an individual would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 15 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. A violation by an organization would be punishable by a fine of up to $1 million.
S. 678: Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act
Sponsor: Kohl (D - WI)
Official Title: A bill to increase the penalties for economic espionage.
Status:
3/30/2011: Introduced in Senate
3/30/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
12/1/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a) to increase the maximum criminal penalties for acts of economic espionage. Currently, subsection 1831(a) prohibits individuals from “knowingly” committing a wide range of acts associated with the misappropriation of trade secrets for the benefit of any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent. Violations of these provisions are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to 15 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 678 would increase the maximum term of incarceration available under § 1831(a) from 15 years to 20 years. The bill also instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to “review its guidelines and policy relating to a two-level enhancement for economic espionage” and consider amending such guidelines to: (1) “apply the two-level enhancement to the simple misappropriation of a trade secret”; (2) “apply an additional two-level enhancement if the defendant transmits or attempts to transmit the stolen trade secret outside of the United States and an additional three-level enhancement if the defendant instead commits economic espionage (i.e., he/she knew or intended that the offense would benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent)”; and (3) “provide when a defendant transmits trade secrets outside of the United States or commits economic espionage, that the defendant should face a minimum offense level.”
H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rooney (R - FL)
Official Title: A bill to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of Title 18, United States Code.
Status:
1/19/2011: Introduced in House
1/19/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
1/21/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
1/26/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
1/26/2011: Ordered to be reported by voice vote House Judiciary Committee
1/26/2011: Discharged House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
2/11/2011: Reported to House by House Judiciary Committee
2/11/2011: Placed on House calendar
2/28/2011: House passage by roll call vote under suspension of the rules
3/1/2011: Received in Senate
3/1/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably
11/17/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would amend existing section 1752 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code to reduce the protectiveness of the criminal-intent (mens rea) requirements in offenses involving conduct in “restricted” government buildings, grounds, or areas. Among other things, section 1752 currently prohibits any person or group of persons from: (1) “willfully” and “knowingly” entering or remaining in unauthorized Government buildings, grounds, or areas; (2) engaging in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” that “impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business” or is intended to do so; (3) obstructing or impeding ingress or egress to or from Government buildings, grounds, or areas; or (4) engaging in “any act of physical violence against any person or property” in Government buildings, grounds, or areas. Violations of current law carry criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Violations that involve the use of a firearm or that result in significant bodily injury may be punished by up to 10 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. H.R. 347 would restructure the language of Section 1752 defining the criminal offenses and reduce the level of criminal intent the Government must prove to establish a violation from a “willfully and knowingly” standard to a less-protective “knowingly” standard. The bill would not alter the existing criminal penalties.
Table of Contents
New Criminal Law Proposals:
H.R. 3468: Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011
S. 1886: Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011
S. 1879: Child Abuse Reporting Enforcement Act
New Criminal Law Reduction Proposal:
S. 1853: Postal Service Protection Act of 2011
Updates:
H.R. 3321: America's Cup Act of 2011
H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
H.R. 2838: Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011
H.R. 2572: Clean up Government Act
S. 1794: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
S. 1301: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011
S. 847: Safe Chemicals Act of 2011
S. 678: Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act
H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3468: Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Meehan (R - PA)
Official Title: A bill to prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs.
Status:
11/17/2011: Introduced in House
11/17/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would apply the current statute regarding counterfeit goods and services and apply it to drugs. The current statute that would be adopted here prohibits the “intentional[]” trafficking or attempts to traffic goods, services, or labels, packaging and related identifiers, and “knowingly” using a counterfeit mark that will “likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.” A violation by an individual would be punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $4 million and a violation by non-individuals would be punishable by a fine up to $10 million. The bill would also add higher penalties for repeated offenders, with a violation by an individual being punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $8 million, and if not an individual, punishable by a fine up to $20 million. This bill is similar to S. 1886, except for 1) the maximum prison term for individuals (20 years in S. 1886 and life imprisonment in H.R. 3468); and 2) H.R. 3468 does not contain the sentencing commission directive that is present in S. 1886.
S. 1886: Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs.
Status:
11/17/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/17/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would apply the current statute regarding counterfeit goods and services and apply it to drugs. The current statute that would be adopted here prohibits the “intentional[]” trafficking or attempts to traffic goods, services, or labels, packaging and related identifiers, and “knowingly” using a counterfeit mark that will “likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.” A violation by an individual would be punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $4 million and a violation by non-individuals would be punishable by a fine up to $10 million. The bill would also add higher penalties for repeated offenders, with a violation by an individual being punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $8 million, and if not an individual, punishable by a fine up to $20 million. There is also a sentencing commission directive to review and, if necessary, amend the comparable penalties This bill is similar to H.R. 3468, except for 1) the maximum prison term for individuals (20 years in S. 1886 and life imprisonment in H.R. 3468); and 2) H.R. 3468 does not contain the sentencing commission directive that is present in S. 1886.
S. 1879: Child Abuse Reporting Enforcement Act
Sponsor: Menendez (D - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to ensure that states have enacted criminal statutes that require individuals to report child abuse to law enforcement or child protective agencies.
Status:
11/16/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/16/2011: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
Commentary: According to statements by the bill’s sponsor, this bill was written in reaction to the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State University. This bill would penalize states that do not enact a felony offense with a minimum of 1 year imprisonment “any person who, having reasonable cause to believe that a child has been subjected to child abuse or acts of child abuse, fails to report such information immediately” to the police or state child protection agency. Congress is attempting to enact this law at the state level through its spending power. If a state does not enact such a law, the bill would revoke all of the state’s federal social services allotments. There is no definition of “reasonable cause to believe” or “immediately,” which can potentially lead to serious issues of overcriminalization. This establishes that a crime can be committed without taking any action whatsoever.
S. 1853: Postal Service Protection Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sanders (I - VT)
Official Title: A bill to recalculate and restore retirement annuity obligations of the United States Postal Service, eliminate the requirement that the United States Postal Service pre-fund the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, place restrictions on the closure of postal facilities, create incentives for innovation for the United States Postal Service, to maintain levels of postal service, and for other purposes.
Status:
11/10/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/10/2011: Referred to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Commentary: Within this postal services bill is a provision for mitigating a federal offense. This bill would create an exception to the current prohibition on the mailing of “intoxicating liquors” by allowing certain wine and malt beverages. These beverages are mailable if the sender is a licensed winery or brewery that meets all appropriate local, state, and federals laws and regulations. The bill would permit the postal services to set the particular new regulations to allow for these postal deliveries. The mens rea provision already in the criminal code provides only a “knowingly” protection, so it is not clear how far that might extend to meet the exceptions.
H.R. 3321: America's Cup Act of 2011
Sponsor: Herger (R - CA)
Official Title: A bill to facilitate the hosting in the United States of the 34th America's Cup by authorizing certain eligible vessels to participate in activities related to the competition.
Status:
11/2/2011: Introduced in House
11/2/2011: Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
11/4/2011: House passage by roll call vote under suspension of the rules
11/7/2011: Received in Senate
11/7/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
11/17/2011: Senate Consideration
11/17/2011: Amended by the Senate
11/17/2011: Senate passage with amendment by unanimous consent
11/18/2011: Resolved differences between House and Senate
11/19/2011: Sent to President
11/29/2011: Signed by the President
Commentary: This bill would authorize marine vessels to take part as competitors or as support ships in the 34th America’s Cup boat race. The bill proposes that an Eligibility Certification must be obtained by any participating vessel. If the certification is not obtained, or if the vessel does not comply with the federal statute on coastwise endorsement, a violation would be punishable by up to one year imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, U.S. Code. This bill is related to H.R. 3270, H.R. 3311 and S. 1759.
H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
Sponsor: Smith (R - TX)
Official Title: A bill to facilitate the hosting in the United States of the 34th America's Cup by authorizing certain eligible vessels to participate in activities related to the competition.
Status:
10/26/2011: Introduced House
10/26/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
11/16/2011: Hearing Held by House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend several current criminal statutes to increase penalties or make definitional changes to the laws regarding online goods. These include online streaming of copyrighted materials, trafficking in inherently dangerous goods and services and foreign economic spying. The bill would also propose changes to the Sentencing Guidelines involving these crimes.
H.R. 2838: Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011
Sponsor: LoBiondo (R - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes.
Status:
9/2/2011: Introduced House
9/2/2011: Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
9/6/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
9/8/2011: Discharged House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
9/8/2011: Mark up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
9/8/2011: Reported to House by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
10/3/2011: Reported as amended by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
10/3/2011: Placed on House calendar
11/4/2011: House debate
11/4/2011: Left as unfinished business by House
11/16/2011: House Passage
11/16/2011: Received in Senate
11/16/2011: Referred to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
Commentary: This bill would create a new federal criminal offense for knowingly and willfully interfering with the maritime safety transmissions of the U.S. Coast Guard. This provision was part of a larger appropriations bill for the Coast Guard. A violation is considered a class E felony.
H.R. 2572: Clean up Government Act
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to deter public corruption, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/15/2011: Introduced House
7/15/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
7/26/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
12/1/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill is a revised version of H.R. 1793, which Rep. Sensenbrenner (R–Wisc.) introduced earlier in the 112th Congress, and which is also covered by Overcriminalized.com’s Legislative Update feature. This bill’s primary differences from H.R. 1793 are that it (1) removes 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 1962 from the list of statutes that the Sentencing Commission must reconsider; (2) extends the statute of limitations for public corruption offenses to 6 years (rather than the 10 years proposed by H.R. 1793); and (3) includes in the bill’s language regarding the benefits of self-dealing a requirement that the purpose of the action must be, in whole or in “material” part, self-dealing in order for the action to be a violation. In addition, this bill would decrease the protection of the “de minimis” threshold for federal embezzlement offenses by lowering it from $5,000 to $1,000. The bill would broaden the definition of the prohibited conduct (actus reus) for self-dealing by including instances when a public official is shown to have furthered the financial interest of an individual or entity who has given the public official “any thing or things of value” (except as expressly permitted by law or regulation).
S. 1794: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Blumenthal (D - CT)
Official Title: A bill to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.
Status:
11/2/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/2/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Vote to report Senate Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably
11/17/2011: Reported to Senate
11/17/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would amend existing section 1752 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code to reduce the protectiveness of the criminal-intent (mens rea) requirements in offenses involving conduct in “restricted” government buildings, grounds, or areas. Among other things, section 1752 currently prohibits any person or group of persons from: (1) “willfully” and “knowingly” entering or remaining in unauthorized Government buildings, grounds, or areas; (2) engaging in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” that “impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business” or is intended to do so; (3) obstructing or impeding ingress or egress to or from Government buildings, grounds, or areas; or (4) engaging in “any act of physical violence against any person or property” in Government buildings, grounds, or areas. Violations of current law carry criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Violations that involve the use of a firearm or that result in significant bodily injury may be punished by up to 10 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. H.R. 347 would restructure the language of Section 1752 defining the criminal offenses and reduce the level of criminal intent the Government must prove to establish a violation from a “willfully and knowingly” standard to a less-protective “knowingly” standard. The bill would not alter the existing criminal penalties. This is a companion bill to H.R. 347, which passed the House in March 2011.
S. 1301: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the waiver of the collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/29/2011: Introduced Senate
6/29/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
9/14/2011: Hearing Held by Senate Judiciary Committee
10/13/2011: Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably Senate Judiciary Committee
10/13/2011: Reported to Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Senate Judiciary Committee
10/13/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
11/17/2011: Written report reported by Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would codify several criminal provisions meant to punish human trafficking. First, the bill would add fraudulent foreign labor contracting as a category of offenses that fall under the racketeering statute. The bill would also extend the reach of the government’s enforcement of halting “any illicit sexual conduct with another person” in foreign places. The current statute defines “illicit sexual conduct” as sex with a minor that would be illegal under U.S. law if it occurred in a U.S. jurisdiction, or any commercial sex act with a minor. This bill would extend the reach of this restriction to those who are residing temporarily or permanently in a foreign country, and not merely those American citizens or alien permanent residents that are traveling in foreign commerce. Additionally, this bill would make it a criminal offense to “knowingly destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess, an actual or purported passport or other immigration document of another individual” while violating or intending to violate the fraud in labor contracting statute or the Immigration and Nationality Act, in regards to the bringing or harboring of certain aliens. It would also prohibit that same knowing action “in order to, without lawful authority, maintain, prevent, or restrict the labor of services of the individual.” There is also an additional offense of obstruction. A violation of one of these new offenses would be punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, U.S. Code.
S. 847: Safe Chemicals Act of 2011
Sponsor: Lautenberg (D - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure that risks from chemicals are adequately understood and managed, and for other purposes.
Status:
4/14/2011: Introduced in Senate
4/14/2011: Referred to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
11/17/2011: Hearing Held by Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health
Commentary: This bill is substantially similar to S. 3209 from the 111th Congress, which was also introduced by Senator Lautenberg. At present, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) establishes a regulatory scheme for chemical substances and mixtures that includes testing for safety and the regulation or prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, or use of substances or mixtures that present an “unreasonable” risk of harm to health or the environment. Section 2614 of Title 15, U.S. Code, prohibits specified acts relating to the covered substances, including failing to comply with a rule or regulation promulgated by the EPA Administrator. Section 2615 of Title 15 specifies the civil and criminal penalties for such violations. This bill would change the criminal-intent (mens rea) requirement for section 2615 from “knowingly or willfully” to simply “knowingly.” It would also increase the maximum term of incarceration for knowing violations of section 2615 from one year to five years and increase the maximum fine from $25,000 per day of violation to $50,000 per day. In addition, S. 847 would create a new offense under the TCSA for any person who “knowingly violates any provision of [the] Act and who knows at the time that the violation places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.” A violation by an individual would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 15 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. A violation by an organization would be punishable by a fine of up to $1 million.
S. 678: Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act
Sponsor: Kohl (D - WI)
Official Title: A bill to increase the penalties for economic espionage.
Status:
3/30/2011: Introduced in Senate
3/30/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
12/1/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a) to increase the maximum criminal penalties for acts of economic espionage. Currently, subsection 1831(a) prohibits individuals from “knowingly” committing a wide range of acts associated with the misappropriation of trade secrets for the benefit of any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent. Violations of these provisions are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to 15 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 678 would increase the maximum term of incarceration available under § 1831(a) from 15 years to 20 years. The bill also instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to “review its guidelines and policy relating to a two-level enhancement for economic espionage” and consider amending such guidelines to: (1) “apply the two-level enhancement to the simple misappropriation of a trade secret”; (2) “apply an additional two-level enhancement if the defendant transmits or attempts to transmit the stolen trade secret outside of the United States and an additional three-level enhancement if the defendant instead commits economic espionage (i.e., he/she knew or intended that the offense would benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent)”; and (3) “provide when a defendant transmits trade secrets outside of the United States or commits economic espionage, that the defendant should face a minimum offense level.”
H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rooney (R - FL)
Official Title: A bill to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of Title 18, United States Code.
Status:
1/19/2011: Introduced in House
1/19/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
1/21/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
1/26/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
1/26/2011: Ordered to be reported by voice vote House Judiciary Committee
1/26/2011: Discharged House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
2/11/2011: Reported to House by House Judiciary Committee
2/11/2011: Placed on House calendar
2/28/2011: House passage by roll call vote under suspension of the rules
3/1/2011: Received in Senate
3/1/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
11/17/2011: Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably
11/17/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would amend existing section 1752 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code to reduce the protectiveness of the criminal-intent (mens rea) requirements in offenses involving conduct in “restricted” government buildings, grounds, or areas. Among other things, section 1752 currently prohibits any person or group of persons from: (1) “willfully” and “knowingly” entering or remaining in unauthorized Government buildings, grounds, or areas; (2) engaging in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” that “impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business” or is intended to do so; (3) obstructing or impeding ingress or egress to or from Government buildings, grounds, or areas; or (4) engaging in “any act of physical violence against any person or property” in Government buildings, grounds, or areas. Violations of current law carry criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Violations that involve the use of a firearm or that result in significant bodily injury may be punished by up to 10 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. H.R. 347 would restructure the language of Section 1752 defining the criminal offenses and reduce the level of criminal intent the Government must prove to establish a violation from a “willfully and knowingly” standard to a less-protective “knowingly” standard. The bill would not alter the existing criminal penalties.
Regulatory Overload
From The Heritage Foundation:
Regulation & Deregulation
Regulatory Overload
by David Borys, Andrew Hale, Mark Adams
Mercatus Center
November 30, 2011
Working Paper Series
Regulations are typically looked at with a snapshot approach; however, they can have a different effect when the entire system is viewed as a whole rather than as a collection of isolated pieces. Considering the cumulative effects of the regulatory system as a whole, making a change from action rules to rules defining desired outcomes, and the adoption of clear and certain rules would significantly reduce the regulatory burden on businesses.
URL: mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Reg_Overload_HaleBorysAdams_WP1147_0.pdf
Regulation & Deregulation
Regulatory Overload
by David Borys, Andrew Hale, Mark Adams
Mercatus Center
November 30, 2011
Working Paper Series
Regulations are typically looked at with a snapshot approach; however, they can have a different effect when the entire system is viewed as a whole rather than as a collection of isolated pieces. Considering the cumulative effects of the regulatory system as a whole, making a change from action rules to rules defining desired outcomes, and the adoption of clear and certain rules would significantly reduce the regulatory burden on businesses.
URL: mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Reg_Overload_HaleBorysAdams_WP1147_0.pdf
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Overcriminalized.com Legislative Update
From Overcriminalizecd.com:
Table of Contents
New:
H.R. 3617: See Something, Say Something Act
H.R. 3591: Postal Service Protection Act of 2011
H.R. 3589: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011
S. 1974: Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2011
S. 1955: [No Title]
Updates:
H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
S. 1236: Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3617: See Something, Say Something Act
Sponsor: Clarke (D - NY)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require states receiving funds under section 106 of such act to have in effect a state law providing for a criminal penalty on a person who has knowledge of child abuse or neglect, but fails to report such abuse or neglect to a law enforcement official or child protective services.
Status:
12/8/2011: Introduced in House
12/8/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee
Commentary: This bill was likely written in reaction to the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State University. This bill would monetarily penalize states that do not enforce a law that criminally penalizes any adult to “who fails to report to a State or local law enforcement official or child protective services that the person has knowledge of child abuse or neglect that occurred in the State.” This establishes that a crime can be committed without taking any action whatsoever. Congress is attempting to enact this law at the state level through its spending power. If a state’s governor does not certify that such a law is enacted and is being enforced, the bill would revoke all of the state’s federal grants for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment.
H.R. 3591: Postal Service Protection Act of 2011
Sponsor: DeFazio (D - OR)
Official Title: A bill to recalculate and restore retirement annuity obligations of the United States Postal Service, eliminate the requirement that the United States Postal Service pre-fund the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, place restrictions on the closure of postal facilities, create incentives for innovation for the United States Postal Service, to maintain levels of postal service, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/7/2011: Introduced in House
12/7/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/7/2011: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Commentary: Within this postal services bill is a provision for mitigating a federal offense. This bill would create an exception to the current prohibition on the mailing of “intoxicating liquors” by allowing certain wine and malt beverages. These beverages are mailable if the sender is a licensed winery or brewery that meets all appropriate local, state, and federals laws and regulations. The bill would permit the postal services to set the particular new regulations to allow for these postal deliveries. The mens rea provision already in the criminal code provides only a “knowingly” protection, so it is not clear how far that might extend to meet the exceptions. This bill is similar to S. 1853.
H.R. 3589: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011
Sponsor: Smith (R - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/7/2011: Introduced in House
12/7/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
12/7/2011: Referred to House Foreign Affairs Committee
12/7/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/7/2011: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee
Commentary: This bill would codify several criminal provisions meant to punish human trafficking. First, the bill would add fraudulent foreign labor contracting as a category of offenses that fall under the racketeering statute. The bill would also extend the reach of the government’s enforcement of halting “any illicit sexual conduct with another person” in foreign places. The current statute defines “illicit sexual conduct” as sex with a minor that would be illegal under U.S. law if it occurred in a U.S. jurisdiction, or any commercial sex act with a minor. This bill would extend the reach of this restriction to those who are residing temporarily or permanently in a foreign country, and not merely those American citizens or alien permanent residents that are traveling in foreign commerce. Additionally, this bill would make it a criminal offense to “knowingly destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess, an actual or purported passport or other immigration document of another individual” while violating or intending to violate the fraud in labor contracting statute or the Immigration and Nationality Act, in regards to the bringing or harboring of certain aliens. It would also prohibit that same knowing action “in order to, without lawful authority, maintain, prevent, or restrict the labor of services of the individual.” This bill is related to S. 1301.
S. 1974: Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2011
Sponsor: Udall (D - NM)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the definition of aircraft and the offenses penalized under the aviation smuggling provisions under that act, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/8/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/8/2011: Senate Consideration
12/8/2011: Senate passage by unanimous consent
12/9/2011: Received in House
Commentary: This bill would add ultralight aircraft to the definition of “aircraft” for the purposes of the Tariff Act of 1930 as a way to increase the penalties for those using these aircraft to smuggle goods. In addition to this definitional change, which would incorporate more acts into the offense, this bill would add attempt and conspiracy to commit the offense as new offenses, and equally punishable to the completed offense. The mens rea required is merely “intentional.” A violation is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine if the smuggled goods are not controlled substances. The penalty increases to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine if the smuggled goods are controlled substances.
S. 1955: [No Title]
Sponsor: Paul (R - KY)
Official Title: A bill to authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.
Status:
12/7/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/7/2011: Referred to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Commentary: This bill would decriminalize the regulations regarding “raw milk.” Currently, federal law prohibits the trade of milk that is unpasteurized. This bill would end any prohibition, interference with, regulation, or other restriction on milk or milk products that are “unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption, if such restriction is based on the determination that, solely because such milk or milk product is unpasteurized, such milk or milk product is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of Federal law.” This is a companion bill to H.R. 1830.
H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
Sponsor: Smith (R - TX)
Official Title: A bill to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.
Status:
10/26/2011: Introduced House
10/26/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
11/16/2011: Hearing Held by House Judiciary Committee
12/15/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
12/16/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend several current criminal statutes to increase penalties or make definitional changes to the laws regarding online goods. These include online streaming of copyrighted materials, trafficking in inherently dangerous goods and services and foreign economic spying. The bill would also propose changes to the Sentencing Guidelines involving these crimes.
S. 1236: Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2011
Sponsor: Feinstein (D - CA)
Official Title:A bill to reduce the trafficking of drugs and to prevent human smuggling across the southwest border by deterring the construction and use of border tunnels.
Status:
6/20/2011: Introduced in Senate
6/20/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
12/15/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee
12/15/2011: Ordered to be reported by voice vote
12/15/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would add more criminal provisions to the federal criminal statute on border tunnels and crossings. Additional offenses for attempt and conspiracy relating to the border tunnel crimes would be added. The penalties for these would also be the same as the completely offenses.
Table of Contents
New:
H.R. 3617: See Something, Say Something Act
H.R. 3591: Postal Service Protection Act of 2011
H.R. 3589: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011
S. 1974: Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2011
S. 1955: [No Title]
Updates:
H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
S. 1236: Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3617: See Something, Say Something Act
Sponsor: Clarke (D - NY)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require states receiving funds under section 106 of such act to have in effect a state law providing for a criminal penalty on a person who has knowledge of child abuse or neglect, but fails to report such abuse or neglect to a law enforcement official or child protective services.
Status:
12/8/2011: Introduced in House
12/8/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee
Commentary: This bill was likely written in reaction to the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State University. This bill would monetarily penalize states that do not enforce a law that criminally penalizes any adult to “who fails to report to a State or local law enforcement official or child protective services that the person has knowledge of child abuse or neglect that occurred in the State.” This establishes that a crime can be committed without taking any action whatsoever. Congress is attempting to enact this law at the state level through its spending power. If a state’s governor does not certify that such a law is enacted and is being enforced, the bill would revoke all of the state’s federal grants for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment.
H.R. 3591: Postal Service Protection Act of 2011
Sponsor: DeFazio (D - OR)
Official Title: A bill to recalculate and restore retirement annuity obligations of the United States Postal Service, eliminate the requirement that the United States Postal Service pre-fund the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, place restrictions on the closure of postal facilities, create incentives for innovation for the United States Postal Service, to maintain levels of postal service, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/7/2011: Introduced in House
12/7/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/7/2011: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Commentary: Within this postal services bill is a provision for mitigating a federal offense. This bill would create an exception to the current prohibition on the mailing of “intoxicating liquors” by allowing certain wine and malt beverages. These beverages are mailable if the sender is a licensed winery or brewery that meets all appropriate local, state, and federals laws and regulations. The bill would permit the postal services to set the particular new regulations to allow for these postal deliveries. The mens rea provision already in the criminal code provides only a “knowingly” protection, so it is not clear how far that might extend to meet the exceptions. This bill is similar to S. 1853.
H.R. 3589: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011
Sponsor: Smith (R - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/7/2011: Introduced in House
12/7/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
12/7/2011: Referred to House Foreign Affairs Committee
12/7/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/7/2011: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee
Commentary: This bill would codify several criminal provisions meant to punish human trafficking. First, the bill would add fraudulent foreign labor contracting as a category of offenses that fall under the racketeering statute. The bill would also extend the reach of the government’s enforcement of halting “any illicit sexual conduct with another person” in foreign places. The current statute defines “illicit sexual conduct” as sex with a minor that would be illegal under U.S. law if it occurred in a U.S. jurisdiction, or any commercial sex act with a minor. This bill would extend the reach of this restriction to those who are residing temporarily or permanently in a foreign country, and not merely those American citizens or alien permanent residents that are traveling in foreign commerce. Additionally, this bill would make it a criminal offense to “knowingly destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess, an actual or purported passport or other immigration document of another individual” while violating or intending to violate the fraud in labor contracting statute or the Immigration and Nationality Act, in regards to the bringing or harboring of certain aliens. It would also prohibit that same knowing action “in order to, without lawful authority, maintain, prevent, or restrict the labor of services of the individual.” This bill is related to S. 1301.
S. 1974: Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2011
Sponsor: Udall (D - NM)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the definition of aircraft and the offenses penalized under the aviation smuggling provisions under that act, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/8/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/8/2011: Senate Consideration
12/8/2011: Senate passage by unanimous consent
12/9/2011: Received in House
Commentary: This bill would add ultralight aircraft to the definition of “aircraft” for the purposes of the Tariff Act of 1930 as a way to increase the penalties for those using these aircraft to smuggle goods. In addition to this definitional change, which would incorporate more acts into the offense, this bill would add attempt and conspiracy to commit the offense as new offenses, and equally punishable to the completed offense. The mens rea required is merely “intentional.” A violation is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine if the smuggled goods are not controlled substances. The penalty increases to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine if the smuggled goods are controlled substances.
S. 1955: [No Title]
Sponsor: Paul (R - KY)
Official Title: A bill to authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.
Status:
12/7/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/7/2011: Referred to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Commentary: This bill would decriminalize the regulations regarding “raw milk.” Currently, federal law prohibits the trade of milk that is unpasteurized. This bill would end any prohibition, interference with, regulation, or other restriction on milk or milk products that are “unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption, if such restriction is based on the determination that, solely because such milk or milk product is unpasteurized, such milk or milk product is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of Federal law.” This is a companion bill to H.R. 1830.
H.R. 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
Sponsor: Smith (R - TX)
Official Title: A bill to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.
Status:
10/26/2011: Introduced House
10/26/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
11/16/2011: Hearing Held by House Judiciary Committee
12/15/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
12/16/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend several current criminal statutes to increase penalties or make definitional changes to the laws regarding online goods. These include online streaming of copyrighted materials, trafficking in inherently dangerous goods and services and foreign economic spying. The bill would also propose changes to the Sentencing Guidelines involving these crimes.
S. 1236: Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2011
Sponsor: Feinstein (D - CA)
Official Title:A bill to reduce the trafficking of drugs and to prevent human smuggling across the southwest border by deterring the construction and use of border tunnels.
Status:
6/20/2011: Introduced in Senate
6/20/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
12/15/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee
12/15/2011: Ordered to be reported by voice vote
12/15/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would add more criminal provisions to the federal criminal statute on border tunnels and crossings. Additional offenses for attempt and conspiracy relating to the border tunnel crimes would be added. The penalties for these would also be the same as the completely offenses.
The Case of Duopoly
From The CATO Institute and The Heritage Foundation:
Regulation & Deregulation
The Case of Duopoly
by Erwin A. Blackstone, Larry F. Darby, Joseph P. Fuhr Jr.
Cato Institute
December 20, 2011
Regulation
There is nothing of consequence to support a case for regulation based only on market structure. Common sense suggests that such regulation should be based on a thorough consumer-welfare-oriented cost-benefit analysis of the conduct and performance of markets and of the well-known infirmities of government efforts to manage competitive processes.
URL: www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv34n4/v34n4-3.pdf
Regulation & Deregulation
The Case of Duopoly
by Erwin A. Blackstone, Larry F. Darby, Joseph P. Fuhr Jr.
Cato Institute
December 20, 2011
Regulation
There is nothing of consequence to support a case for regulation based only on market structure. Common sense suggests that such regulation should be based on a thorough consumer-welfare-oriented cost-benefit analysis of the conduct and performance of markets and of the well-known infirmities of government efforts to manage competitive processes.
URL: www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv34n4/v34n4-3.pdf
Smoggy with a Chance of Altruism: Using Air Quality Forecasts to Drive Behavioral Change
From AEI and The Heritage Foundation:
Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science
Smoggy with a Chance of Altruism: Using Air Quality Forecasts to Drive Behavioral Change
by Douglas Noonan
American Enterprise Institute
December 20, 2011
Working Paper Series
Recent years have seen a rise in information-based environmental policies. This report focuses on a type of voluntary, information-based environmental policy – air quality alerts – by summarizing the recent research and contributing new findings. The results are mixed, with only weak evidence that driving time is reduced following forecasts and no discernible impact on outdoor recreation nationwide. The conclusion distills the evidence into a few takeaway messages: (1) some people are responsive to forecasts, (2) forecasts do not alter behavior universally, and (3) some of these behavioral impacts may not be as intended.
URL: www.aei.org/files/2011/12/14/-smoggy-with-a-chance-of-altruism-using-air-quality-forecasts-to-drive-behavioral-change_140952566926.pdf
Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science
Smoggy with a Chance of Altruism: Using Air Quality Forecasts to Drive Behavioral Change
by Douglas Noonan
American Enterprise Institute
December 20, 2011
Working Paper Series
Recent years have seen a rise in information-based environmental policies. This report focuses on a type of voluntary, information-based environmental policy – air quality alerts – by summarizing the recent research and contributing new findings. The results are mixed, with only weak evidence that driving time is reduced following forecasts and no discernible impact on outdoor recreation nationwide. The conclusion distills the evidence into a few takeaway messages: (1) some people are responsive to forecasts, (2) forecasts do not alter behavior universally, and (3) some of these behavioral impacts may not be as intended.
URL: www.aei.org/files/2011/12/14/-smoggy-with-a-chance-of-altruism-using-air-quality-forecasts-to-drive-behavioral-change_140952566926.pdf
How the Clean Air Act “Hits Home” Through the I&M Program
From AEI and The Heritage Foundation:
Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science
How the Clean Air Act “Hits Home” Through the I&M Program
by Douglas Noonan
American Enterprise Institute
December 20, 2011
Atlanta’s Inspection & Maintenance program effectively screens dirtier vehicles out of the fleet. It must be noted, however, that failure rates are sufficiently low for the bulk of the tested fleet that the vast majority of tests accomplish little and the reliance on diagnostic computers (rather than actual tailpipe emissions) is problematic as vehicles age – precisely when better screening is most important. Households tend to “shop” for inspection stations to minimize their costs – thus picking stations nearby their homes and those that are more lenient. The program imposes a burden on those who own dirty cars, and those cars are clearly owned by poorer households.
URL: www.aei.org/files/2011/12/14/-how-the-clean-air-act-hits-home-the-im-program_140927732751.pdf
Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science
How the Clean Air Act “Hits Home” Through the I&M Program
by Douglas Noonan
American Enterprise Institute
December 20, 2011
Atlanta’s Inspection & Maintenance program effectively screens dirtier vehicles out of the fleet. It must be noted, however, that failure rates are sufficiently low for the bulk of the tested fleet that the vast majority of tests accomplish little and the reliance on diagnostic computers (rather than actual tailpipe emissions) is problematic as vehicles age – precisely when better screening is most important. Households tend to “shop” for inspection stations to minimize their costs – thus picking stations nearby their homes and those that are more lenient. The program imposes a burden on those who own dirty cars, and those cars are clearly owned by poorer households.
URL: www.aei.org/files/2011/12/14/-how-the-clean-air-act-hits-home-the-im-program_140927732751.pdf
How Much Do We Care about the Air? Evidence on the Value of Air Quality Improvements
From AEI and The Heritage Foundation:
Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science
How Much Do We Care about the Air? Evidence on the Value of Air Quality Improvements
by Douglas Noonan
American Enterprise Institute
December 20, 2011
This report attempts to explain the variation in air quality values and disentangle the methodological factors from the policy-relevant contextual ones. A meta-analysis is conducted in order to test those hypotheses. After collecting and coding over 50 empirical studies of air quality benefits, the benefits estimates are normalized and converted to a common metric for benefits of or willingness-to-pay (WTP) for air quality improvements. Enormous variation in normalized WTP is observed in the literature. Some of the results are expected, such as diminishing returns to further improvements. Other results are less expected, such as the higher values associated with peer-reviewed studies. The relationship between benefit estimates and income is less straightforward, with benefits rising in income for wealthy nations but declining in income for developing countries. These results have useful lessons for those designing air quality policy informed by how much the public benefits from improvements.
URL: www.aei.org/files/2011/12/14/-how-much-do-we-care-about-the-air-evidence-on-the-value-of-air-quality-improvements_14101680650.pdf
Natural Resources, Energy, Environment, & Science
How Much Do We Care about the Air? Evidence on the Value of Air Quality Improvements
by Douglas Noonan
American Enterprise Institute
December 20, 2011
This report attempts to explain the variation in air quality values and disentangle the methodological factors from the policy-relevant contextual ones. A meta-analysis is conducted in order to test those hypotheses. After collecting and coding over 50 empirical studies of air quality benefits, the benefits estimates are normalized and converted to a common metric for benefits of or willingness-to-pay (WTP) for air quality improvements. Enormous variation in normalized WTP is observed in the literature. Some of the results are expected, such as diminishing returns to further improvements. Other results are less expected, such as the higher values associated with peer-reviewed studies. The relationship between benefit estimates and income is less straightforward, with benefits rising in income for wealthy nations but declining in income for developing countries. These results have useful lessons for those designing air quality policy informed by how much the public benefits from improvements.
URL: www.aei.org/files/2011/12/14/-how-much-do-we-care-about-the-air-evidence-on-the-value-of-air-quality-improvements_14101680650.pdf
The Economics of Network Neutrality
From The CATO Institution:
Information Technology
The Economics of Network Neutrality
by Gerald R. Faulhaber
Cato Institute
December 20, 2011
Regulation
The economic evidence does not support prophylactic net neutrality regulation. In the absence of significant evidence of “bad behavior” by broadband ISPs over the past decade, the extensive literature is unable to support such regulation. Even articles specifically arguing for net neutrality regulation cannot make an unambiguous case for regulation, as this review demonstrates. I again rely on Owen to state it best: “Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that prophylactic regulation is not necessary, and may well reduce welfare. Sound policy is to wait for ex post evidence of harm to justify interventions in specific cases.”
URL: www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv34n4/v34n4-4.pdf
Information Technology
The Economics of Network Neutrality
by Gerald R. Faulhaber
Cato Institute
December 20, 2011
Regulation
The economic evidence does not support prophylactic net neutrality regulation. In the absence of significant evidence of “bad behavior” by broadband ISPs over the past decade, the extensive literature is unable to support such regulation. Even articles specifically arguing for net neutrality regulation cannot make an unambiguous case for regulation, as this review demonstrates. I again rely on Owen to state it best: “Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that prophylactic regulation is not necessary, and may well reduce welfare. Sound policy is to wait for ex post evidence of harm to justify interventions in specific cases.”
URL: www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv34n4/v34n4-4.pdf
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Over-Criminalized.com Legislative Update
From Overcriminalized.com:
Table of Contents
New:
H.R. 3491: [No Title]
H.R. 3486: Speak Out to Stop Child Abuse Act (SOS Child Abuse Act)
H.R. 3474: Promoting Responsibility in Medical Expenditures Act of 2011 (PRIME Act of 2011)
S. 1919: Girls' Protection Act of 2011
S. 1887: State Children’s Protection Act
Updates:
H.R. 2572: Clean up Government Act
S. 678: Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3491: [No Title]
Sponsor: Cicilline (D - RI)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying contacts.
Status:
11/18/2011: Introduced in House
11/18/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend the current statute regarding lobbying by former members of Congress. Currently, the law is different for former members of the House of Representatives and former senators, but, at their core, penalize those who “knowingly make[], with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance” to a member or other Congressional staffer “on behalf of any other person (except the United States) in connection with any matter” for which the former member seeks action from a current member or staffer. The current statute also only limits conduct of former senators for the first two years after leaving office, and only one year for former House representatives. This bill would make the same rules apply for former senators and House members and strips the time limitation. The language in the new bill also strikes “with the intent to influence” from the mens rea terms, which significantly reduces the intent protection of the statute. The only term that remains is “knowingly makes any lobbying contact.” “Lobbying contact” is a term defined in another section of the United States Code as “any oral or written communication (including an electronic communication) to a covered [official] that is made on behalf of a client with regard to” formulation, modification or adoption of federal legislation, rules, regulations, policies, or positions; administration of federal programs; and nominations and confirmations. Some exceptions are also provided in the statute. However, there is no language as to the intent of the communication, only that it is “made on behalf of a client.” This could be interpreted to find a former member of Congress in violation of the law if he were to ask about the status of proposed legislation on behalf of a client.
H.R. 3486: Speak Out to Stop Child Abuse Act (SOS Child Abuse Act)
Sponsor: Bass (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require States receiving funds under section 106 of such act to have in effect a state law providing for a criminal penalty on an individual who fails to report witnessing another individual engaging in sexual abuse of a child.
Status:
11/18/2011: Introduced in House
11/18/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee
Commentary: This bill would use Congress’s funding power to require states to pass laws regarding the reporting of child abuse. In order for a state to continue receiving grants under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the state governor must certify that the state is enforcing a criminal law that penalizes any adult that witnesses “another individual in the State engaging in sexual abuse of a child.”
H.R. 3474: Promoting Responsibility in Medical Expenditures Act of 2011 (PRIME Act of 2011)
Sponsor: Stearns (R - FL)
Official Title: A bill to amend titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act to prevent fraud and abuse under the Medicare program and to require National Provider Identifiers for reimbursement of prescriptions under part D of the Medicare program, and for other purposes
Status:
11/18/2011: Introduced in House
11/18/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
11/18/2011: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee
Commentary: The bill would increase the criminal penalties for health care fraud. Monetary fines for false statements or representations and illegal remunerations and kickbacks would be increased from $25,000 to $100,000, and other smaller fines would also be increased. Additionally, the maximum prison sentence for false statements or representations and illegal remunerations and kickbacks are increased from 5 years to 10 years. The maximum prison sentences for false statements or representations in respect to the condition of facilities and for excess charges are also increased from 5 years to 10 years.
S. 1919: Girls' Protection Act of 2011
Sponsor: Reid (D - NV)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for transporting minors in foreign commerce for the purposes of female genital mutilation.
Status:
11/29/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/29/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill adds a criminal offense to Title 18 Section 116, prohibiting female genital mutilation. The bill would make it illegal for anyone to knowingly transports a minor from the United States to a foreign country in foreign commerce and to knowingly “circumcise[ ], excise[ ], or infibulate[ ]” a part of the female genitalia, as proscribed in the U.S. Code. A violation would be punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine until Title 18.
S. 1887: State Children’s Protection Act
Sponsor: Boxer (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to protect children from abuse and neglect.
Status:
11/17/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/17/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would use Congress’s funding power to require states to pass laws regarding the reporting of child abuse. The bill mandates that every state pass a law that requiring “at a minimum” that “any person who knows or has reasonable cause to believe or suspect… or who observes any child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in” child abuse or neglect, shall “immediately” report it to either law enforcement or child protective services. The bill also provides a “good faith” immunity on reporting such suspicions.
H.R. 2572: Clean up Government Act
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to deter public corruption, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/15/2011: Introduced House
7/15/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
7/26/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
12/1/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill is a revised version of H.R. 1793, which Rep. Sensenbrenner (R–Wisc.) introduced earlier in the 112th Congress, and which is also covered by Overcriminalized.com’s Legislative Update feature. This bill’s primary differences from H.R. 1793 are that it (1) removes 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 1962 from the list of statutes that the Sentencing Commission must reconsider; (2) extends the statute of limitations for public corruption offenses to 6 years (rather than the 10 years proposed by H.R. 1793); and (3) includes in the bill’s language regarding the benefits of self-dealing a requirement that the purpose of the action must be, in whole or in “material” part, self-dealing in order for the action to be a violation. In addition, this bill would decrease the protection of the “de minimis” threshold for federal embezzlement offenses by lowering it from $5,000 to $1,000. The bill would broaden the definition of the prohibited conduct (actus reus) for self-dealing by including instances when a public official is shown to have furthered the financial interest of an individual or entity who has given the public official “any thing or things of value” (except as expressly permitted by law or regulation).
S. 678: Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act
Sponsor: Kohl (D - WI)
Official Title: A bill to increase the penalties for economic espionage.
Status:
3/30/2011: Introduced in Senate
3/30/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
12/1/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a) to increase the maximum criminal penalties for acts of economic espionage. Currently, subsection 1831(a) prohibits individuals from “knowingly” committing a wide range of acts associated with the misappropriation of trade secrets for the benefit of any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent. Violations of these provisions are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to 15 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 678 would increase the maximum term of incarceration available under § 1831(a) from 15 years to 20 years. The bill also instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to “review its guidelines and policy relating to a two-level enhancement for economic espionage” and consider amending such guidelines to: (1) “apply the two-level enhancement to the simple misappropriation of a trade secret”; (2) “apply an additional two-level enhancement if the defendant transmits or attempts to transmit the stolen trade secret outside of the United States and an additional three-level enhancement if the defendant instead commits economic espionage (i.e., he/she knew or intended that the offense would benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent)”; and (3) “provide when a defendant transmits trade secrets outside of the United States or commits economic espionage, that the defendant should face a minimum offense level.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
New:
H.R. 3491: [No Title]
H.R. 3486: Speak Out to Stop Child Abuse Act (SOS Child Abuse Act)
H.R. 3474: Promoting Responsibility in Medical Expenditures Act of 2011 (PRIME Act of 2011)
S. 1919: Girls' Protection Act of 2011
S. 1887: State Children’s Protection Act
Updates:
H.R. 2572: Clean up Government Act
S. 678: Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3491: [No Title]
Sponsor: Cicilline (D - RI)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying contacts.
Status:
11/18/2011: Introduced in House
11/18/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend the current statute regarding lobbying by former members of Congress. Currently, the law is different for former members of the House of Representatives and former senators, but, at their core, penalize those who “knowingly make[], with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance” to a member or other Congressional staffer “on behalf of any other person (except the United States) in connection with any matter” for which the former member seeks action from a current member or staffer. The current statute also only limits conduct of former senators for the first two years after leaving office, and only one year for former House representatives. This bill would make the same rules apply for former senators and House members and strips the time limitation. The language in the new bill also strikes “with the intent to influence” from the mens rea terms, which significantly reduces the intent protection of the statute. The only term that remains is “knowingly makes any lobbying contact.” “Lobbying contact” is a term defined in another section of the United States Code as “any oral or written communication (including an electronic communication) to a covered [official] that is made on behalf of a client with regard to” formulation, modification or adoption of federal legislation, rules, regulations, policies, or positions; administration of federal programs; and nominations and confirmations. Some exceptions are also provided in the statute. However, there is no language as to the intent of the communication, only that it is “made on behalf of a client.” This could be interpreted to find a former member of Congress in violation of the law if he were to ask about the status of proposed legislation on behalf of a client.
H.R. 3486: Speak Out to Stop Child Abuse Act (SOS Child Abuse Act)
Sponsor: Bass (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require States receiving funds under section 106 of such act to have in effect a state law providing for a criminal penalty on an individual who fails to report witnessing another individual engaging in sexual abuse of a child.
Status:
11/18/2011: Introduced in House
11/18/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee
Commentary: This bill would use Congress’s funding power to require states to pass laws regarding the reporting of child abuse. In order for a state to continue receiving grants under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the state governor must certify that the state is enforcing a criminal law that penalizes any adult that witnesses “another individual in the State engaging in sexual abuse of a child.”
H.R. 3474: Promoting Responsibility in Medical Expenditures Act of 2011 (PRIME Act of 2011)
Sponsor: Stearns (R - FL)
Official Title: A bill to amend titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act to prevent fraud and abuse under the Medicare program and to require National Provider Identifiers for reimbursement of prescriptions under part D of the Medicare program, and for other purposes
Status:
11/18/2011: Introduced in House
11/18/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
11/18/2011: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee
Commentary: The bill would increase the criminal penalties for health care fraud. Monetary fines for false statements or representations and illegal remunerations and kickbacks would be increased from $25,000 to $100,000, and other smaller fines would also be increased. Additionally, the maximum prison sentence for false statements or representations and illegal remunerations and kickbacks are increased from 5 years to 10 years. The maximum prison sentences for false statements or representations in respect to the condition of facilities and for excess charges are also increased from 5 years to 10 years.
S. 1919: Girls' Protection Act of 2011
Sponsor: Reid (D - NV)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for transporting minors in foreign commerce for the purposes of female genital mutilation.
Status:
11/29/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/29/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill adds a criminal offense to Title 18 Section 116, prohibiting female genital mutilation. The bill would make it illegal for anyone to knowingly transports a minor from the United States to a foreign country in foreign commerce and to knowingly “circumcise[ ], excise[ ], or infibulate[ ]” a part of the female genitalia, as proscribed in the U.S. Code. A violation would be punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine until Title 18.
S. 1887: State Children’s Protection Act
Sponsor: Boxer (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to protect children from abuse and neglect.
Status:
11/17/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/17/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would use Congress’s funding power to require states to pass laws regarding the reporting of child abuse. The bill mandates that every state pass a law that requiring “at a minimum” that “any person who knows or has reasonable cause to believe or suspect… or who observes any child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in” child abuse or neglect, shall “immediately” report it to either law enforcement or child protective services. The bill also provides a “good faith” immunity on reporting such suspicions.
H.R. 2572: Clean up Government Act
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to deter public corruption, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/15/2011: Introduced House
7/15/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
7/26/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
12/1/2011: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill is a revised version of H.R. 1793, which Rep. Sensenbrenner (R–Wisc.) introduced earlier in the 112th Congress, and which is also covered by Overcriminalized.com’s Legislative Update feature. This bill’s primary differences from H.R. 1793 are that it (1) removes 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 1962 from the list of statutes that the Sentencing Commission must reconsider; (2) extends the statute of limitations for public corruption offenses to 6 years (rather than the 10 years proposed by H.R. 1793); and (3) includes in the bill’s language regarding the benefits of self-dealing a requirement that the purpose of the action must be, in whole or in “material” part, self-dealing in order for the action to be a violation. In addition, this bill would decrease the protection of the “de minimis” threshold for federal embezzlement offenses by lowering it from $5,000 to $1,000. The bill would broaden the definition of the prohibited conduct (actus reus) for self-dealing by including instances when a public official is shown to have furthered the financial interest of an individual or entity who has given the public official “any thing or things of value” (except as expressly permitted by law or regulation).
S. 678: Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act
Sponsor: Kohl (D - WI)
Official Title: A bill to increase the penalties for economic espionage.
Status:
3/30/2011: Introduced in Senate
3/30/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
12/1/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a) to increase the maximum criminal penalties for acts of economic espionage. Currently, subsection 1831(a) prohibits individuals from “knowingly” committing a wide range of acts associated with the misappropriation of trade secrets for the benefit of any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent. Violations of these provisions are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to 15 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 678 would increase the maximum term of incarceration available under § 1831(a) from 15 years to 20 years. The bill also instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to “review its guidelines and policy relating to a two-level enhancement for economic espionage” and consider amending such guidelines to: (1) “apply the two-level enhancement to the simple misappropriation of a trade secret”; (2) “apply an additional two-level enhancement if the defendant transmits or attempts to transmit the stolen trade secret outside of the United States and an additional three-level enhancement if the defendant instead commits economic espionage (i.e., he/she knew or intended that the offense would benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent)”; and (3) “provide when a defendant transmits trade secrets outside of the United States or commits economic espionage, that the defendant should face a minimum offense level.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Regulations from Dummies
From Town Hall:
Regulations FROM Dummies
Brett McMahon
Dec 16, 2011
Sign-Up
Quick question: What is the most obvious thing keeping us from an economic recovery led by job creation? If you answered the increasingly burdensome mountain regulatory red tape from the government, you’d be in the heavy majority of the country who thinks that way as well. If you were to ask the current White House the same question, you’d get a completely different answer (and a list of excuses, blames, and finger pointing).
In a fantastic article this week in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Regulation for Dummies”, the Journal takes a look at the evidence of whether costly, job killing regulations have indeed increased during this Administration or not. (Hint: The answer is YES!)
This is not a shock or surprise to small business owners like myself or the millions of others around the country. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy and historically have been where most job creation happens, when we are crushed by over regulation we can’t afford to expand or hire more people.
To quote from the Journal:
The evidence is overwhelming that the Obama regulatory surge is one reason the current economic recovery has been so lackluster by historical standards. Rather than nurture an economy trying to rebuild confidence after a financial heart attack, the Administration pushed through its now-famous blitz of liberal policies on health care, financial services, energy, housing, education and student loans, telecom, labor relations, transportation and probably some other industries we've forgotten. Anyone who thinks this has only minimal impact on business has never been in business.
If you only listened to the President or his top staff give speeches or media interviews, you would walk away convinced that they all understand that you can’t have a serious jobs recovery when Big Government is in the way. But if you follow the news stories out of the NLRB, EPA, HHS, Commerce Dept. or any other part of the Administration, you would see job-crushing regulations emanating at a unprecedented pace. As the Journal eloquently puts it, “Mr. Obama can claim he is the progressive second coming of Teddy Roosevelt as he did in Kansas last week, or he can claim to be a regulatory minimalist, but not both. The facts show he's the former.”
The President can reference Teddy Roosevelt all he wants in his speeches, but to quote Teddy Roosevelt, “Actions speak louder than words.” If this Administration were serious about real jobs recovery and real economic growth, they would be acting to decrease regulations, cut spending, and offering small business friendly reforms.
Final question: Why does the Administration talk one way and act another? The answer is unfortunately bought and paid for by Big Labor. The President’s re-election hopes hinge on convincing the public he is in agreement with them on the problems, while satisfying the demands of Big Labor to keep their money coming in.
Tags: Government Regulations , Labor Unions , Obama Administration , Job killing regulation , job creators
Brett McMahon
Brett McMahon is a spokesman for the Free Enterprise Alliance's Halt The Assault campaign
Breaking on TOWNHALL
Regulations FROM Dummies
Brett McMahon
Dec 16, 2011
Sign-Up
Quick question: What is the most obvious thing keeping us from an economic recovery led by job creation? If you answered the increasingly burdensome mountain regulatory red tape from the government, you’d be in the heavy majority of the country who thinks that way as well. If you were to ask the current White House the same question, you’d get a completely different answer (and a list of excuses, blames, and finger pointing).
In a fantastic article this week in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Regulation for Dummies”, the Journal takes a look at the evidence of whether costly, job killing regulations have indeed increased during this Administration or not. (Hint: The answer is YES!)
This is not a shock or surprise to small business owners like myself or the millions of others around the country. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy and historically have been where most job creation happens, when we are crushed by over regulation we can’t afford to expand or hire more people.
To quote from the Journal:
The evidence is overwhelming that the Obama regulatory surge is one reason the current economic recovery has been so lackluster by historical standards. Rather than nurture an economy trying to rebuild confidence after a financial heart attack, the Administration pushed through its now-famous blitz of liberal policies on health care, financial services, energy, housing, education and student loans, telecom, labor relations, transportation and probably some other industries we've forgotten. Anyone who thinks this has only minimal impact on business has never been in business.
If you only listened to the President or his top staff give speeches or media interviews, you would walk away convinced that they all understand that you can’t have a serious jobs recovery when Big Government is in the way. But if you follow the news stories out of the NLRB, EPA, HHS, Commerce Dept. or any other part of the Administration, you would see job-crushing regulations emanating at a unprecedented pace. As the Journal eloquently puts it, “Mr. Obama can claim he is the progressive second coming of Teddy Roosevelt as he did in Kansas last week, or he can claim to be a regulatory minimalist, but not both. The facts show he's the former.”
The President can reference Teddy Roosevelt all he wants in his speeches, but to quote Teddy Roosevelt, “Actions speak louder than words.” If this Administration were serious about real jobs recovery and real economic growth, they would be acting to decrease regulations, cut spending, and offering small business friendly reforms.
Final question: Why does the Administration talk one way and act another? The answer is unfortunately bought and paid for by Big Labor. The President’s re-election hopes hinge on convincing the public he is in agreement with them on the problems, while satisfying the demands of Big Labor to keep their money coming in.
Tags: Government Regulations , Labor Unions , Obama Administration , Job killing regulation , job creators
Brett McMahon
Brett McMahon is a spokesman for the Free Enterprise Alliance's Halt The Assault campaign
Breaking on TOWNHALL
Over-Criminalized.com Legislatvie Update
From Over-Criminalized.com:
Table of Contents
New Criminal Law Proposals:
H.R. 3550: Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading Act (RESTRICT Act)
H.R. 3541: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011
S. 1947: Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2011
S. 1946: Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011
S. 1928: Stalkers Act of 2011
Updates:
H.R. 1823: Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011
Miscellaneous:
H.R. 3528: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3550: Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading Act (RESTRICT Act)
Sponsor: Duffy (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require certain individuals subject to that act to either place their securities in a blind trust or to report the sale, purchase or exchange of securities.
Status:
12/2/2011: Introduced in House
12/2/2011: Referred to House Administration Committee
12/2/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/2/2011: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Commentary: This bill would make all individuals covered under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 take action in regards to their personal financial securities. Individuals would be required to either place all securities in a qualified blind trust or to file an extensive report within three business days of a transaction. A violation would be punishable by either a civil penalty or a criminal fine under Title 18, United States Code.
H.R. 3541: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011
Sponsor: Franks (R - AZ)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/1/2011: Introduced in House
12/1/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would prohibit abortions that are “sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child.” The proposed statute refers to this as a “sex-selection” or “race-selection” abortion. The several prohibited acts include the knowing performance of an abortion based on race or sex selection abortion; the knowing use of force or threats to injure or intimidate a person for the purpose of coercing a race or sex selection abortion; the knowing solicitation or acceptance of funds for a race or sex selection abortion; and the transport of a woman into the US or across state lines in order to perform a race or sex selection abortion. The attempt of all four of these crimes would also be prohibited. A violation of any of these 8 offenses is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, United States Code. Additionally, there is a reporting requirement for any “physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional” to report a violation to law enforcement or they would be subject to 1 year imprisonment and a fine under Title 18.
S. 1947: Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2011
Sponsor: Blumenthal (D - CT)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit attendance of an animal fighting venture, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/6/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/6/2011: Referred to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee
Commentary: This bill would expand the definition of the prohibited conduct (actus reus) under the current animal fighting statute, 7 U.S.C. Section 2156. The bill would make it unlawful for a person to “knowingly attend” or “cause a minor to attend” an animal fight. Attending a fight would be punishable by up to 1 year of imprisonment and a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code. Causing a minor to attend an animal fight would be punishable by up to 3 years of imprisonment and a fine as authorized by Title 18. This is a companion bill with H.R 2492.
S. 1946: Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011
Sponsor: Whitehouse (D - RI)
Official Title: A bill to require foreign manufacturers of products imported into the United States to establish registered agents in the United States who are authorized to accept service of process against such manufacturers.
Status:
12/5/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/5/2011: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
Commentary: This bill attempts to tie foreign manufacturers to a domestic agent that can be haled into court. The criminal law provision of this bill regards declarations of a person importing a covered product from outside the United States. That person would be required to make an “appropriate inquiry” into the importer’s compliance with this bill by seeking documentation from the exporter and checking the registry established in this bill. Additionally, the importer must also declare that “to the best of the person’s knowledge” the exporter has registered a U.S. agent. An importer must also not file a false declaration. A violation would be punishable “any appropriate penalty under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592) or title 18, United States Code, with respect to importation of a covered product.” There is no appropriate intent requirement for these offenses. Furthermore, the penalty that would be assessed is also unclear, as it specifies a large trade act and the entire criminal code title of the U.S. Code.
S. 1928: Stalkers Act of 2011
Sponsor: Klobuchar (D - MN)
Official Title: A bill to provide criminal penalties for stalking.
Status:
11/30/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/30/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would widen the scope of the federal stalking statute. The bill would add “intimidate” in two locations and would also include conduct on “any interactive computer service or electronic communication service [or] system of interstate commerce” to be reached by this statute. Under this proposal, the attempt of any of these aforementioned offenses would constitute its own offense, and could result in the same penalty as the completed act. A violation in punishable under 18 U.S.C. Section 2261(b), which is scaled based upon the offense facts.
H.R. 1823: Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to modernize, shorten, and simplify the Federal criminal code, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/10/2011: Introduced in House
5/10/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/13/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Commentary: This bill, much like H.R. 1772 from the 111th Congress (also introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner), would replace the entirety of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, simplifying and consolidating existing criminal provisions. In all, it would cut over one-third of the existing criminal code; reorganize the code to make it more user-friendly; and consolidate criminal offenses from other titles so that Title 18 includes all major criminal provisions. In general, it is policy-neutral, meaning that it does not attempt to affect the substance of the law, but there are exceptions. Some of these exceptions include that: (1) attempts and conspiracies to commit criminal offenses would generally be punished in the same manner as the substantive offense unless specifically stated otherwise; and (2) forfeiture (both civil and criminal) and restitution provisions would generally be consolidated unless an alternative framework is otherwise adopted for a particular crime. Significantly, this legislation would create a uniform set of definitions for the entire title, provide consistent definitions for intent requirements, and eliminate criminal offenses that have not been used in the last 30 years or have been subsumed by other offenses.
H.R. 3528: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011
Sponsor: Johnson (D - TX)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the homeless.
Status:
11/30/2011: Introduced in House
11/30/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: Although this bill does not create a new criminal offense, it is still noteworthy because of the potential for future criminal law legislation. This bill would add “homeless status” as a type of “hate crime” that is to be annually recorded by the Attorney General. Currently, statistics are collected on crimes that show prejudice based on “race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” The term “homeless status” would be defined as one who has no “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” or one whose nighttime residence is a public place, a shelter, or other temporary situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
New Criminal Law Proposals:
H.R. 3550: Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading Act (RESTRICT Act)
H.R. 3541: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011
S. 1947: Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2011
S. 1946: Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011
S. 1928: Stalkers Act of 2011
Updates:
H.R. 1823: Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011
Miscellaneous:
H.R. 3528: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3550: Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading Act (RESTRICT Act)
Sponsor: Duffy (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require certain individuals subject to that act to either place their securities in a blind trust or to report the sale, purchase or exchange of securities.
Status:
12/2/2011: Introduced in House
12/2/2011: Referred to House Administration Committee
12/2/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/2/2011: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Commentary: This bill would make all individuals covered under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 take action in regards to their personal financial securities. Individuals would be required to either place all securities in a qualified blind trust or to file an extensive report within three business days of a transaction. A violation would be punishable by either a civil penalty or a criminal fine under Title 18, United States Code.
H.R. 3541: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011
Sponsor: Franks (R - AZ)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/1/2011: Introduced in House
12/1/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would prohibit abortions that are “sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child.” The proposed statute refers to this as a “sex-selection” or “race-selection” abortion. The several prohibited acts include the knowing performance of an abortion based on race or sex selection abortion; the knowing use of force or threats to injure or intimidate a person for the purpose of coercing a race or sex selection abortion; the knowing solicitation or acceptance of funds for a race or sex selection abortion; and the transport of a woman into the US or across state lines in order to perform a race or sex selection abortion. The attempt of all four of these crimes would also be prohibited. A violation of any of these 8 offenses is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, United States Code. Additionally, there is a reporting requirement for any “physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional” to report a violation to law enforcement or they would be subject to 1 year imprisonment and a fine under Title 18.
S. 1947: Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act of 2011
Sponsor: Blumenthal (D - CT)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit attendance of an animal fighting venture, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/6/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/6/2011: Referred to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee
Commentary: This bill would expand the definition of the prohibited conduct (actus reus) under the current animal fighting statute, 7 U.S.C. Section 2156. The bill would make it unlawful for a person to “knowingly attend” or “cause a minor to attend” an animal fight. Attending a fight would be punishable by up to 1 year of imprisonment and a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code. Causing a minor to attend an animal fight would be punishable by up to 3 years of imprisonment and a fine as authorized by Title 18. This is a companion bill with H.R 2492.
S. 1946: Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011
Sponsor: Whitehouse (D - RI)
Official Title: A bill to require foreign manufacturers of products imported into the United States to establish registered agents in the United States who are authorized to accept service of process against such manufacturers.
Status:
12/5/2011: Introduced in Senate
12/5/2011: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
Commentary: This bill attempts to tie foreign manufacturers to a domestic agent that can be haled into court. The criminal law provision of this bill regards declarations of a person importing a covered product from outside the United States. That person would be required to make an “appropriate inquiry” into the importer’s compliance with this bill by seeking documentation from the exporter and checking the registry established in this bill. Additionally, the importer must also declare that “to the best of the person’s knowledge” the exporter has registered a U.S. agent. An importer must also not file a false declaration. A violation would be punishable “any appropriate penalty under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592) or title 18, United States Code, with respect to importation of a covered product.” There is no appropriate intent requirement for these offenses. Furthermore, the penalty that would be assessed is also unclear, as it specifies a large trade act and the entire criminal code title of the U.S. Code.
S. 1928: Stalkers Act of 2011
Sponsor: Klobuchar (D - MN)
Official Title: A bill to provide criminal penalties for stalking.
Status:
11/30/2011: Introduced in Senate
11/30/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would widen the scope of the federal stalking statute. The bill would add “intimidate” in two locations and would also include conduct on “any interactive computer service or electronic communication service [or] system of interstate commerce” to be reached by this statute. Under this proposal, the attempt of any of these aforementioned offenses would constitute its own offense, and could result in the same penalty as the completed act. A violation in punishable under 18 U.S.C. Section 2261(b), which is scaled based upon the offense facts.
H.R. 1823: Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sensenbrenner (R - WI)
Official Title: A bill to modernize, shorten, and simplify the Federal criminal code, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/10/2011: Introduced in House
5/10/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/13/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Commentary: This bill, much like H.R. 1772 from the 111th Congress (also introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner), would replace the entirety of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, simplifying and consolidating existing criminal provisions. In all, it would cut over one-third of the existing criminal code; reorganize the code to make it more user-friendly; and consolidate criminal offenses from other titles so that Title 18 includes all major criminal provisions. In general, it is policy-neutral, meaning that it does not attempt to affect the substance of the law, but there are exceptions. Some of these exceptions include that: (1) attempts and conspiracies to commit criminal offenses would generally be punished in the same manner as the substantive offense unless specifically stated otherwise; and (2) forfeiture (both civil and criminal) and restitution provisions would generally be consolidated unless an alternative framework is otherwise adopted for a particular crime. Significantly, this legislation would create a uniform set of definitions for the entire title, provide consistent definitions for intent requirements, and eliminate criminal offenses that have not been used in the last 30 years or have been subsumed by other offenses.
H.R. 3528: Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011
Sponsor: Johnson (D - TX)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the homeless.
Status:
11/30/2011: Introduced in House
11/30/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: Although this bill does not create a new criminal offense, it is still noteworthy because of the potential for future criminal law legislation. This bill would add “homeless status” as a type of “hate crime” that is to be annually recorded by the Attorney General. Currently, statistics are collected on crimes that show prejudice based on “race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” The term “homeless status” would be defined as one who has no “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” or one whose nighttime residence is a public place, a shelter, or other temporary situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)