![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in"
height="1.15625in"}**Legislative
Bulletin...........................................May 22, 2007**

> **Contents:**
>
> **H.Res. 171 ---** Honoring the Marquis de Lafayette on the occasion
> of the 250th anniversary of his birth
>
> **H.Res. 400 ---** Expressing the sympathy of the House of
> Representatives to the citizens of Greensburg, Kansas, over the
> devastating tornado of May 4, 2007
>
> **H.Res. 413** --- Recognizing the service of United States Merchant
> Marine veterans
>
> **H.Con.Res. 128 ---** Authorizing the printing of a commemorative
> document in memory of the late President of the United States, Gerald
> Rudolph Ford

**H.R. 1525 ---** Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007

> **H.R. 1615 ---** Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of
> 2007
>
> **S. 214 ---** Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of
> 2007

**H.R. 2264 ---** No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act

> **S. 1104 ---** A bill to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani
> translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States
> as special immigrants
>
> **H.R. 2399** --- To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and
> title 18, United States Code, to combat the crime of alien smuggling
> and related activities, and for other purposes

**H.Res. 171 --- Honoring the Marquis de Lafayette on the occasion of
the 250th anniversary of his birth *(Skelton, D-MO)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.Res. 171 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 171 would express that the House of
Representatives:

-   "honors Marquis de Lafayette on the 250th anniversary of his birth;
    and

-   "urges the cadets of the United States military academies and
    military officers participating in various professional military
    education courses to study Lafayette's impact on the creation of the
    United States and on the United States military."

The resolution lists several findings, including:

-   "Lafayette was a man of considerable military skill who expressed
    sympathy for American revolutionary fighters, decided to aid
    colonists in their struggle for independence, and was voted by
    Congress the rank and commission of major general in the Continental
    Army;

-   "Lafayette's military service was invaluable to General George
    Washington during many Revolutionary War battles, earning him the
    title of 'the soldier's friend';

-   "Lafayette's strategic thinking, military skill, and dedication as a
    general officer serve as a model for present day American military
    officers;

-   "because of Lafayette's strong belief in freedom, he advocated the
    abolition of slavery in the Americas, favored equal legal rights for
    religious minorities in France, and became a prominent figure in the
    French Revolution;

-   "in 1824, at the invitation of President Monroe, Lafayette embarked
    upon a triumphant, year-long tour of all 25 States of the
    then-United States, during which he became the first foreign
    dignitary to address a joint session of Congress and visited many
    Masonic bodies;

-   "Lafayette symbolizes the assistance America received from Europe in
    the struggle for independence;

-   "when the United States aided France during the world wars of
    1917-1918 and 1941-1945, it was because of shared values of
    democracy and human rights and because of the deep and long lasting
    friendship rooted in Lafayette's service to the United States; and

-   "the long-standing military alliance between the United States and
    France is a cornerstone of NATO and a critical force in our global
    partnerships."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 171 was introduced on
February 15, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On
March 14, 2007, the resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution authorizes no
expenditure.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.Res. 400 --- Expressing the sympathy of the House of Representatives
to the citizens of Greensburg, Kansas, over the devastating tornado of
May 4, 2007 (Moran, R-KS)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.Res. 400 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 400 would express that the House of
Representatives:

-   "expresses its deepest sympathies to the citizens of Greensburg,
    Kansas, over the devastation caused by the powerful tornado that
    struck the community on May 4, 2007; and

-   "expresses its support as the citizens of Greensburg continue their
    efforts to rebuild their community and their lives."

The resolution lists the following findings:

-   "on the evening of Friday, May 4, 2007, a tornado struck the
    community of Greensburg, Kansas;

-   "this tornado was classified as an EF-5, the strongest possible
    type, with winds estimated at 205 miles per hour;

-   "9 lives were lost;

-   "approximately 95 percent of Greensburg was destroyed, causing over
    1,500 residents to be displaced from their homes; and

-   "the strength, courage, and determination of the citizens of
    Greensburg, Kansas, have been evident following the tornado."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 400 was introduced on May 14,
2007, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution authorizes no
expenditure.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.Res. 413 --- Recognizing the service of United States Merchant
Marine veterans *(Filner, D-CA)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.Res. 413 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 413 would express the sense of the
House of Representatives "that on National Maritime Day, the House of
Representatives recognizes the heroic and invaluable sacrifices that the
United States Merchant Marine veterans have made to help ensure our
Nation's prosperity and safety."

The resolution lists the following findings:

-   "the United States Merchant Marine served as the Nation's first Navy
    and helped George Washington's Continental Army defeat the British
    Navy;

-   "since 1775, United States Merchant Mariners have served valiantly
    in times of peace and in every war;

-   "after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 29 United States
    Merchant Marine Academy cadets operated a fleet of boats in New York
    Harbor, transporting firefighters and other emergency equipment
    workers, medical supplies, and food;

-   "more than 8,000 Merchant Mariners serve in the Military Sealift
    Command, most of them working in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
    and Operation Enduring Freedom;

-   "the United States Merchant Marine Academy is the only one of the
    five service academies that sends its cadets into war, and 142
    undergraduates of the Academy were lost during World War II;

-   "the story of the United States Merchant Mariners of World War II is
    one of patriotism, of youthful exuberance, of dedication to duty, of
    bravery in the midst of battle, and of a Nation that forgot these
    heroes after the end of the war for more than 40 years until 1988,
    when they were given veteran status;

-   "by that time, over 125,000 of those Merchant Mariners had died and
    many had lost out on opportunities and benefits they greatly
    deserved; and

-   "on National Maritime Day, Congress recognizes the tremendous
    sacrifices and contributions of the Merchant Marine and its veterans
    and the entire maritime industry to the Nation."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 413 was introduced on May 17,
2007, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution authorizes no
expenditure.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.Con.Res. 128 --- Authorizing the printing of a commemorative
document in memory of the late President of the United States, Gerald
Rudolph Ford (Ehlers, R-MI)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.Con.Res. 128 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 128 would authorize the production
of a commemorative document in memory of President Gerald Ford. The
document would include eulogies and tributes given to Ford by Members of
Congress, as well as the text from each of his four state funerals.

The resolution would direct the Joint Committee on Printing to produce
the lesser or 32,500 copies or the number of copies that can be produced
for \$600,000. The document would be distributed throughout the
Congress.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 128 was introduced on
April 25, 2007, and referred to the Committee on House Administration,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score for H.Con.Res 128 was
not available, however the resolution calls for the production of
\$600,000 worth of commemoratives documents.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 1525 --- Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007**

***(Lofgren, D-CA)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.R 1525 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1525 would make it illegal to access a
protected computer without authorization, or to exceed authorized access
to such a computer, by causing a computer program or code to be copied
onto the computer and intentionally use that program or code in
furtherance of another federal crime. Punishment for violations could
include up to five years in prison. It would be illegal (with a smaller
punishment---up to two years in prison) to access such a computer with
the intent to defraud or injure a person or cause damage to the computer
by obtaining or transmitting personal information or by intentionally
impairing the security protection of the computer. Civil actions
alleging violations of these provisions could not be brought in any
state court.

H.R. 1525 would authorize \$10 million for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2011 to the

Attorney General for prosecutions needed to discourage the use of
spyware and the practice commonly called phishing. The bill would also
express the following sense of Congress:

-   "Because of the serious nature of these offenses, and the
    Internet\'s unique importance in the daily lives of citizens and in
    interstate commerce, it is the sense of Congress that the Department
    of Justice should use the amendments made by this Act, and all other
    available tools, vigorously to prosecute those who use spyware to
    commit crimes and those that conduct phishing scams."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The Federal Trade Commission
loosely defines "spyware" as

software "that aids in gathering information about a person or
organization without their knowledge and which may send such information
to another entity without the consumer's consent, or asserts control
over a computer without the consumer's knowledge."

"Phishing" is the act of creating a replica of an existing web page to
fool a user into submitting personal, financial, or password
information. Users are often lured to the fake websites through pop-up
ads or spam emails.

An identical bill, H.R. 744, passed in the House during the 109^th^
Congress by a vote of 395 -- 1, but failed to make it through the
Senate.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1525 was introduced on March
14, 2007, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which referred
the bill to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
On May 2, 2007, the bill was reported by voice vote and was considered
by the full House of Representatives.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, this legislation
would authorize \$40 million over the 2008-2011 period. Additionally,
CBO estimates that costs incurred upon state and local governments as a
result of the prohibition against civil penalties would not exceed the
UMRA threshold of \$66 million annually.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes. The bill would create a new crime
(accessing a protected computer) and new enforcement guidelines.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No. The Justice Department
already has some authority to prosecute spyware and phishing cases under
existing law. H.R. 744 would make such authority explicit and specific
to these Internet crimes.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is not available. However, House Rule XIII,
Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain "a
statement citing the *specific* powers granted to Congress in the
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution"
*\[emphasis added\]*.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 1615 --- Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2007
(Keller, R-FL)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.R 1615 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Note]{.underline}**: The House passed this bill as H.R. 1400 in the
109^th^ Congress.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1615 would amend Title 18 of U.S. Code
to establish a new federal crime by requiring that whoever knowingly
aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft or at the flight path of
such aircraft is subject to either a fine, or up to five years in prison
(or both).

The bill would allow for exceptions in the case of persons conducting
tests in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration, a member
of the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security
conducting research, and an individual using a laser emergency signaling
device to send an emergency distress signal.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the Committee
Report from H.R. 1400, a similar bill offered in the 109^th^ Congress,
the number of FAA reported incidents of an individual aiming a laser
beam at an aircraft has increased dramatically (400 times since 1990,
and 100 times since November 2004). For instance, on November 9, 2005,
David Banach of Parsippany, New Jersey, pled guilty to violating the
Patriot Act for shining a laser at aircraft on two separate occasions.
The guilty plea was part of an agreement in order for Mr. Banach to
avoid jail time, which under the Patriot Act could reach up to 20 years.

H.R. 1615 is intended to respond to this threat while providing
prosecutors with an alternative to charging individuals under the
broader Patriot Act with its more serious consequences. For more
background, please see the following news story:
<http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/04/laser.beam.charges/>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1615 was introduced on March
21, 2007, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which referred
the bill to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
on May 1, 2007. On May 2, 2007, a mark-up was held and H.R. 1615 was
reported by voice vote. On May 14, 2007, the bill was reported to be
considered by the full House of Representatives as amended.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 1615 would
not significantly increase the cost of law enforcement, court
proceedings, or prison operations because the law would likely apply to
a small number of offenders. In addition, the fines collect from those
who violate the new law would likely be insignificant.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes. H.R. 1615 would establish a new federal
crime for aiming the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft or at the
aircraft's flight path.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 110-149
cites authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause)
of the United States Constitution.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**S. 214 --- Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007
*(Sen. Feinstein, D-CA) ***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** S. 214 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 214 would amend current law to allow
federal judges in federal court districts to fill vacant U.S. Attorney
positions if the President has not done so within 120 days of the
vacancy.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Under current law, the
Attorney General is permitted to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to
serve for an indefinite period of time until the vacancy is filled.
During the interim period, the President, with the advice and consent of
the U.S. Senate, is charged with finding a candidate for the position
and filling the vacancy. S.214 would change this procedure by requiring
the President to fill a vacancy within 120 days. As such, the interim
U.S. Attorney (appointed by the Attorney General) could only serve in
this position for 120 days. At that time, if the President has not
appointed an individual, the appropriate district court would fill the
vacancy. However, if the President later appoints an individual to the
position, upon advice and consent of the Senate, this appointee would
the district court's selection.

Proponents of S. 214 argue that the legislation would encourage judicial
independence because interim U.S. Attorneys would not be political
appointees. According to Sen. Ken Salazar, a supporter of the bill and
former Attorney General of Colorado, "I am proud to have supported the
Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act, which just passed
the Senate. This bill will go a long way towards restoring the
independence of federal prosecutors -- an independence which has,
unfortunately, been chipped away in recent years."

Others, however, believe that the legislation is tantamount to an
abandonment of Constitutional separation of power between the branches
of government. Some have argued that allowing the courts and federal
judges to select prosecutors is more dangerous to the independence of
the judiciary because federal judges have lifetime terms and are not
subject to public scrutiny for their decisions via an election. Sen.
Pete Sessions, a U.S. Attorney for 12 years, said on the floor of the
Senate,

> "When we elect a President, we understand they are going to appoint
> U.S. attorneys who will be responsible for their effort, and if they
> refuse to prosecute immigration cases, for whatever reason they might
> decide, and the United States public knows about this, what recourse
> do they have? They can vote against the President if he appoints
> somebody who won\'t enforce the law, gun prosecutions, or any other
> kind of prosecutions. That is an accountability of sorts. But to have
> a judge who has a lifetime appointment make these appointments and who
> has no accountability to the public is not healthy. I believe it
> undermines accountability."

Sessions also suggested that difficult federal cases with tough
decisions concerning the admissibility of evidence or testimony could be
scrutinized if a judge was responsible for the appointment of a
prosecutor.

As introduced, S. 214 stripped the current authority of the Attorney
General to appoint interim attorneys. However, the bill was amended on
the floor to include language permitting the Attorney General to make an
interim appointment. As such, several Senators withdrew their
opposition, and the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 94 -- 2.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: S. 214 was passed in the Senate on
March 20, 2007, by a vote of 94 -- 2 and was reported to the House on
that same day.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, S. 214 would not
significantly increase the cost of law enforcement, court proceedings,
or prison operations because the law would likely apply to a small
number of offenders. In addition, the fines collect from those who
violate the new law would likely be insignificant.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is not available. However, a Committee Report
for H.R. 580 (a similar House bill), cites the in Article 2, Section 2,
Clause 2 of the Constitution (authorizing the President to make
judiciary appointments).

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 2264---No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act**

**(*Conyers, D-MI*)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22^nd^, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2264 would make it a federal crime "for
any foreign state, or any instrumentality or agent of any foreign state,
to act collectively or in combination with any other foreign state, any
instrumentality or agent of any other foreign state, or any other
person, whether by cartel or any other association or form of
cooperation or joint action\--

-   "to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any
    other petroleum product;

-   "to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum
    product; or

-   "to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural
    gas, or any petroleum product;

when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct,
**substantial**, and **reasonably foreseeable** effect on the market,
supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum
product in the United States." (emphasis added)

A foreign state engaged in conduct in violation of the provision above
would not be immune, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, from the
jurisdiction or judgments of U.S. courts in any action brought to
enforce this section.

In other words, the bill would authorize the U.S. Justice Department to
file anti-trust lawsuits in any federal district court against the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and OPEC (or other
such organization) could not claim immunity against such suits. No court
could refuse to make a determination in such a lawsuit because it
involves actions of foreign countries.

[NOTE]{.underline}: Key operative terms in the legislation, such as
"substantial" and "reasonably foreseeable" are not defined.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: This legislation amends the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), which is the anti-trust statute that
makes it a federal crime to contract or conspire to restrain trade
(among the states and/or with foreign nations).

There are certain instances in current law (28 U.S.C. 1605(a)) in which
foreign states are made explicitly NOT immune from prosecution in U.S.
courts (such as matters involving federal property, and commercial
activity carried on by the foreign state in the U.S.). H.R. 2264 would
add the oil "cartel" provisions to this list of *exceptions* to foreign
state immunity.

The "Act of State Doctrine" is the general practice of U.S. courts that
a foreign nation's domestic actions may not be questioned in a U.S.
court. H.R. 2264 would explicitly waive the Act of State Doctrine for
cases arising out of H.R. 2264.

**[RSC Bonus Fact]{.underline}**: OPEC is an organization of 12
oil-exporting countries that seek to "coordinate their oil production
policies in order to help stabilize the oil market and to help oil
producers achieve a reasonable rate of return on their investments. This
policy is also designed to ensure that oil consumers continue to receive
stable supplies of oil." OPEC Members are: Algeria, Angola, Indonesia,
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, and Venezuela. Thus, although OPEC is generally regarded as a
collection of Middle East countries only, in reality, its
Member-countries are from various parts of the world, including Africa,
South America, and East Asia.

See the OPEC homepage here:

<http://www.opec.org/home/>

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On May 10, 2007, the bill was
referred to the Judiciary Committee, which, one week later, marked up
and ordered the bill reported to the full House by voice vote.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned that this legislation could set a precedent that could
encourage other countries to sue the United States for export activities
in which it is dominant. Some conservatives may also be concerned with
the creation of an industry-specific exception to the list of sovereign
immunity exceptions in current law, which contain only general
provisions not linked to a specific industrial product. Lastly, the
United States imports the majority of its petroleum from OPEC nations,
thus, allowing lawsuits against OPEC in U.S. courts does not seem likely
to make such imports cheaper or more readily available.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: The Statement of
Administration Policy (SAP) for this bill says that, "The Administration
strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2264. This bill has the potential
to lead to oil supply disruptions and an escalation in the price of
gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, and other sources of energy....
If H.R. 2264 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would
recommend that he veto the bill."

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO writes that it "cannot estimate
a precise cost of implementing H.R. 2264 because we have no basis for
assessing the likelihood that the Administration might initiate
antitrust actions against foreign states under the bill. Based on
information from DOJ on the costs of investigations of alleged antitrust
violations, CBO estimates that similar investigations to those that
might be brought under H.R. 2264 could cost up to \$4 million per year,
subject to appropriation of the necessary funds." Additionally, CBO
writes, "CBO cannot estimate the impact of H.R. 2264 on direct spending
and revenues because we cannot determine whether DOJ would file suit
against alleged violators, whether the agencies would win such legal
action, or how much in penalties might be collected by federal
agencies." But, CBO estimates that any such impact on revenues and
mandatory spending would be insignificant.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill would allow lawsuits in
federal courts against foreign nations for industry-specific violations.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}**: Though the bill
contains no earmarks, and there's no accompanying committee report, the
earmarks rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 9(a)) does not apply, by
definition, to legislation considered under suspension of the rules.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718

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

**S. 1104 --- A bill to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani
translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as
special immigrants (Sen. Lugar, R-IN)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** S. 1104 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 1104 would amend current law to increase
from 50 to 500, the number of special immigrant visas given to
translators and interpreters working for the Chief of Mission or the
U.S. Armed forces working in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next two
years.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
110-158, translators working with the United States in Iraq and
Afghanistan "provide vital assistance in their home countries to the
mission of the United States Armed Forces and Department of State." As a
result of their cooperation with the United States, many of the
translators and their families are targeted by American enemies. Under
the current law, only 50 special visas are given for translators and
interpreters working with the U.S. Armed Forces overseas. The committee
reports that "there are currently ten times as many translators and
interpreters approved and awaiting visas that will allow them to flee
threats in Iraq and Afghanistan than there are visas available."

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, S. 1104 could
affect direct spending and revenues by the Department of Homeland
Security, but estimates that the bill would have no *significant* impact
on the budget because of the relatively small number of visas.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 110-149
cites authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 (given Congress the
power to oversee naturalization) of the United States Constitution.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 2399 --- To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and title
18, United States Code, to combat the crime of alien smuggling and
related activities, and for other purposes *(Baron, D-IN)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.R. 2399 is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2399 would require that the Department
of Homeland Security, to the best of its ability, check all alien
smugglers and smuggled individuals that are interdicted in the United
States.

The legislation would also add language to the section of U.S. Code that
covers bringing in and harboring certain aliens in order to specifically
criminalize the "Smuggling of Unlawful Terrorist Aliens." H.R. 2399
would stipulate that anyone who knowingly brings, recruits, encourages,
transports, harbors, or conceals any alien smuggler could be punished by
fines described in Title 18 and by imprisonment of up to 30 years
depending on the type of offense. Those who attempt to kidnap or kill
someone while committing a crime under this section will be subject to a
life sentence.

H.R. 2399 would also amend maritime law enforcement under Title 18 to
require that anyone who violates alien transportation laws within the
jurisdiction of maritime law enforcement will be subject to fines and
imprisonment between five years and life depending on the nature of the
crime.

The bill would subject all sentencing guidelines to review of the United
States Sentencing Commission, which is permitted to provide sentencing
enhancements or stiffen existing enhancements in certain circumstances.
H.R. 2399 would prohibit an accused violator of provisions in the bill
from using "necessity" as a defense unless the accused contacted the
Coast Guard or other law enforcement as soon as possible and did not
knowingly facilitate the entry of an illegal alien.

H.R. 2399 also lists the following findings:

-   "Alien smuggling by land, air and sea is a transnational crime that
    violates the integrity of United States borders, compromises our
    Nation's sovereignty, places the country at risk of terrorist
    activity, and contravenes the rule of law.

-   "Aggressive enforcement activity against alien smuggling is needed
    to protect our borders and ensure the security of our Nation. The
    border security and anti-smuggling efforts of the men and women on
    the Nation\'s front line of defense are to be commended. Special
    recognition is due the Department of Homeland Security through the
    United States Border Patrol, United States Coast Guard, Customs and
    Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the
    Department of Justice through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

-   "The law enforcement community must be given the statutory tools
    necessary to address this security threat. Only through effective
    alien smuggling statutes can the Justice Department, through the
    United States Attorneys' Offices and the Domestic Security Section
    of the Criminal Division, prosecute these cases successfully.

-   "Alien smuggling has a destabilizing effect on border communities.
    State and local law enforcement, medical personnel, social service
    providers, and the faith community play important roles in combating
    smuggling and responding to its effects.

-   "Existing penalties for alien smuggling are insufficient to provide
    appropriate punishment for alien smugglers.

-   "Existing alien smuggling laws often fail to reach the conduct of
    alien smugglers, transporters, recruiters, guides, and boat
    captains.

-   "Existing laws concerning failure to heave to are insufficient to
    appropriately punish boat operators and crew who engage in the
    reckless transportation of aliens on the high seas and seek to evade
    capture.

-   "Much of the conduct in alien smuggling rings occurs outside of the
    United States. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is needed to ensure
    that smuggling rings can be brought to justice for recruiting,
    sending, and facilitating the movement of those who seek to enter
    the United States without lawful authority.

-   "Alien smuggling can include unsafe or recklessly dangerous
    conditions that expose individuals to particularly high risk of
    injury or death."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to a 2005 GAO study
on illegal alien smuggling, "Globally, alien smuggling generates
billions of dollars in illicit revenues annually and poses a threat to
the nation's security. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) in March 2003 has provided an opportunity to use financial
investigative techniques to combat alien smugglers by targeting and
seizing their monetary assets... GAO suggests that the Attorney General
consider developing and submitting to Congress a legislative proposal,
with appropriate justification, for amending the civil forfeiture
authority for alien smuggling." H.R. 2399 is meant to toughen existing
laws on alien smuggling and to define laws in certain jurisdictions.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, score for H.R.
2399 was not available.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** The bill defines new punishments for the
specific crime of alien smuggling.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is not available. However, House Rule XIII,
Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain "a
statement citing the *specific* powers granted to Congress in the
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution"
*\[emphasis added\]*.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**\###**