115 HR 5340 IH: Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of 2018
U.S. House of Representatives
2018-03-20
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I115th CONGRESS2d SessionH. R. 5340IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMarch 20, 2018Mr. Stivers (for himself, Mr. Foster, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Cramer, Mr. King of New York, Ms. Velázquez, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Rush, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Watson Coleman, and Mr. Gosar) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
			 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concernedA BILLTo strengthen the position of the United States as the world’s leading innovator by amending title
			 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors
			 that grow the country’s economy.

		1.Short title; table of contents
 (a)Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of 2018 or the STRONGER Patents Act of 2018. (b)Table of contentsThe table of contents for this Act is as follows:

					Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
					TITLE I—STRONGER Patents Act
					Sec. 101. Findings.
					Sec. 102. Inter partes review.
					Sec. 103. Post-grant review.
					Sec. 104. Composition of post-grant review and inter partes review panels.
					Sec. 105. Reexamination of patents.
					Sec. 106. Restoration of patents as property rights.
					Sec. 107. Elimination of USPTO fee diversion.
					Sec. 108. Infringement of patent.
					Sec. 109. Institutions of higher education.
					Sec. 110. Assisting small businesses in the U.S. patent system.
					TITLE II—Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters
					Sec. 201. Definitions.
					Sec. 202. Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with the assertion of a United States
			 patent.
					Sec. 203. Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.
					Sec. 204. Preemption of State laws on patent demand letters and enforcement by State attorneys
			 general.
			ISTRONGER Patents Act
 101.FindingsCongress finds that— (1)the patent property rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States provide the foundation for the exceptional innovation environment in the United States;
 (2)strong patent rights encourage United States inventors to invest their resources in creating new inventions;
 (3)patent protection has led to patient cures, positive changes to the standard of living for all people in the United States, and improvements to the agricultural, telecommunications, and electronics industries, among others;
 (4)the United States patent system is an essential part of the country's economic success; (5)strong patent protection improves the chances of success for small companies and increases their chances of securing financing from investors;
 (6)intellectual property-intensive industries in the United States generate tens of millions of jobs for individuals in the United States;
 (7)intellectual property-intensive industries in the United States account for more than one-third of the country's gross domestic product;
 (8)in the highly competitive global economy, the United States needs to uphold strong patent protections to maintain its position as the world’s premier innovative country;
 (9)Congress last enacted comprehensive reforms of the patent system just recently, in 2011; (10)unintended consequences of the comprehensive 2011 reform of patent laws are continuing to become evident, including the strategic filing of post-grant review proceedings to depress stock prices and extort settlements, the filing of repetitive petitions for inter partes and post-grant reviews that have the effect of harassing patent owners, and the unnecessary duplication of work by the district courts of the United States and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
 (11)the Judicial Conference of the United States has made significant revisions to rules governing pleadings and discovery in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect in December 2015;
 (12)the Supreme Court recently issued rulings in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014) and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1744 (2014) that significantly reduced the burden on an alleged infringer to recover attorney fees from the patent owner, and increased the incidence of fees shifted to the losing party; and
 (13)efforts by Congress to reform the patent system without careful scrutiny create a serious risk of making it more costly and difficult for legitimate innovators to protect their patents from infringement, thereby weakening United States companies and the United States economy.
				102.Inter partes review
 (a)Claim constructionSection 316(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (1)in paragraph (9), by inserting after substitute claims, the following: including the standard for how substitute claims should be construed,;
 (2)in paragraph (12), by striking ; and and inserting a semicolon; (3)in paragraph (13), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and
 (4)by adding at the end the following new paragraph:  (14)providing that for all purposes under this chapter—
 (A)each challenged claim of a patent shall be construed as the claim would be construed under section 282(b) in an action to invalidate a patent, including by construing each challenged claim of the patent in accordance with—
 (i)the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains; and
 (ii)the prosecution history pertaining to the patent; and (B)if a court has previously construed a challenged claim of a patent or a challenged claim term in a civil action to which the patent owner was a party, the Office shall consider that claim construction..
 (b)Burden of proofSection 316(e) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:  (e)Evidentiary standards (1)Presumption of validityThe presumption of validity under section 282(a) shall apply to a previously issued claim that is challenged during an inter partes review under this chapter.
 (2)Burden of proofIn an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability of a previously issued claim by clear and convincing evidence..
 (c)StandingSection 311 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

						(d)Persons that may petition
 (1)DefinitionIn this subsection, the term charged with infringement means a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a patent exists such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.
 (2)Necessary conditionsA person may not file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of a patent unless the person, or a real party in interest or privy of the person, has been—
 (A)sued for infringement of the patent; or (B)charged with infringement under the patent..
 (d)Limitation on reviewsSection 314(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:  (a)Threshold (1)Likelihood of prevailingSubject to paragraph (2), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition.
 (2)Previous institutionThe Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted on a claim challenged in a petition if the Director has previously instituted an inter partes review or post-grant review with respect to that claim..
 (e)Appeals from institution decisionsSection 314 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:

 (d)No appealA determination by the Director not to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.
						(e)Interlocutory appeal
 (1)Right of appealA determination by the Director to institute an inter partes review under this section may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
 (2)TimingA party shall file a notice of interlocutory appeal under paragraph (1) not later than 7 days after the date on which the Director enters the institution decision.
 (3)LimitationAn interlocutory appeal filed under paragraph (1) may challenge the institution decision on any basis except for the determination made under section 314(a)(1).
 (4)Effect on proceedingsAn interlocutory appeal filed under paragraph (1) shall not stay proceedings in the inter partes review unless the Director or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit so orders.
 (5)DecisionAn interlocutory appeal filed under paragraph (1) may be granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which may include consideration of whether—
 (A)the institution decision appears to be in error and mere institution of the inter partes review presents a risk of immediate, irreparable injury to the patent owner;
 (B)the institution decision presents an unsettled and fundamental issue of law, important both to the specific proceeding and generally, that is likely to evade end-of-the-proceeding review; or
 (C)the institution decision is manifestly erroneous.. (f)Eliminating repetitive proceedingsSection 315(e) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

						(e)Estoppel
 (1)Proceedings before the officeA person petitioning for an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter, or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not petition for a subsequent inter partes review before the Office with respect to that patent on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised in the initial petition, unless, after the filing of the initial petition, the petitioner, or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, is charged with infringement of additional claims of the patent.
 (2)Civil actions and other proceedingsA person petitioning for an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in an institution decision under section 314, or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not assert either in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) that the claim is invalid based on section 102 or 103 of this title, unless the invalidity argument is based on allegations that the claimed invention was in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
				(g)Real party in interest
 (1)Clarification of definitionSection 315 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

 (f)PetitionerFor purposes of this chapter, a person that directly or through an affiliate, subsidiary, or proxy, makes a financial contribution to the preparation for, or conduct during, an inter partes review on behalf of the petitioner shall be considered a real party in interest of the petitioner..
 (2)Discovery of real party in interestSection 316(a)(5) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:  (5)setting forth standards and procedures for discovery of relevant evidence, including that such discovery shall be limited to—
 (A)the deposition of witnesses submitting affidavits or declarations; (B)evidence identifying the petitioner's real parties in interest; and
 (C)what is otherwise necessary in the interest of justice;. (h)Priority of Federal court validity determinations (1)In generalSection 315 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by subsections (f) and (g), is further amended—
 (A)by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and (B)by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

								(c)Federal court validity determinations
 (1)Institution barredAn inter partes review of a patent claim may not be instituted if, in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), a court has entered a final judgment—
 (A)that decides the validity of the patent claim with respect to section 102 or 103; and (B)from which an appeal under section 1295 of title 28 may be taken, or from which an appeal under section 1295 of title 28 was previously available but is no longer available.
										(2)Stay of proceedings
 (A)In generalIf, in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), a court has entered a final judgment that decides the validity of a patent claim with respect to section 102 or 103 and from which an appeal under section 1295 of title 28 may be taken, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall stay any ongoing inter partes review of that patent claim pending a final decision of the court or Commission, as applicable.
 (B)TerminationIf the validity of a patent claim described in subparagraph (A) is finally upheld by a court or the International Trade Commission, as applicable, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall terminate the inter partes review..
 (2)Technical and conforming amendmentsChapter 31 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (A)in section 315(b), by striking subsection (c) and inserting subsection (d);
 (B)in section 316(a)— (i)in paragraph (11), by striking section 315(c) and inserting section 315(d); and
 (ii)in paragraph (12), by striking section 315(c) and inserting section 315(d); and (C)in section 317(a), by striking section 315(e) and inserting section 315(f).
						(i)Amendment of claims
 (1)Inter partes review amendment practiceChapter 31 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 316 the following new section:

							316A.Inter partes review amendment practice
 (a)Actions permittedDuring an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the patent owner may move to take one or more of the following actions with respect to any challenged patent claim being reviewed:
 (1)Cancel the claim. (2)Propose a reasonable number of substitute claims whose patentability will be adjudicated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in accordance with subsection (c).
 (3)Propose a reasonable number of substitute claims to be examined in an expedited inter partes review (in this section referred to as expedited IPR) reexamination in accordance with subsection (d).
 (b)Scope of claimsAn amendment to a patent under this section may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.
								(c)Amendment practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
 (1)Patent owner’s initial motionFor each challenged claim for which the patent owner seeks to propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, the patent owner shall be required to make a prima facie showing that each substitute claim—
 (A)responds to each ground of unpatentability on which the inter partes review was instituted; (B)meets the written description requirement under section 112(a); and
 (C)meets the requirement under subsection (b) of this section. (2)New evidence (A)PetitionerThe petitioner may respond to the patent owner’s initial motion under paragraph (1) by presenting new evidence.
 (B)Patent ownerThe patent owner shall have not less than 1 opportunity to respond to any new evidence presented under subparagraph (A).
										(3)Expedited patentability report
 (A)In generalUpon the filing of a motion under paragraph (1), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may order an expedited patentability report from a patent examiner on a substitute claim.
 (B)Contents of reportIn ordering an expedited patentability report, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may— (i)order examination of any ground of patentability that is assessed by a patent examiner under chapter 12; and
 (ii)request a non-binding recommendation as to the patentability of a substitute claim. (C)Right of replyAny party to the inter partes review may file supplemental briefing, including new evidence, addressing the expedited patentability report.
 (D)TimingThe production of the expedited patentability report shall be expedited. (E)Good causeThe ordering of an expedited patentability report shall constitute good cause, for purposes of section 316(a)(11), to extend the 1-year period for the inter partes review.
										(4)Adjudication of patentability
 (A)No rebuttalA patent owner shall be entitled to a substitute claim if the prima facie showing required under paragraph (1) is not rebutted.
 (B)Additional evidenceIf additional evidence of record is presented, the patent owner shall be entitled to a substitute claim unless a preponderance of that evidence proves that the patent owner is not so entitled.
 (5)Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s discretion to order expedited IPR reexaminationUpon issuing a final written decision with respect to each challenged claim, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may order an expedited IPR reexamination to be conducted under subsection (d)(2) to consider a substitute claim in lieu of issuing a final written decision on that claim.
 (6)Amendments to advance settlementThe Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider additional motions to amend upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner to materially advance the settlement of a proceeding under section 317 if the patent owner makes the prima facie showing required under paragraph (1).
									(d)Amendment practice before a patent examiner
									(1)Motion to convert to expedited IPR examination
 (A)In generalIf the Director determines to institute an inter partes review on a challenged claim under section 314, a patent owner may, before any further substantive briefing on the patentability of an instituted claim, move to terminate the inter partes review in favor of an expedited IPR reexamination under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
 (B)Contents of motionA patent owner shall be required to show good cause for why an expedited IPR reexamination would further the goals of the patent system, including consideration of whether there are substantial—
 (i)investments in research directly related to the claimed invention; (ii)secondary indicia of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, or failures of persons skilled in the art to develop the claimed invention; or
 (iii)changes in case law governing relevant substantive patentability requirements since the patent was issued.
 (C)New evidence allowedThe opening motion and opposition briefs under this paragraph may include new evidence, and further rebuttal evidence may be allowed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
										(2)Conduct of expedited IPR examination
 (A)In generalIf the Patent Trial and Appeal Board grants a motion filed under paragraph (1), the patent owner shall cancel each instituted claim and submit a reasonable number of substitute claims for consideration by the patent examiner in an expedited IPR examination under this paragraph.
 (B)TimingA patent examiner shall complete an expedited IPR examination, excluding any time for appeals, within 18 months after the date on which any substitute claim is submitted under subparagraph (A).
 (C)ProceduresConsideration of the substitute claims in an expedited IPR examination shall follow the procedures established for initial examination under sections 132 and 133, subject to subsection (b) of this section and modified as necessary to ensure that the procedures are expedited.
										(D)Appeal
 (i)Patent examiner decisionIf the final decision of a patent examiner in an expedited IPR examination is adverse to the patentability of a substitute claim, the patent owner may appeal the decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(c).
 (ii)Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisionIf the final decision in an appeal of an expedited IPR reexamination to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(c) is adverse to the patentability of a substitute claim, the patent owner may appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in accordance with sections 141 through 144.
 (E)CertificateIf the patent examiner determines in an expedited IPR examination that a substitute claim is patentable, and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director shall issue and publish a certificate incorporating in the patent the substitute claim.
 (F)Intervening rightsAny substitute claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent following an expedited IPR examination shall have the same effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by the substitute claim, or who made substantial preparation therefor, prior to issuance of a certificate under subparagraph (E)..
					(2)Technical and conforming amendments
						(A)Expedited IPR examination appeals
 (i)Appeals to Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSection 134 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

 (c)Patent owner in expedited IPR examinationA patent owner may appeal from the final rejection of any substitute claim by the primary examiner in an expedited IPR examination under section 316A(d) to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal..
 (ii)Appeals to Federal CircuitSection 141 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (I)by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e); and
 (II)by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:  (c)Expedited IPR examinationsA patent owner who is dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(c) of an expedited IPR examination may appeal the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit..
 (B)Conduct of inter partes reviewSection 316 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (i)in subsection (a)(9), by striking subsection (d) each place that term appears and inserting section 316A;
 (ii)by striking subsection (d); and (iii)by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
 (C)Decision of the BoardSection 318(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (i)by striking If and inserting Except as provided in section 316A(c)(5), if; and
 (ii)by striking section 316(d) and inserting section 316A. (D)Table of sectionsThe table of sections for chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 316 the following new item:

									316A. Inter partes review amendment practice..
						103.Post-grant review
 (a)Claim constructionSection 326(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (1)in paragraph (9), by inserting after substitute claims, the following: including the standard for how substitute claims should be construed,;
 (2)in paragraph (11), by striking ; and and inserting a semicolon; (3)in paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and
 (4)by adding at the end the following new paragraph:  (13)providing that for all purposes under this chapter—
 (A)each challenged claim of a patent shall be construed as the claim would be construed under section 282(b) in an action to invalidate a patent, including by construing each challenged claim of the patent in accordance with—
 (i)the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains; and
 (ii)the prosecution history pertaining to the patent; and (B)if a court has previously construed a challenged claim of a patent or a challenged claim term in a civil action to which the patent owner was a party, the Office shall consider that claim construction..
 (b)Burden of proofSection 326(e) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:  (e)Evidentiary standards (1)Presumption of validityThe presumption of validity under section 282(a) shall apply to a previously issued claim that is challenged during a proceeding under this chapter.
 (2)Burden of proofIn a post-grant review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability of a previously issued claim by clear and convincing evidence..
 (c)StandingSection 321 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

						(d)Persons that may petition
 (1)DefinitionIn this subsection, the term charged with infringement means a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a patent exists such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.
 (2)Necessary conditionsA person may not file with the Office a petition to institute a post-grant review of the patent unless the person, or a real party in interest or privy of the person, demonstrates—
 (A)a reasonable possibility of being— (i)sued for infringement of the patent; or
 (ii)charged with infringement under the patent; or (B)a competitive harm related to the validity of the patent..
 (d)Limitation on reviewsSection 324(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:  (a)Threshold (1)Likelihood of prevailingSubject to paragraph (2), the Director may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.
 (2)Previous institutionThe Director may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted on a claim challenged in a petition if the Director has previously instituted an inter partes or post-grant review with respect to that claim..
 (e)Appeals from institution decisionsSection 324 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:

 (e)No appealA determination by the Director not to institute a post-grant review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.
						(f)Interlocutory appeal
 (1)Right of appealA determination by the Director to institute a post-grant review under this section may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
 (2)TimingA party shall file a notice of interlocutory appeal under paragraph (1) not later than 7 days after the date on which the Director enters the institution decision.
 (3)LimitationAn interlocutory appeal filed under paragraph (1) may challenge the institution decision on any basis except for the determination made under section 324(a)(1).
 (4)Effect on proceedingsAn interlocutory appeal filed under paragraph (1) shall not stay proceedings in the post-grant review unless the Director or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit so orders.
 (5)DecisionAn interlocutory appeal filed under paragraph (1) may be granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which may include consideration of whether—
 (A)the institution decision appears to be in error and mere institution presents a risk of immediate, irreparable injury to the patent owner;
 (B)the institution decision presents an unsettled and fundamental issue of law, important both to the specific proceeding and generally, that is likely to evade end-of-the-proceeding review; or
 (C)the institution decision is manifestly erroneous.. (f)Eliminating repetitive proceedingsSection 325(e)(1) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

 (1)Proceedings before the OfficeA person petitioning for a post-grant review of a claim in a patent under this chapter, or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not petition for a subsequent post-grant review before the Office with respect to that patent on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised in the initial petition, unless, after the filing of the initial petition, the petitioner, or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, is charged with infringement of additional claims of the patent..
				(g)Real party in interest
 (1)Clarification of definitionSection 325 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

 (g)Real party in interestFor purposes of this chapter, a person that directly or through an affiliate, subsidiary, or proxy, makes a financial contribution to the preparation for, or conduct during, a post-grant review on behalf of the petitioner shall be considered a real party in interest of the petitioner..
 (2)Discovery of real party in interestSection 326(a)(5) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:  (5)setting forth standards and procedures for discovery of relevant evidence, including that such discovery shall be limited to—
 (A)the deposition of witnesses submitting affidavits or declarations; (B)evidence identifying the petitioner’s real parties in interest; and
 (C)what is otherwise necessary in the interest of justice;. (h)Priority of Federal court validity determinations (1)In generalSection 325 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by subsections (f) and (g), is further amended—
 (A)by redesignating subsections (c) through (g) as subsections (d) through (h), respectively; and (B)by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

								(c)Federal court validity determinations
 (1)Institution barredA post-grant review of a patent claim may not be instituted if, in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), a court has entered a final judgment—
 (A)that decides the validity of the patent claim with respect to section 102 or 103; and (B)from which an appeal under section 1295 of title 28 may be taken, or from which an appeal under section 1295 of title 28 was previously available but is no longer available.
										(2)Stay of proceedings
 (A)In generalIf, in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), a court has entered a final judgment that decides the validity of a patent claim with respect to section 102 or 103 and from which an appeal under section 1295 of title 28 may be taken, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall stay any ongoing post-grant review of that patent claim pending a final decision of the court or Commission, as applicable.
 (B)TerminationIf the validity of a patent claim described in subparagraph (A) is finally upheld by a court or the International Trade Commission, as applicable, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall terminate the post-grant review..
 (2)Technical and conforming amendmentsChapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (A)in section 326(a)(11), by striking section 325(c) and inserting section 325(d); and
 (B)in section 327(a), by striking section 325(e) and inserting section 325(f). (i)Amendment of claims (1)Post-grant review amendment practiceChapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 326 the following new section:

							326A.Post-grant review amendment practice
 (a)Actions permittedDuring a post-grant review instituted under this chapter, the patent owner may move to take one or more of the following actions with respect to any challenged patent claim being reviewed:
 (1)Cancel the claim. (2)Propose a reasonable number of substitute claims whose patentability will be adjudicated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in accordance with subsection (c).
 (3)Propose a reasonable number of substitute claims to be examined in an expedited PGR (in this section referred to as expedited PGR) reexamination in accordance with subsection (d).
 (b)Scope of claimsAn amendment to a patent under this section may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.
								(c)Amendment practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
 (1)Patent owner’s initial motionFor each challenged claim for which the patent owner seeks to propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, the patent owner shall be required to make a prima facie showing that each substitute claim—
 (A)responds to each ground of unpatentability on which the post-grant review was instituted; (B)meets the written description requirement under section 112(a); and
 (C)meets the requirement under subsection (b) of this section. (2)New evidence (A)PetitionerThe petitioner may respond to the patent owner’s initial motion under paragraph (1) by presenting new evidence.
 (B)Patent ownerThe patent owner shall have at least 1 opportunity to respond to any new evidence presented under subparagraph (A).
										(3)Expedited patentability report
 (A)In generalUpon the filing of a motion under paragraph (1), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may order an expedited patentability report from a patent examiner on a substitute claim.
 (B)Contents of reportIn ordering an expedited patentability report, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may— (i)order examination of any ground of patentability that is assessed by a patent examiner under chapter 12; and
 (ii)request a non-binding recommendation as to the patentability of a substitute claim. (C)Right of replyAny party to the post-grant review may file supplemental briefing, including new evidence, addressing the expedited patentability report.
 (D)TimingThe production of the expedited patentability report shall be expedited. (E)Good causeThe ordering of an expedited patentability report shall constitute good cause, for purposes of section 326(a)(11), to extend the 1-year period for the post-grant review.
										(4)Adjudication of patentability
 (A)No rebuttalA patent owner shall be entitled to a substitute claim if the prima facie showing required under paragraph (1) is not rebutted.
 (B)Additional evidenceIf additional evidence of record is presented, the patent owner shall be entitled to a substitute claim unless a preponderance of that evidence proves that the patent owner is not so entitled.
 (5)Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s discretion to order expedited PGR reexaminationUpon issuing a final written decision with respect to each challenged claim, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may order an expedited PGR reexamination to be conducted under section (d)(2) to consider a substitute claim in lieu of issuing a final written decision on that claim.
 (6)Amendments to advance settlementThe Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider additional motions to amend upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner to materially advance the settlement of a proceeding under section 327 if the patent owner makes the prima facie showing required under paragraph (1).
									(d)Amendment practice before a patent examiner
									(1)Motion to convert to expedited PGR examination
 (A)In generalIf the Director determines to institute a post-grant review on a challenged claim under section 324, a patent owner may, before any further substantive briefing on the patentability of an instituted claim, move to terminate the post-grant review in favor of an expedited PGR reexamination under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
 (B)Contents of motionA patent owner shall be required to show good cause for why an expedited PGR reexamination would further the goals of the patent system, including consideration of whether there are substantial—
 (i)investments in research directly related to the claimed invention; (ii)secondary indicia of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, or failures of persons skilled in the art to develop the claimed invention; or
 (iii)changes in case law governing relevant substantive patentability requirements since the patent was issued.
 (C)New evidence allowedThe opening motion and opposition briefs under this paragraph may include new evidence, and further rebuttal evidence may be allowed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
										(2)Conduct of expedited PGR examination
 (A)In generalIf the Patent Trial and Appeal Board grants a motion filed under paragraph (1), the patent owner shall cancel each instituted claim and submit a reasonable number of substitute claims for consideration by the patent examiner in an expedited PGR examination under this paragraph.
 (B)TimingA patent examiner shall complete an expedited PGR examination, excluding any time for appeals, within 18 months after the date on which any substitute claim is submitted under subparagraph (A).
 (C)ProceduresConsideration of the substitute claims in an expedited PGR examination shall follow the procedures established for initial examination under sections 132 and 133, subject to subsection (b) of this section and modified as necessary to ensure that the procedures are expedited.
										(D)Appeal
 (i)Patent examiner decisionIf the final decision of a patent examiner in an expedited PGR examination is adverse to the patentability of a substitute claim, the patent owner may appeal the decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(c).
 (ii)Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisionIf the final decision in an appeal of an expedited PGR reexamination to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(c) is adverse to the patentability of a substitute claim, the patent owner may appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in accordance with sections 141 through 144.
 (E)CertificateIf the patent examiner determines in an expedited PGR examination that a substitute claim is patentable, and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director shall issue and publish a certificate incorporating in the patent the substitute claim.
 (F)Intervening rightsAny substitute claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent following an expedited PGR examination shall have the same effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by the substitute claim, or who made substantial preparation therefor, prior to issuance of a certificate under subparagraph (E)..
					(2)Technical and conforming amendments
						(A)Expedited PGR examination appeals
 (i)Appeals to Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSection 134 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by section 102(i)(2), is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

 (d)Patent owner in expedited PGR examinationA patent owner may appeal from the final rejection of any substitute claim by the primary examiner in an expedited PGR examination under section 326A(d) to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal..
 (ii)Appeals to Federal CircuitSection 141 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by section 102(i)(2), is further amended— (I)by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f); and
 (II)by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:  (d)Expedited PGR examinationsA patent owner who is dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(c) of an expedited PGR examination may appeal the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit..
 (B)Conduct of post-grant reviewSection 326 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (i)in subsection (a)(9), by striking subsection (d) each place that term appears and inserting section 326A;
 (ii)by striking subsection (d); and (iii)by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
 (C)Decision of the BoardSection 328(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (i)by striking If and inserting Except as provided in section 326A(c)(5), if; and
 (ii)by striking section 326(d) and inserting section 326A. (D)Table of sectionsThe table of sections for chapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 326 the following new item:

									326A. Post-grant review amendment practice..
 104.Composition of post-grant review and inter partes review panelsSection 6(c) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:  (c)3-Member panels (1)In generalEach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review shall be heard by at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, who shall be designated by the Director.
 (2)Ineligibility to hear reviewA member of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board who participates in the decision to institute a post-grant review or an inter partes review of a patent shall be ineligible to hear the review.
 (3)RehearingsOnly the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may grant rehearings.. 105.Reexamination of patents (a)Request for reexaminationSection 302 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

 302.Request for reexaminationAny person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the Office of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under the provisions of section 301. The request must be in writing and must be accompanied by payment of a reexamination fee established by the Director pursuant to the provisions of section 41. The request must identify all real parties in interest and certify that reexamination is not barred under section 303(d). The request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. Unless the requesting person is the owner of the patent, the Director promptly will send a copy of the request to the owner of record of the patent..
 (b)Reexamination barred by civil actionSection 303 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

 (d)An ex parte reexamination may not be instituted if the request for reexamination is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the requester or a real party in interest or privy of the requester is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent..
 106.Restoration of patents as property rightsSection 283 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (1)by striking The several courts and inserting the following:

 (a)In generalThe several courts; and (2)by adding at the end the following:

 (b)InjunctionUpon a finding by a court of infringement of a patent not proven invalid or unenforceable, the court shall presume that—
 (1)further infringement of the patent would cause irreparable injury; and (2)remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury..
				107.Elimination of USPTO fee diversion
 (a)FundingSection 42 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (1)in subsection (a), by striking All fees and inserting Fees for service by PTO.—All fees;
 (2)in subsection (b)— (A)by striking All fees and inserting Innovation promotion fund.—All fees; and
 (B)by striking Patent and Trademark Office Appropriation Account and inserting United States Patent and Trademark Office Innovation Promotion Fund; (3)in subsection (c)—
 (A)by striking (c) and inserting (c) Collection of funds for PTO activities.
 (B)in paragraph (1)— (i)by striking To the extent and all that follows through fees and inserting Fees; and
 (ii)by striking shall be collected by and shall, subject to paragraph (2), be available to the Director and inserting shall be collected by the Director and shall be available to the Director until expended; (C)by striking paragraph (2); and
 (D)by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); (4)by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively;
 (5)by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:  (d)Revolving fund (1)DefinitionsIn this subsection—
 (A)the term Fund means the United States Patent and Trademark Office Innovation Promotion Fund established under paragraph (2); and
 (B)the term Trademark Act of 1946 means the Act entitled An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes, approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the Trademark Act of 1946 or the Lanham Act).
 (2)EstablishmentThere is established in the Treasury a revolving fund to be known as the United States Patent and Trademark Office Innovation Promotion Fund. (3)Derivation of resourcesThere shall be deposited into the Fund any fees collected under—
 (A)this title; or (B)the Trademark Act of 1946.
 (4)ExpensesAmounts deposited into the Fund under paragraph (3) shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, to cover—
 (A)all expenses to the extent consistent with the limitation on the use of fees set forth in subsection (c), including all administrative and operating expenses, determined in the discretion of the Director to be ordinary and reasonable, incurred by the Director for the continued operation of all services, programs, activities, and duties of the Office relating to patents and trademarks, as such services, programs, activities, and duties are described under—
 (i)this title; and (ii)the Trademark Act of 1946; and
 (B)all expenses incurred pursuant to any obligation, representation, or other commitment of the Office.;
 (6)in subsection (e), as redesignated, by striking The Director and inserting Refunds.—The Director; and (7)in subsection (f), as redesignated, by striking The Secretary and inserting Report.—The Secretary.
					(b)Effective date; transfer from and termination of obsolete funds
 (1)Effective dateThe amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the first day of the first fiscal year that begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
 (2)Remaining balancesThere shall be deposited in the Fund, on the effective date described in paragraph (1), any available unobligated balances remaining in the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriation Account, and in the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund established under section 42(c)(2) of title 35, United States Code, as in effect on the date before the effective date.
 (3)Termination of Reserve FundUpon the payment of all obligated amounts in the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund under paragraph (2), the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund shall be terminated.
 108.Infringement of patentSection 271 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (1)by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

 (b)Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer upon a showing that the accused infringer intended to cause the acts that constitute infringement, without regard to whether the accused infringer knew of the patent.;
 (2)in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following new paragraph:  (3) (A)Whoever, without authority, supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States a design for a product embodying a patented invention in such manner as to actively induce the making of that product outside the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if made in the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.
 (B)Whoever, without authority, supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States a specification for performing a patented process or method in such manner as to actively induce the performance of that process or method outside the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if performed in the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.; and
 (3)by adding at the end the following:  (j)For a finding of liability for actively inducing infringement of a process patent under subsection (b), or for contributory infringement of a process patent under subsection (c), it shall not be a requirement that the steps of the patented process be practiced by a single entity..
 109.Institutions of higher educationSection 123(d) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:  (d)Institutions of higher educationFor purposes of this section, a micro entity shall include an applicant who certifies that—
 (1)the applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a));
 (2)the applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular applications to such an institution of higher education;
 (3)the applicant is such an institution of higher education; or (4)the applicant is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code that holds title to patents and patent applications on behalf of such an institution of higher education for the purpose of facilitating commercialization of the technologies of the patents and patent applications..
			110.Assisting small businesses in the U.S. patent system
 (a)DefinitionIn this section, the term small business concern has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). (b)Small Business Administration reportNot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Small Business Administration, using existing resources, shall submit to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives a report analyzing the impact of—
 (1)patent ownership by small business concerns; and (2)civil actions against small business concerns arising under title 35, United States Code, relating to patent infringement.
					(c)Expansion of patent pilot program in certain district courts
 (1)In generalNot later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall designate not fewer than 6 of the district courts of the United States that are participating in the patent cases pilot program established under section 1 of Public Law 111–349 (28 U.S.C. 137 note) for the purpose of expanding that program to address special issues raised in patent infringement suits against individuals or small business concerns.
 (2)Procedures for small businessesNot later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, each district court designated under paragraph (1) shall develop procedures for expediting cases in which an individual or small business concern is accused of patent infringement.
					(3)Participating judges
 (A)In generalIn each district court designated under paragraph (1), each district court judge participating in the patent cases pilot program established under section 1 of Public Law 111–349 may appoint 1 additional law clerk or secretary in excess of any other limitation on the number of such employees.
 (B)Education and trainingThe Federal Judicial Center, using existing resources, shall prepare educational and training materials to assist district court judges described in subparagraph (A) in developing expertise in patent and plant variety protection cases.
 (4)FundsThere are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (3)(A).
 (d)Free online availability of public search facility materialsSection 41(i) of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

 (5)Free online availability of public search facility materialsThe Director shall make available online and at no charge all patent and trademark information that is available at the Public Search Facility of the Office located in Alexandria, Virginia, including, except to the extent that licenses with third-party contractors would make such provision financially unviable—
 (A)search tools and databases; (B)informational materials; and
 (C)training classes and materials.. IITargeting Rogue and Opaque Letters 201.DefinitionsIn this title:
 (1)Bad faithThe term bad faith means, with respect to section 202(a), that the sender— (A)made knowingly false or knowingly misleading statements, representations, or omissions;
 (B)made statements, representations, or omissions with reckless indifference as to the false or misleading nature of such statements, representations, or omissions; or
 (C)made statements, representations, or omissions with awareness of the high probability of the statements, representations, or omissions to deceive and the sender intentionally avoided the truth.
 (2)CommissionThe term Commission means the Federal Trade Commission. (3)Final determinationThe term final determination means, with respect to the invalidity or unenforceability of a patent, that the invalidity or unenforceability has been determined by a court of the United States or the United States Patent and Trademark Office in a final decision that is unappealable or for which any opportunity for appeal is no longer available.
				202.Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with the assertion of a United States patent
 (a)In generalIt shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)) for a person, in connection with the assertion of a United States patent, to engage in a pattern or practice of sending written communications that state or represent that the recipients are or may be infringing, or have or may have infringed, the patent and bear liability or owe compensation to another, if—
 (1)the sender of the communications, in bad faith, states or represents in the communications that— (A)the sender is a person with the right to license or enforce the patent at the time the communications are sent, and the sender is not a person with such a right;
 (B)a civil action asserting a claim of infringement of the patent has been filed against the recipient;
 (C)a civil action asserting a claim of infringement of the patent has been filed against other persons;
 (D)legal action for infringement of the patent will be taken against the recipient; (E)the sender is the exclusive licensee of the patent asserted in the communications;
 (F)persons other than the recipient purchased a license for the patent asserted in the communications; (G)persons other than the recipient purchased a license, and the sender does not disclose that such license is unrelated to the alleged infringement or the patent asserted in the communications;
 (H)an investigation of the recipient’s alleged infringement occurred; or (I)the sender or an affiliate of the sender previously filed a civil action asserting a claim of infringement of the patent based on the activity that is the subject of the written communication when the sender knew such activity was held, in a final determination, not to infringe the patent;
 (2)the sender of the communications, in bad faith, seeks compensation for— (A)a patent claim that has been held to be unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable against the recipient, in a final determination;
 (B)activities undertaken by the recipient after expiration of the patent asserted in the communications; or
 (C)activity of the recipient that the sender knew was authorized, with respect to the patent claim or claims that are the subject of the communications, by a person with the right to license the patent; or
 (3)the sender of the communications, in bad faith, fails to include— (A)the identity of the person asserting a right to license the patent to, or enforce the patent against, the recipient, including the identity of any parent entity and the ultimate parent entity of such person, unless such person is a public company and the name of the public company is identified;
 (B)an identification of at least one patent issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office alleged to have been infringed;
 (C)an identification, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances, of at least one product, service, or other activity of the recipient that is alleged to infringe the identified patent;
 (D)a description, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances, of how the product, service, or other activity of the recipient infringes an identified patent and patent claim; or
 (E)a name and contact information for a person the recipient may contact about the assertions or claims relating to the patent contained in the communications.
 (b)Affirmative defenseWith respect to subsection (a), there shall be an affirmative defense that statements, representations, or omissions were not made in bad faith (as defined in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 201(1)) if the sender can demonstrate that such statements, representations, or omissions were mistakes made in good faith. Evidence that the sender in the usual course of business sends written communications that do not violate the provisions of this title shall be sufficient to demonstrate good faith. Good faith may also be demonstrated by other evidence.
 (c)Rule of constructionFor purposes of sections 203 and 204, the commission of an act or practice that is declared under this section to be an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)) shall be considered to be a violation of this section.
				203.Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission
 (a)Violation of ruleA violation of section 202 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
 (b)Powers of CommissionThe Commission shall enforce this title in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this title. Any person who violates section 202 shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
 (c)Effect on other lawsNothing in this title shall be construed in any way to limit or affect the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
				204.Preemption of State laws on patent demand letters and enforcement by State attorneys general
				(a)Preemption
 (1)In generalThis title preempts any law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law of any State, or political subdivision of a State, expressly relating to the transmission or contents of communications relating to the assertion of patent rights.
 (2)Effect on other State lawsExcept as provided in paragraph (1), this title shall not be construed to preempt or limit any provision of any State law, including any State consumer protection law, any State law relating to acts of fraud or deception, and any State trespass, contract, or tort law.
					(b)Enforcement by State attorneys general
 (1)In generalIn any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been adversely affected by any person who violates section 202, the attorney general of the State, may bring a civil action on behalf of such residents of the State in a district court of the United States of appropriate jurisdiction—
 (A)to enjoin further such violation by the defendant; or (B)to obtain civil penalties on behalf of recipients who suffered actual damages as a result of such violation.
 (2)Maximum civil penaltyNotwithstanding the number of actions which may be brought against a person under this subsection, a person may not be liable for a total of more than $5,000,000 for a series of related violations of section 202.
					(3)Intervention by the FTC
 (A)Notice and interventionThe attorney general of a State shall provide prior written notice of any action under paragraph (1) to the Commission and provide the Commission with a copy of the complaint in the action, except in any case in which such prior notice is not feasible, in which case the attorney general shall serve such notice immediately upon instituting such action. The Commission shall have the right—
 (i)to intervene in the action; (ii)upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters arising therein; and
 (iii)to file petitions for appeal. (B)Limitation on State action while Federal action is pendingIf the Commission has instituted a civil action for violation of section 202, no State attorney general may bring an action under this subsection during the pendency of that action against any defendant named in the complaint of the Commission for any violation of such section alleged in the complaint.
 (4)ConstructionFor purposes of bringing any civil action under paragraph (1), nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of that State to—
 (A)conduct investigations; (B)administer oaths or affirmations; or
 (C)compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary and other evidence.


115 S30 IS: Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act of 2017
U.S. Senate
2017-01-04
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

II115th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 30IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESJanuary 4, 2017Mr. Schumer (for Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Franken, Mr. Tillis, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Flake)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryA BILLTo extend the civil statute of limitations for victims of Federal sex offenses.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act of 2017. 2.Extension of statute of limitations for civil remedy for personal injuriesPart I of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
 (1)in section 1595(c)— (A)in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking the later of; and
 (B)in paragraph (1) by striking after the cause of action arose; or and inserting the following:  after the date upon which the plaintiff discovers the later of—(A)the violation that forms the basis for the claim; or (B)the injury that forms the basis for the claim; or; and
 (2)in section 2255(b), by striking filed within 10 years and all that follows through the end and inserting the following:  filed—(1)not later than 10 years after the date upon which the plaintiff discovers the later of— (A)the violation that forms the basis for the claim; or
 (B)the injury that forms the basis for the claim; or (2)in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than 10 years after the disability ends..


		II
		112th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		S. 1319
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			June 30, 2011
			Mr. Schumer introduced
			 the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
			 Committee on the
			 Judiciary

		A BILL
		To direct the Attorney General to establish a system of
		  background checks for employers and employees of the electronic life safety and
		  security system installation and monitoring industry, and for other
		  purposes.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 Electronic Life Safety and Security
			 Systems Federal Background Check Act of 2011.
		2.FindingsCongress finds the following:
			(1)The electronic life safety and security
			 systems industry performs critical security installation and protection for
			 much of the infrastructure in the United States and provides commercial
			 buildings, public agencies and residences with alarm and security systems that
			 are an important part of homeland security and anti-crime and terrorist
			 prevention.
			(2)The electronic life safety and security
			 systems industry includes central monitoring stations and individual
			 employer-owned companies and other private sector businesses that install alarm
			 and security systems in infrastructure of the United States.
			(3)Some States do not
			 provide for any licensing or regulation requirement that includes a State or
			 Federal background check on employers and employees of the companies involved
			 in the electronic life safety and security systems industry.
			(4)Many employers and employees in the
			 electronic life safety and security systems industry travel across State lines
			 to install systems and may or may not be required to undergo Federal background
			 checks as a condition of employment and in some cases there may be background
			 check requirements at the State level or duplicated background checks at the
			 county or city levels.
			(5)Many employers and employees in the
			 electronic life safety and security systems industry have access to public and
			 private structures and should undergo a Federal background check in order to
			 protect lives and property.
			3.DefinitionIn this Act, the term electronic life
			 safety and security systems industry means businesses that provide
			 installation and central monitoring of fire and burglar alarm systems to public
			 or private entities, including fire alarms, burglar alarms, closed-circuit TV,
			 biometric systems, access control systems, personal emergency response systems,
			 and other crime prevention systems.
		4.Establishment of
			 background check
			(a)In
			 generalNot later than 180
			 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
			 establish a method to permit employers in the electronic life safety and
			 security systems installation and monitoring industry to request State and
			 Federal fingerprint-based background checks, in accordance with the information
			 contained in appropriate records acquired under section 534 of title 28, United
			 States Code, and to provide any resulting relevant criminal history record
			 information in accordance with the goals and standards described in this
			 Act.
			(b)RequirementsThe
			 method for background checks established under subsection (a)—
				(1)shall
			 allow—
					(A)employers to discover if employees or
			 prospective employees have been convicted of a felony or of an offense
			 involving dishonesty or false statement or the use of force against the person
			 of another during the 10-year period before the background check is conducted;
			 and
					(B)employers to obtain a background check of
			 State and Federal criminal history record information by submitting
			 fingerprints—
						(i)to the Attorney General through the State
			 criminal history record repository of the State in which the employer is
			 located; or
						(ii)if a State declines to allow access to the
			 criminal history record repository of the State, in a manner determined by the
			 Attorney General; and
						(2)shall not
			 duplicate access by an employer regarding an employee working only within 1
			 State where the State licensing and regulation of that employee already
			 requires a Federal background check.
				(c)FeesThe
			 Attorney General may set reasonable fees to be charged in connection with the
			 method for background checks established under subsection (a).
			(d)Privacy
			 protectionsThe Attorney
			 General, in establishing the method for background checks under subsection (a),
			 shall give due consideration to privacy protections and employee rights. Each
			 employee for whom a background check is provided under this section should have
			 an effective means provided to seek a correction or dispute the outcome of the
			 background check.


		II
		110th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		S. 994
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			March 27, 2007
			Mr. Tester (for himself
			 and Mr. Salazar) introduced the following
			 bill; which was read twice and referred to the
			 Committee on Veterans'
			 Affairs

		A BILL
		To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the
		  deductible and change the method of determining the mileage reimbursement rate
		  under the beneficiary travel program administered by the Secretary of Veterans
		  Affairs, and for other purposes.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 Disabled Veterans Fairness
			 Act.
		2.Veterans
			 beneficiary travel program
			(a)Elimination of
			 deductible
				(1)EliminationSection
			 111 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection
			 (c).
				(2)Conforming
			 amendmentSubsection (b) of such section is amended by striking
			 Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section and
			 notwithstanding and inserting Notwithstanding.
				(b)Determination of
			 mileage reimbursement rate
				(1)DeterminationParagraph
			 (1) of subsection (g) of such section is amended to read as follows:

						(1)In determining the amount of allowances or
				reimbursement to be paid under this section, the Secretary shall use the
				mileage reimbursement rates for the use of privately owned vehicles by
				Government employees on official business, as prescribed by the Administrator
				of General Services under
				section
				5707(b) of title
				5.
						.
				(2)Conforming
			 amendmentSubsection (g) of such section is further amended by
			 striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
				(c)Source of
			 fundsSuch section is further amended by adding at the end the
			 following new subsection:

					(i)Amounts for payments under this section
				shall be derived from amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to the
				Department specifically for such
				payments.
					.
			(d)Effective
			 dateThe amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
			 travel expenses incurred after the expiration of the 90-day period that begins
			 on the date of the enactment of this Act.


109 HRES 734 IH: Calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Pat Finucane, as recommended by international Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park agreement and a way forward for the Northern Ireland Peace Process.
U.S. House of Representatives
2006-03-16
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 734
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 16, 2006
Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Payne, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Crowley, Mrs. McCarthy, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Walsh, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Engel) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION
Calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Pat Finucane, as recommended by international Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park agreement and a way forward for the Northern Ireland Peace Process.

Whereas human rights defense attorney and solicitor Patrick Finucane was brutally murdered in front of his wife and children at his home in Belfast on February 12, 1989;
Whereas numerous international bodies and non governmental human rights organizations have made note of serious allegations of collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces in the murder of Mr. Finucane;
Whereas in July, 2001, the Irish and British Governments made new commitments in the Weston Park Agreement to hold public inquiries into high profile murders if so recommended by the Honorable Judge Peter Cory, with it being clearly understood that such an inquiry would be held under the United Kingdom Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921;
Whereas Judge Cory found sufficient evidence of collusion to warrant a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane and recommended that such an inquiry take place without delay;
Whereas in his conclusions, Judge Cory set out the necessity and importance of a public inquiry into the Finucane case and that the failure to hold a public inquiry as quickly as reasonably possible could be seen as a denial of the agreement at Weston Park;
Whereas on May 6, 2004, Judge Cory testified in Congress before the United States Helsinki Commission and presented his report which is replete with evidence of possible collusion relating to activities of the army intelligence unit and the RUC in the Finucane case;
Whereas the United Kingdom adopted new legislation after the public release of the Cory Report, the United Kingdom Inquiries Act 2005, which severely limits the procedures of a independent inquiry and which has been rejected as inadequate by Judge Cory, the Finucane family, the Irish Government and human rights groups;
Whereas on March 15, 2005, Judge Cory submitted written testimony to the House International Relations committee stating that the new legislation is unfortunate to say the least and would make a meaningful inquiry impossible;
Whereas Judge Cory’s written statement also stated that his recommendation for a public inquiry into the Finucane case contemplated a true public inquiry constituted and acting pursuant to the provisions of the 1921 Act  and not the new 2005 Inquiries Act; and
Whereas the House of Representatives and Congress have passed legislation supporting the establishment of an independent, judicial inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane and deeply regrets the British Government’s failure to honor its commitment to implement Judge Cory’s recommendation in full: Now therefore, be it

That the House of Representatives—
(1)commends Finucane family members—including wife Geraldine and son Michael who have testified before Congress—for their courageous campaign to seek the truth in this case of collusion;
(2)welcomes the passage of a resolution by the Dail Eireann on March 8, 2006, calling for the establishment of a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane as the Irish Government’s most recent expression of support for the Finucane family;
(3)acknowledges the United States Helsinki Commission and the House of Representatives’ International Relations’ subcommittees charged with human rights monitoring for their work in highlighting this case through hearings and legislation;
(4)supports the efforts of The Honorable Mitchell Reiss, President Bush’s special envoy for the Northern Ireland Peace Process, in pushing for the full implementation of the Weston Park Agreement and the establishment of an independent, judicial inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane; and
(5)calls on the Government of the United Kingdom to—
(A)reconsider its position on the Finucane case to take full account of the family’s objections, Judge Cory’s objections, objections raised by officials of the United States Government, other governments, and international bodies, and amend the UK Inquiries Act of 2005; and
(B)establish immediately a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane, as recommended by Judge Cory, which would enjoy the full cooperation of the family and the wider community throughout Ireland and abroad, under British law at the time of the publication of the Cory Collusion Inquiry Reports.


109 HCON 162 IH: Expressing the sense of Congress that the ongoing nuclear efforts of the Islamic Republic of Iran constitute a threat to the national security of the United States and to international peace and security.
U.S. House of Representatives
2005-05-19
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 162
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 19, 2005
Mr. Saxton (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Towns, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Akin, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. McCotter) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the ongoing nuclear efforts of the Islamic Republic of Iran constitute a threat to the national security of the United States and to international peace and security.

Whereas inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Iran have revealed significant undeclared activities, including a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which could be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons;
Whereas since January 1984, Iran has been identified by the Department of State as the most active state sponsor of terrorism and is close to achieving nuclear weapons capability but has not been held accountable for nearly twenty years of deception with respect to its nuclear program;
Whereas the Iranian Ministry of Defense confirmed in July 2003 that it had successfully conducted the final test of the Shahab-3 missile, giving Iran an operational intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of striking both Israel and United States troops throughout the Middle East and Afghanistan;
Whereas on May 9, 2005, the Islamic Republic of Iran confirmed that it had converted 37 tons of raw uranium into gas shortly before its declared suspension of enrichment activities in November 2004;
Whereas Mohammad Saeedi, the Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has confirmed that such conversion would produce material that, if further processed, could be fed into centrifuges for enrichment;
Whereas these actions bring Iran even closer to producing weapons-grade uranium;
Whereas Iranian officials have announced the intention of the Government of Iran to resume some of its uranium processing activities in response to the current diplomatic impasse in its ongoing negotiations with Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, otherwise known as the EU–3;
Whereas since February 2003, the Government of Iran has consistently misled the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the EU–3, and the United States as to the objectives and scope of its nuclear activities;
Whereas the efforts put forth by the EU–3 have not succeeded in persuading Iran to end its nuclear acquisition efforts; and
Whereas a nuclear armed Iran would dramatically alter the balance of power in the Middle East to the detriment of the United States and its allies: Now, therefore, be it

That it is the sense of Congress that—
(1)the acquisition of nuclear weapon capabilities by the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a threat to the national security of the United States;
(2)the acquisition of nuclear weapon capabilities by Iran would constitute a threat to international peace and security;
(3)the European diplomatic effort to urge Iran to abandon its nuclear aspirations through economic incentives has not yielded definitive results; and
(4)the President should urge the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran’s noncompliance with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to the United Nations Security Council in the event that negotiations fail between Iran and the European Union.


		I
		112th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. R. 976
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			March 9, 2011
			Mr. Denham introduced
			 the following bill; which was referred to the
			 Committee on Natural
			 Resources

		A BILL
		To terminate certain hydropower reservations, and for
		  other purposes.

		1.Termination of hydropower
			 reservations
			(a)Termination of
			 reservation relating to Bureau of Land Management patent numbered CA
			 6313The reservation under section 24 of the Federal Power Act
			 (16 U.S.C. 818) of the Bureau of Land Management patent numbered CA 6313 and
			 dated May 13, 1983, to the approximately 103.26 acres of land now owned by
			 Donald L. Smith in Madera County, California, and more particularly described
			 as a portion of secs. 25, 26, 35, and 36, T. 4 S., R. 24 E., Mount Diablo
			 Meridian, is terminated.
			(b)Termination of
			 reservation relating to Bureau of Land Management patent numbered CA
			 19394To the extent that any reservation of use for hydropower
			 could be determined to have been omitted under section 24 of the Federal Power
			 Act (16 U.S.C. 818) from the Bureau of Land Management patent numbered CA 19394
			 and dated September 25, 1987, to the approximately 41.323 acres of land
			 conveyed to Lindsay Smith, Peggy L. Birchim, Donald L. Smith, and Keith Smith,
			 and more particularly described as comprising a portion of secs. 25 and 36,
			 unsurveyed T. 4 S., R. 24 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Jackass Mining District,
			 Madera County, California, the reservation is terminated.


115 HR 3621 IH: Rechecking Eligibility of Applicants to the Lifeline Program to Prevent Losses Yearly Act of 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
2017-07-28
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I115th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 3621IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJuly 28, 2017Mr. Russell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and CommerceA BILLTo require subscribers to services supported through the Lifeline program of the Federal
			 Communications Commission to reapply for such services on an annual basis.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Rechecking Eligibility of Applicants to the Lifeline Program to Prevent Losses Yearly Act of 2017 or the REAPPLY Act of 2017. 2.Annual reapplication for Lifeline servicesNot later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall amend subpart E of part 54 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, so as to prohibit a provider of a Lifeline service from seeking or receiving reimbursement for providing such service to a subscriber unless, on an annual basis—
 (1)such subscriber submits an application for such service in the same manner, and subject to the same requirements, as in the case of an initial application for such service; and
 (2)the eligibility of such subscriber to receive such service is determined and certified in the same manner, and subject to the same requirements, as in the case of the initial such determination and certification.


113 HR 1193 IH: Protect Our Schools from Tax Delinquents Act of 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
2013-03-14
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

		I
		113th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. R. 1193
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			March 14, 2013
			Mr. Meehan (for
			 himself, Mr. Barletta,
			 Mr. Gerlach,
			 Mr. Nugent,
			 Mr. Tiberi, and
			 Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania) introduced
			 the following bill; which was referred to the
			 Committee on Financial
			 Services

		A BILL
		To require each owner of a dwelling unit assisted under
		  the section 8 rental assistance voucher program to remain current with respect
		  to local property and school taxes and to authorize a public housing agency to
		  use such rental assistance amounts to pay such tax debt of such an owner, and
		  for other purposes.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 Protect Our Schools from Tax
			 Delinquents Act of 2013.
		2.Obligation for
			 owners of assisted units to remain current on local property and school
			 taxes
			(a)In
			 generalSubsection (o) of
			 section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) is
			 amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

					(21)Obligation for
				owners To remain current on local property and school taxes
						(1)ObligationEach housing assistance payments contract
				entered into by a public housing agency and the owner of a dwelling unit shall
				provide that the owner of the dwelling unit assisted under the contract shall
				pay, on a timely basis, all covered taxes validly assessed against the property
				in which such dwelling unit is located.
						(2)Authority to
				provide for use of assistance amounts to pay delinquent taxesA housing assistance payments contract
				entered into by a public housing agency and the owner of a dwelling unit may
				provide that, upon notification by a taxing authority that the owner of a
				dwelling unit assisted under this subsection is delinquent with respect to
				payment of any covered taxes assessed by such taxing authority against the
				property in which such dwelling unit is located and identification of the
				amount of such delinquency—
							(A)the public housing agency shall abate all
				of the assistance amounts under this subsection with respect such property
				until the transfer of amounts pursuant to subparagraph (B) is completed;
				and
							(B)the agency shall transfer to such taxing
				authority, on a monthly basis, an amount equal to the monthly assistance
				amounts under this subsection with respect to such dwelling unit (or such
				lesser amount as may be agreed to by the agency and such authority) until the
				delinquency identified in such notification is eliminated (or for such shorter
				period, as may be agreed to by the agency and such authority).
							(3)Requirements and
				proceduresThe Secretary
				shall establish such requirements as may be necessary to provide for the
				housing assistance payments contract provisions under paragraphs (1) and (2),
				including, in the case of provisions authorized by paragraph (2), such
				requirements regarding notifications and transfer of amounts pursuant to
				paragraph (2)(B) as may be necessary to ensure that amounts are not so
				transferred except for actual and confirmed taxes assessed to and owed by an
				owner of a dwelling unit, to ensure that no amounts are transferred in excess
				of the amount of such taxes owed, and to ensure the timely commencement and
				termination of such transfers.
						(4)Treatment of
				tenantsNothing in this
				section may be construed to authorize, or establish any cause or grounds for,
				the termination of the tenancy of any tenant from any dwelling unit assisted
				under this subsection.
						(5)Database
							(A)In
				generalThe Secretary shall
				maintain a database of information regarding—
								(i)owners of dwelling units assisted under
				this subsection whose housing assistance payments contracts have been
				terminated for failure to comply with the provision required under paragraph
				(1); and
								(ii)owners of such dwelling units with respect
				to whom assistance amounts have been abated and transferred to a taxing
				authority pursuant to paragraph (2).
								(B)ContentsSuch database shall include information
				that identifies the owner, the property for which such assistance was provided,
				the amount transferred, and the period over which such abatement and transfer
				occurred.
							(C)Information from
				public housing agenciesThe Secretary shall require public
				housing agencies to submit information regarding the abatement and transfer of
				assistance amounts pursuant to paragraph (2) sufficient for the Secretary to
				maintain such database.
							(6)DefinitionsFor
				purposes of this paragraph, the following definitions shall apply:
							(A)Covered
				taxesThe term covered
				taxes means any tax under the law of a State or any political
				subdivision of a State that is assessed upon real property or the revenue of
				which is dedicated for use only for schools or for costs of education.
							(B)Taxing
				authorityThe term taxing authority means any State
				or political subdivision of a State, including any agency or authority thereof,
				having authority to assess and collect covered
				taxes.
							.
			(b)RegulationsThe
			 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall issue any regulations
			 necessary to carry section 8(o)(21) of the United States Housing Act of 1937,
			 as added by the amendment made by subsection (a).


		I
		111th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. R. 2287
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			May 6, 2009
			Mr. Rohrabacher (for
			 himself, Mr. Sullivan,
			 Mr. Gary G. Miller of California,
			 Mr. Pitts,
			 Mr. Bartlett,
			 Mr. Bilirakis,
			 Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida,
			 Mr. Burton of Indiana,
			 Mr. Jones,
			 Mr. Kline of Minnesota,
			 Mr. Marchant,
			 Mr. McHenry,
			 Mr. Platts,
			 Mr. Rogers of Alabama,
			 Mr. Sessions,
			 Mr. Simpson, and
			 Mr. Smith of Nebraska) introduced the
			 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

		A BILL
		To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude
		  from creditable wages and self-employment income wages earned for services by
		  aliens illegally performed in the United States and self-employment income
		  derived from a trade or business illegally conducted in the United
		  States.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 No Social Security for Illegal
			 Immigrants Act of 2009.
		2.Exclusion of
			 unauthorized employment from employment upon which creditable wages may be
			 basedSection 210(a)(19) of
			 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
			 410(a)(19)) is amended—
			(1)by striking
			 (19) Service and inserting the following:

					(19)(A)Service performed by an
				alien while employed in the United States for any period during which the alien
				is not authorized to be so employed.
						(B)Service
						.
			3.Exclusion of
			 unauthorized functions and services from trade or business from which
			 creditable self-employment income may be derivedSection 211(c) of the
			 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 411(c))
			 is amended—
			(1)in paragraph (5),
			 by striking or at the end;
			(2)in paragraph (6),
			 by striking him. and inserting him; or;
			 and
			(3)by inserting after
			 paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:

					(7)The performance of
				a function or service in the United States by an alien during any period for
				which the alien is not authorized to perform such function or service in the
				United
				States.
					.
			4.Effective
			 dateThe amendments made by
			 this Act shall apply with respect to wages earned, and self-employment income
			 derived, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
			 Notwithstanding section 215(f)(1) of the Social
			 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(f)(1)), as soon as practicable after the
			 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall
			 recompute all primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to carry out
			 such amendments. Such amendments shall affect benefits only for months after
			 the date of the enactment of this Act.