Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 10 P21 potx

(ch. 36, 62 Stat. 6, [codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq. (1988 & Supp. V 1993)]). This act, known as the Smith-Mundt Act, created the U.S. International Commu nication Agency (USICA). According to the Smith- Mundt Act, the USICA was created to distribute information to other countries about the “United States, its people, and [its] policies” (Pub. L. No. 80-402, § 501, 1948 U.S.C.C.A.N. [79 Stat.] 6, 9 [1948][codified at 22 U.S.C.A. §§ 1431 et seq., as amended ]). The USICA gained status as an independent federal agency under President DWIGHT D. EISEN- HOWER ’s REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 8 of 1953 (18 Fed. Reg. 4562 [1953], reprinted in 22 U.S.C.A. § 1461 app. at 763 [West 1990]). The USICA was renamed the U.S. Information Agency in 1982, but the function of the agency remained the same. The USIA used a variety of methods to disseminate information. These included the Voice of America radio broadcast system, radio and television broadcast service to Cuba, the Worldnet Satellite television service, educational and cultural exchanges, and magazine s, films, and information centers in foreign countries. Until 1994, when Congress modified this rule, the USIA was prohibited from disseminat- ing its program materials within the United States (22 U.S.C. § 1461-1a [1988]). The primary reason for this restriction was the desire to avoid creating a powerful propaganda agency to guide public opinion, such as the information minis- tries in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Congress also wanted to isolate government- sponsored programming from competition with domestic commercial media outlets. The fall of COMMUNISM and technological advances prompted a reorganization of the USIA structure and activities. In 1992 the USIA stopped publishing Problems of Communism, an anti-Communist magazine. Problems of Com- munism was the only USIA material ever disseminated within the United States. In 1994 Congress created the Broad casting Board of Governors to oversee a new USIA International Broadcasting Bureau. Under the International Broadcasting Act (Foreign Relations Authoriza- tion Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236 [1994]), the bureau was charged with oversight of the property and program- ming of government broadcasting, including the Voice of America and its commercial counterparts, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. The bureau was also pu t in charge of a newly created Radio Free Asia. Congress also modified the ban on dissemi- nation of USIA materials within the United States. In a 1994 amendment to the Smith- Mundt Act, Congress provided that the ban “shall not prohibit the [USIA] from respond- ing to inquiries from members of the public about its operations, policies, or programs” (22 U.S.C.A. § 1461-1a). The wording of this amend- ment did not require the USIA to distribute its materials within the United States. Rather, it required only that the USIA respond to inquiries about its materials. In 1994 USIA began publishing its English- language news stories on the INTERNET. The stories included a disclaimer stating that the information was intended for international audiences only, but the USIA had no way to enforce this restriction. Furthermore, Worldnet, the federal government television service, was transmitted by satellite, and anyone who had a satellite dish could receive the broadcast. Thus, technology circumvented the prohibition on domestic dissemination of USIA programs. In 2000 a settlement was announced in a CLASS ACTION in which 1,100 women claimed that they had faced SEX DISCRIMINATION while seeking employment with the USIA and VOA. In one of the nation’s largest discrimination settlements, the government agreed to pay $508 million plus back pay to the plaintiffs. In 1998 Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, Pub. L. No. 105- 277, 112 Stat. 2681. Under this Act, the USIA’s information exchange functions were folded into the State Department’sBureauofPublicAffairs headed by the Under Secretary of Public Diplo- macy and Public Affairs. The work of USIA has been carried out bythe State Department Office of International Information Programs since 1999. In 2008 Senator JOHN MCCAIN (R Ariz.)—the Republican candidate for president—expressed support for bringing the agency back. No plans for such a reestablishment had emerged as of 2009. FURTHER READINGS Gormly, Charles F. 1995. “The United States Information Agency Domestic Dissemination Ban: Arguments for Repeal.” Administrative Law Journal of American Univ. 9. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 188 U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY Kupchan, Charles A. 2002. The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty- First Century. New York: Knopf. Mead, Walter Russell. 2001. Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World. New York: Knopf. Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Available online at http://www.state.gov/r/index.htm (accessed June 5, 2009). CROSS REFERENCE State Department. U.S. MAGISTRATES See MAGISTRATE. U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE The U.S. Marshals Service, a division of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, is the oldest federal law enforcement agency, having served as a link between the executive and judicial branches of the government since 1789. The president appoints U.S. marshals for terms of four years. Most, if not all, are nominated or recom- mended by the senators from that state. The SENATE must confirm the appointments, but the president has the power to remove marshals before the expiration of their terms. The headquarters are in Arlington, Virginia. The U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL appoints a director, who is assisted by a deputy director. The U.S. marshals are the chief law officers of the federal courts. A marshal is appointed for each of the 94 federal judicial districts in the United States. The attorney general designates the marshal’s office location in each district. The marshals direct the activities of approxi- mately 4,900 officers and personnel stationed at more than 350 locations throughout the United States and its territories. The service is responsible for providing support and protection for the federal courts, including security fo r more than 700 judicial facilities and more than 2,000 federal judges and magistrates, as well as trial participants such as jurors and attorneys. Since the late 1990s, this responsibility has increased due to a dramatic escalation in threats against members of the judiciary. The service also operates the Federal Witness Security Program, committed to ensur- ing the safety of endangered government witnesses. Since 1971 this program has relocated more than 8,200 witnesses and their familes. U.S. marshals transport and maintain cus- tody of thousands of federal prisoners annually, execute court orders and arrest warrants, and apprehend most federal fugitives. The service houses approximately 58,000 federal detainees each day, with approximately 80 percent of the prisoners confined in 1,800 state, local, and private jails. U.S. marshals also seize, manage, and sell property forfeited to the government by drug traffickers and other criminals and assist the Justice Department’s Asset FORFEITURE Program. The service’s Special Operations Group responds to emergencies such as civil distur- bances and terrorist incidents and restores order during riots and mob violence. The service also operates the U.S. Marshals Service Training Academy. Immediately after the SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS, deputy U.S. Marshals began assisting search and rescue efforts at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. With in 48 hours, the marshals coordinated many aspects of the U.S. response to the attacks from protecting airports to locating and apprehend- ing potential suspects. In 2009 the U.S. Marshals Service continued to be involved in the government’s continuing fight against The U.S. Marshals service played a large role in the response and rescue efforts after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE 189 TERRORISM in addition to carrying out the agency’s regular duties. FURTHER READINGS U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed December 19, 2009). U.S. Marshals Service. Available online at http://www. justice.gov/marshalls (accessed March 13, 2010). CROSS REFERENCES Riot; Witnesses. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) processes and delivers mail to individuals and businesses within the United States. USPS seeks to improve its performance through the development of efficient mail-handling systems and operates its own planning and engineering programs. It is also responsible for protecting mail from loss or theft and appreh ending those who violate postal laws. The USPS was created as an independent establishment of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH by the Postal Reorganization Act (39 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq.), which was approved August 12, 1970. The U.S. Postal Service began operations on July 1, 1971, replacing the Post Office Department, which after years of financial neglect and fragmented control had proved unable to process the mail efficiently. Despite the avail- ability of new technology, as well as skyrocket- ing mail volume, the department handled mail the same way it did in the 1870s. As of 2009 the USPS had approximately 785,000 employees, making it the third largest employer in the United States. The chief executive officer of USPS, the postmaster general, is appointed by the nine governors of the USPS, who are appointed by the president with the ADVICE AND CONSENT of the Senate for overlapping nine-year terms. The governors and the postmaster general appoint the deputy postmaster general, and these 11 people consti- tute the board of governors. In addition to its national headquarters, USPS has area and district offices that supervise approximately 38,000 post offices, branches, stations, and community post offices through- out the United States. To expand and improve service to the public, USPS is engaged in customer coopera- tion activities, including the development of programs for both the general public and major customers. The consumer advocate, a postal OMBUDSMAN, represents the interests of the individual mail customer in matters involving the postal service by bringing complaints and suggestions to the attention of top postal manage- ment and solving the problems of individual customers. To provide postal services that are responsive to public needs, USPS operates its own planning, research, engineering, REAL ESTATE , and procurement programs, which are specially adapted to posta l requirements. It also maintains close ties with international postal organizations. USPS is the only federal agency whose employment policies are governed by COLLECTIVE BARGAINING . Labor contract negotiations affect- ing all bargaining unit personnel are conducted by the Labo r Relations or Human Resources divisions. These divisions also handle personnel matters involving employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is the federal law enforcement agency with jurisdic- tion over criminal matters affecting the integrity and security of the mail. It operates as the inspector general for the postal service. Postal inspectors enforce more than 100 federal statutes involving MAIL FRAUD,mailbombs,CHILD PORNOG- RAPHY , illegal drugs, mail theft, and other postal crimes. The inspectors are also responsible for the protection of all postal employees. In addition, inspectors audit postal contracts and financial accounts. Most postal regulations are co ntained in postal service manuals covering domestic mail, international mail, postal operations, adminis- trative support, employee and labor relations, financial management, and procurement. Since the 1990s USPS has gained national attention on several fronts as it sought to compete with private delivery services such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service (UPS). In 2002 USPS announced a postal rate increase to 37 cents for first-class mail, citing declining revenues and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars due to the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS in 2001, and the fears generated by the mailing of several anthrax-contaminated letters shortly thereafter. During the first decade of the 2000s, USPS increased the price of postage several times. As of May 2009, the postal rate was 44 cents for letters and 28 cents for postcards. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 190 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FURTHER READINGS Cerasale, Jerry. 2003. “Postal Service Reform: Why? And How?” Catalog Age 20 (November 1). Hudgins, Edward. 2001. Mail at the Millennium: Will the Postal Service Go Private? Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute. U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/ (accessed June 5, 2009). U.S. Postal Service. Available online at http://www.usps. com/ (accessed June 5, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Collective Bargaining Agreement; Mail Fraud. U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION The U.S. Sentencing Commission is the agency responsible for the establishment of sentencing policies and procedures for the federal court system. The first task of the commission was to develop a uniform set of sentencing guidelines for the federal courts. The commission also collects and analyzes information on topics concerning federal crime and sentencing. In addition, the commission gives advice and assistance to Congress and to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH regarding the development of policies related to crime and criminal acts. The commis- sion was created in 1984 in response to shifting views of penology in the United States. The history of sentencing in the United States has been marked by evolution and fluctuation. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the criminal justice profession embraced the rehabilitation model of punishment. This the- ory held that criminals were subject to rehabili- tation and that taking into account the offender’s life experience and looking at any EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES could best effect such rehabilitation. Using this model, many states established a system of “indeterminate sentencing.” Under this system, both state and federal judges had the discretion to impose a sentence that took into account the defendant’s character and background as well as the type of crime that had been committed. As a result, judges could sentence offenders to a wide range of penalties ranging from PROBATION to a maximum sentence. When a judge sentenced an offender to prison, PAROLE boards were charged with determining whether an offender should serve the entire sentence imposed by a judge or be subject to early release for good behavior while incarcerated. By the 1950s and 1960s, the theories surrounding effective punishment changed again. Facing criticism that indeterminate sentencing was giving judges and parole boards too much discretion and not reducing crime, a number of state legislatures passed laws that called for mandatory minimums for certain crimes. Proponents of the deterrence model contended that people would be deterred from committing crimes if the consequences were sufficiently severe, and called for the enactment of sentenc- ing guidelines. By 1980 the guideline concept gained a number of adherents among elected officials and the general public. State legislatures began to pass reform acts that incorporate d determinate sentencing guidelines to ensure that offenders who committed the same or similar crimes and had similar criminal histories would receive equivalent sentences. In response to the same complaints about indeterminate sentencing at the federal level, Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) (Pub. L. 98-473, title II, ch. II, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1987). The act abolished federal parole and reduced to 54 days per year the amount of time credited to inmates for good behavior. The act also created the United States Sentencing Commission as an indepen dent federal agency that is part of the judicial branch of government. The commission, which is based in Washington, D.C., has seven voting mem- bers who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the SENATE. At least three of the commissioners must be federal judges, and no more than four may belong to the same political party. The attorney general of the United States and the chair of the U.S. Paro le Commission are ex-officio members of the commission. Com- missioners serve six-year terms. The commis- sion has approximately 100 employees divi ded into seven offices, four of which deal with substantive policy issues. The four policy offices are General Counsel, Monitoring, Policy Analy- sis, and Education and Sentencing Practice. The three support offices are Special Counsel, Legislative and Governmental Affairs, and Administration and Planning. Commission staff consists of attorneys, researchers, data techni- cians, administrative support staff, a public information component, and congressional liaisons. One of the commission’s first tasks was the development of sentencing guidelines for the federal courts. Major criminal offenses that are typically sentenced in federal courts include drug trafficking, FRAUD, IMMIGRATION offenses, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION 191 and bank robberies. The commission’s sentenc- ing guidelines went into effect on November 1, 1987. The guidelines assign most federal crimes to one of 43 “offens e levels” based on the severity of the offense. Each offender is also categorized within one of six “criminal history categories” based on his or her past criminal record. The guidelines utilize a table that shows the point at which the offense level and criminal history intersect. The point of intersection determines the guideline range for that particu- lar offense. The U.S. SUPREME COURT upheld the consti- tutionality of the federal guidelines in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989). Judges formally only had a small amount of discretion to alter a sentence. They objected to having their discretion re- duced, and rehabilitation advocates sought to repeal or change the commission’s guidelines. A number of judges voiced their opposition to a system that they alleged sometimes dictated a severe sentence for minor criminal conduct and did not permit them to make modifications absent unusual circumstances. Other critics charged that prosecutors could tailor the charges against the offender in such a way as to predetermine the ultimate sentence. The constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines again arose in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005), in which the Court addressed whether the SIXTH AMENDMENT right to a jury trial applies to the sentencing guidelines. The Court deter- mined that the Sixt h Amendment does apply to the guidelines. Based on this conclusion, the Court issued a remedial opinion, effective {Author: effectively???} severing two statutory sections related to the guidelines. Under the Court’s ruling, the guidelines are no longer mandatory, but lower courts must consult the guidelines and take these guidelines into account when sentencing. Moreover, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Sentencing Commission. Approximately 50,000 offenders are sen- tenced annually in the federal courts, so the work of the commission has a tremendous impact on the nation’s system of criminal justice. The commission continues to refine the sentencing guidelines based on the collec- tion and analysis of court decisions, sentencing- related research, and input from criminal justice experts. In 1995 the commission, by a vote of 4– 3, recommended that the guidelines be changed to equalize the penalties for selling crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. The commis- sion found that there was no scientific basis or other justification for the disparity that required the same sentence for the sale of 1 gram of crack cocaine as for the sale of 100 grams of powder cocaine. For the first time in the history of the commission, Congress rejected the agency’s recommendations. Because the Senate did not vote on the recommendation, the House voted 332–83 to continue the 100-to-1 disparity in the penalty. Members of the criminal defense bar, judges, and other members of the criminal justice community continued to seek an end to the disparity, citing the commission’s own research that showed that the average sentence for the sale of crack cocaine was longer than the average sentences for ROBBERY, ARSON, SEXUAL ABUSE, and MANSLAUGHTER. Information in the commission’s 1999 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics also indicated that while the majority of crack users in the United States were Caucasian, 94 percent of those sentenced for the sale of crack cocaine were African American or Hispanic. The contro- versy continued during the 2000s. In 2007 the commission reduced the sentencing range for first-time offenders convicted of possession of crack. Under the revised guidelines, a first-time offender who possesses five grams or more may be sentenced to a range of 51 and 63 months. The previous range was 63 to 78 months. FURTHER READINGS Bamberger, Phyllis S., and David J. Gottlieb, eds. 2001. Practice under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. 4th ed. Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Law & Business. Stith, Kate, and José A. Cabranes. 1998. Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. U.S. Sentencing Commission. Available online at www.ussc. gov (accessed August 19, 2009). Von Hirsch, Andrew, Kate Knapp, and Michael Tonry. 1997. The Sentencing Commission and Its Guidelines. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Sentencing; Sixth Amendment. U.S. SUPREME COURT See SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 192 U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, OFFICE OF The Office of the Special Trade Represent ative was created by Congress in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C.A. § 1801) and imple- mented by President JOHN F. KENNEDY in EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 11,075 on January 15, 1963 (27 Fed. Reg. 473). This agency was authorized to negotiate all trade agreements under the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.A. § 1351) and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As part of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.A. § 2171), Congress esta- blished the office as a cabinet-level agency within the Executive Office of the President and gave it other powers and responsibilities for coordinating trade policy. In 1980 the Office of the Special Trade Representative was renamed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). USTR refers both to the agency and to the agency’s head, the U.S. trade representative. President JIMMY CAR- TER ’s EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 12,188 of January 4, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 989), authorized the USTR to set and administer overall trade policy. The USTR was also designated as the nation’s chief trade negotiator and as the representati ve of the United States in major international trade organizations. The USTR is a cabinet-level official with the rank of ambassador who is directly responsible to the president and the Congress. The USTR is responsible for developing and coordinating U.S. international trade, commodity, and direct investment policy and for leading or direc ting negotiations with other countries on such matters. Through an interagency structure, the USTR coordinates trade policy, resolves agency disagreements, and frames issues for presiden- tial decision. USTR has offices in Washington, D.C., and Geneva, Switzerland. USTR provides trade policy leadership and negotiating expertise in its major areas of responsibility. Among these areas are the following: all matters within the World Trade Organization (WTO), formerly the GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT); trade, commodity, and direct investment matters dealt with by international institutions such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the UNITED NATIONS Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD); export expansion policy; industrial and services trade policy; international commodity agreements and policy; bilateral and multilateral trade and investment issues; trade-related INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY protection issues; and import policy. Interagency coordination is accomplished by the USTR through the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC). These groups, which are administered and chaired by the USTR, are composed of 17 federal agencies and offices. They develop and coordinate U.S. government positions on international trade and trade- related investment issues. The final tier of the interagency trade policy mechanism is the National Economic Council (NEC), chaired by the president. The NEC deputies committee considers decision memoranda from TPRG, as well as particularly important or controversial trade-related issues. The UST R also serves as vice chairperson of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), is a nonvoting member of the EXPORT- IMPORT BANK and serves on the National Advisory Committee on International Monetary and Financial Policies. The USTR does not handle several significant trade and related policy areas. These include export financing, export controls, multilateral development bank lending, and international fisheries, aviation, and maritime policies. The private sector plays a continuing role in trade negotiations through the mechanism of advisory committees. The advisory system is comprised of several committees with differing responsibilities. The Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations is a presidentially appointed group of 45 members representing significant sectors of the U. S. economy that have international trade concerns. The commit- tee provides policy guidance on various trade issues. This advisory process was extremely helpful during the creation of the NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) and other trade initiatives. The committee’s role has been expanded to include advice on the development and implementation of overall U.S. trade policy and on priorities for actio ns to implement such policy. In the Trad e Act of 1974, Congress broadened and codified the USTR’s policy- making and negotiating functions and estab- lished close congressional consultative, advisory, and oversight relationships with the agency. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, OFFICE OF 193 Five members from each House are formally appointed as official congressional advisers on trade policy, and additional members may be appointed as advisers on particular issues or negotiations. USTR released its 2003 Inventory of Trade Barriers, an ANNUAL REPORT that documents foreign trade barriers to U.S. exports and gives examples that show the elimination or reduc- tion of such barriers. Highlights of the report included the need for enforcement of intel- lectual property rights and enforcement of trade agreements with regard to a number of countries in Africa as well as Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Korea, and Russia. President GEORGE W. BUSH appointed three officials to serve as USTR—Robert Zoellick, Rob Portman, and Susan Schwab. President BARACK OBAMA nominate d former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk to the position, and Kirk’s appoint- ment was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 18, 2009. FURTHER READINGS Geradin, Damien. 1997. Trade and the Environment: A Comparative Study of E.C. and U.S. Law. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Meyerson, Christopher C. 2003. Domestic Politics and International Relations in US-Japan Trade Policymaking: The GATT Uruguay Round Agricultural Negotiations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Available online at http://www.ustr.gov/ (accessed June 6, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Export-Import Bank of the United States; Intellectual Property. USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001 The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was a 342-page, sprawling piece of legislation that contained more than 150 sections and amended more than 15 federal laws. The law’s full name is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct TERRORISM Act of 2001, hence the acronym USA PATRIOT Act. It deals primarily with combating terrorism and gives the executive branch of the federal government more tools to fight suspected terrorist activity, but it also aroused the anger of civil libertarians. Critics of the act have charged that the government gained the power to investigate and detain persons with little oversight from the courts. In the aftermath of the SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS, U.S. political leaders sought to address terrorism with new vigor. On September 17, 2001, President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft presented Con- gress with proposed legislation that focused on intelligence gathering, immigration, criminal justice, and money laundering. The administra- tion sought new powers to conduct searches of people suspected of terrorism; to detain and deport persons suspected of terrorist involve- ment; and to remove statutes of limitations on terrorism. In addition, the administration wanted the Department of Justice to have the power to place wiretaps on the phones and computers of anyone suspected of terrorism. This initial proposal became the framework for the USA PATRIOT Act, which was first intro- duced in the House of Representatives on October 2. A similar law was introduced in the Senate on October 4, and on October 12 it passed by a vote of 96–1, with only Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) dissenting. The House passed its version the next day on another lopsided vote, 337–79. The bills incorporated what the administra- tion wanted, but they also gave the government the authority to conduct secret searches of a suspect’s property. The two bodies resolved differences between their bills, and both houses passed the act on October 25. President Bush signed the bill into law on October 26. Because of objections about the scope of the authority given to the executive branch, Congress placed a “sunset” clause in the act. Many of the provisions were scheduled to expire in five years if not re-authorized by Congress. Con- gress reauthorized the act in 2006. Theactsetoutthefollowingpurposes:“to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforce- ment investigatory tools,and other purposes.” the act is divided into ten main categories called “titles.” They include enhancing domestic security against terrorism; enhancing surveillance proce- dures; abating MONEY LAUNDERING;protectingthe borders; removing obstacles to investigating terrorism; providing for victims of terrorism and for public safety officers and their families; increasing information sharing; strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism; improving intelligence; and miscellaneous provisions. Title I, on enhancing domestic security against terrorism, sets up a Counterterrorism GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 194 USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001 Fund in the U.S. Treasury and appropriate s money to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Technical Support Center to combat terrorism. It also increases the president’s authority to seize the property of foreign persons, organiza- tions, or countries that the president determines have planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in hostilities or attacks against the United States. Finally, Title I instructs the U.S. SECRET SERVICE to develop a national network of electronic- crime task forces to investigate electronic crimes, including, but not limited to, potential terrorist attacks. Title II, which concerns enhancing surveil- lance procedures, contains some of the act’smost controversial provisions. Prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the federal government could conduct wiretaps with limited restrictions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) only when foreign intelligence was the primary purpose. Now, the government could use FISA wiretaps, which lack certain constitu- tional protections, to conduct criminal investiga- tions as long as foreign intelligence is a “significant” purpose of the investigation. Title II gives law enforcement broad authority to share acquired information with other federal depart- ments. The act allows FISA authorities to compel an Internet service provider to turn over information about a user’s E-MAIL activity, and a business to turn over personal information that simply is related to a criminal investigation. Finally, Title II allows authorities executing search warrants to delay notice of the search under certain circumstances, thus limiting a citizen’s ability to assert his or her constitutional rights before the search occurs. Title III contains provisions to fight money laundering, as many terrorist groups finance their operations with money received from illegal drug and SMUGGLING activities. Title IV, on border control, authorizes appropriations necessary to triple the number of U.S. Border Patrol, Customs Service, and IMMIGRATION and Naturalization Ser vice personnel working on the Canadian border. Title IV also allows the SECRETARY OF STATE to designate domestic terror- ist organizations, defined as any organization that has ever used a weapon or dangerous device to cause substantial damage to property. The designation renders a group’s non-citizen members inadmissible to the United Stat es and makes payment of membership dues a deport- able offense. Within Title III, Section 411 permits immigrants to be found inadmissible to the United States for speaking in a way that undermines antiterrorism efforts. Section 412 allows the federal government to imprison ALIENS who are suspected of terrorism, for up to seven days before charging them with a crime or beginning DEPORTATION proceedings. The detention can go on indefinitely under certain circumstances. Section 416 allows the govern- ment to require schools to turn over informa- tion pertaining to foreign students for analysis and investigation. Title V enhances the federal government’s ability to offer rewards for information that is valuable to terrorism investigations. Title VI establishes and funds assistance programs for victims of terrorism and for public-safety officers and their families. This provision set up the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 to pay the victims of the terrorist attacks and their families compensation. The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE was authorized to appoint a SPECIAL MASTER, who would review claims and decide how much each victim or family would receive from the fund. Title VII expands the government’s regional information-sharing sys- tem to help federal, state, and local law enforcement to respond more effectively to terrorist attacks. Title VIII amends the U.S. criminal code to add material pertaining to terrorism, including sections on terrorism against mass transporta- tion systems, the definition of domestic terror- ism, the prohibition against harboring terror- ists, and material support for terrorism. This title also eliminates the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for many crimes involving terrorism. Title IX expresses Congress’s intent for the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY to gather intelligence con- cerning potential terrorism. Finally, Title X contains many miscellaneous provisions, in- cluding the intent of Congress that “in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the CIVIL RIGHTS and civil liberties of all Americans should be protected.” Since its enactment, the law has aroused controversy over its surveillance and detention provisions. The September 11 compensation fund generated bitterness and legal action by some of the families of the terrorist victims, but most of the families accepted settlements GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001 195 totaling $6 billion by the time the program ended in 2004. In April 2003 some members of Congress introduced legislation that sought to repeal the sunset provisions, thereby making the entire law permanent. Civil libertarians continued to object to the surveillance powers given to the federal govern- ment. The act authorized federal officials to obtain WIRETAPPING orders that allow them to follow a suspect to any telephone the person uses. Prior law permitted wiretaps only on specified telephone lines. The act does allow persons to file civil lawsuits if the federal government discloses information gained through surveillance and wiretapping powers. The American Library Association expressed concerns over provisions that require libraries to turn over the records of their patrons. Beyond supplying law enforce- ment with book-borrowing information, librar- ies must share any requested information about a patron’s Internet use on library computers. By 2005, even some conservative groups, such as the American Conservative Union, had begun to question whether the act went too far in terms of impeding individual rights. Arab-American and Muslim leaders objected to the immigration sections of the USA PATRIOT Act. The INS has detained hundreds of Middle Eastern immigrants for long periods of time without public acknowledgment. In addition, these leaders have complained that the use of the new surveillance powers has targeted their communities. With a number of the act’s provisions set to expire at the end of 2005, the Bush admi- nistration mounted a vigorous campaign to- ward renewal of the law. However, there was substantial division in Congress over some of these provisions. Congress could not reach agreement, so in late December 2005 it reauthorized the act for six mon ths. Negotia- tions continued, with most of the debate centered on the protection of certain civil liberties. At a minimum, critics wanted to limit the government’s access to library and business records. A compromise was reached in March 2006, exempting most libraries from provid- ing information on their customers, and mak- ing minor changes regarding wiretaps. Most importantly, it made 13 of the 16 sections permanent. Three other sections on library records, roving wiretaps, and surveillance of non-U.S. citizens will expire in 2010 if Congress does not reauthorize them. FURTHER READINGS Cole, David, et al. 2002. Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. New York: New Press. Baker, Stewart. 2005. Patriot Debates: Experts Debate the USA Patriot Act.Chicago: American Bar Association. Linz, Michael F., and Sarah E. Melzer. 2003. “Constitutional Issues After 9/11: Trading Liberty for Safety.” Federal Lawyer (January). Volkman, Earnest. 2008. The History of Espionage: The Clandestine World of Surveillance, Spying and Intelli- gence, from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 World. London: Carlton Publishing Group. CROSS REFERENCES September 11th Attacks; Terrorism. USAGE A reasonable and legal practice in a particular location, or am ong persons in a specific business or trade, that is either known to the individuals involved or is well estab lished, general, and uniform to such an extent that a presumption may properly be made that the parties acted with reference to it in their transactions. The term usage refers to a uniform practice or course of conduct followed in certain lines of business or professions that is relied up on by the parties to a contractual transaction. A court will apply the usage of a business when it determines that doing so is necessary to resolve a contractual dispute. Ignoring usage may result in the misreading of a document and the intent of the parties who signed it. The law has developed different forms of usage. Local usage refers to a practice or method of dealing that is regularly observed in a particular place. Under certain circumstances, it may be considered by a court when inter- preting a document. General usage is a practice that prevails generally throughout the country or is followed generally by a given profession or trade and is not local in its nature or observance. A trade usage is the prevailing and accepted custom within a particular trade or industry and is not tied to a geographic location. The law assumes that merchants are aware of the usage of their trade. TRADE USAGE supplements, qua- lifies, and imparts particular meaning to the terms of an agreement for the purpose of their interpretation. The term custom and usage is commonly used in COMMERCIAL LAW and is sometimes used interchangeably with usage, but “custom” and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 196 USAGE “usage” can be distinguished. A usage is a repetition of acts, whereas custom is the law or general rule that arises from such repetition. A usage may exist without a custom, but a custom cannot arise without a usage accompanying it or preceding it. Usage derives its authority from the ASSENT of the parties to a transaction and is applicable only to consensual arrangements. Custom derives its authority from its adoption into the law and is binding regardless of any acts of assent by the parties. In modern law, however, the courts often merge the two principles. USC See U.S. CODE. USCA ® See U.S. CODE ANNOTATED®. USCCAN ® An abbreviation for United States Code Con- gressional and Administrative News, a source of new federal public laws that is published by West, Thomson Reuters every two weeks when Congress is in session and once a month when Congress is not in session. USCCAN first appears in an advance sheet edition, which contains the full text of all public laws as well as some LEGISLATIVE HISTORY in the form of committee reports on the more signifi- cant enactments. In addition, it carries selected administrative regulations, executive documents, and various tables and indexes helpful in con- ducting research involving such legislation. At the end of each session of Congress, the pam- phlet is bound to provide a permanent record of congressional laws. USDC An abbreviation for U.S. District Court. USE The fact of being habitually employed in a certain manner. In real property law, a right held by an individual (called a cestui que use ) to take the profits arising from a particular parcel of land that was owned and possessed by another individual. For example, a seller of goods might make an IMPLIED WARRANTY of fitness for a particular use, which signifies that an item or a product is fit to be used for a specific purpose, such as a tire meant for use in the snow. The cestui que use received the benefits from the property even though title to such land was in another individual. This theory is no longer part of the U.S. legal system; however, the modern law of trusts evolved from the law relating to uses. CROSS REFERENCES Conforming Use; Non conforming Use; Product Liability; Sales Law. USE AND OCCUPATION A kind of action brought by a landlord against an individual who has had occupancy of the land- lord’s land or premises under an express or implied agreement requiring payment, but not under a leasehold contract that would allow the landlord to initiate an action for rent. For example, property might be occupied under a lease that is rendered void because it is oral and thus does not comply with the STATUTE OF FRAUDS . In such a situation, the landlord could bring a use and occupation action against the occupying party for the reasonable value of the use of the property. CROSS REFERENCE Landlord and Tenant. USE TAX A charge imposed on the use or possession of PERSONAL PROPERTY. Governments employ use taxes to accom- plish two purposes. A use tax may be imposed to prevent someone from evading a sales tax by buying goods in a nontaxing state and shipping them into the state that imposes the sales tax. Use taxes are also used to help defray the cost of public services associated with particular types of personal property. States and municipalities impose use taxes on purchases or rentals that are made outside the taxing jurisdiction but would have been taxable had they taken place within it. Such transactions escape the normal sales tax collection because retailers outside the state or municipality are not required to collect the sales tax. The use tax protects retailers located in the state or munici- pality because it removes the incentive for consumers to shop outside that locality in order to avoid paying the sales tax. For example, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION USE TAX 197 . SUPREME COURT See SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 192 U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, OFFICE OF The Office of the Special Trade Represent. legal action by some of the families of the terrorist victims, but most of the families accepted settlements GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001 195 totaling. relationships with the agency. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, OFFICE OF 193 Five members from each House are formally appointed as official congressional advisers