Animal Welfare Act

The Animal Welfare Act (Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, P.L. 89-544) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 24, 1966.[1] It is the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research and exhibition. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act (otherwise known as the "AWA") as the minimally acceptable standard for animal treatment and care. The USDA and APHIS oversee the AWA and the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have primary legislative jurisdiction over the Act. Animals covered under this Act include any live or dead cat, dog, hamster, rabbit, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, and any other warm-blooded animal determined by the Secretary of Agriculture for research, pet use or exhibition.[2]

As enacted in 1966, the AWA required all animal dealers to be registered and licensed as well as liable to monitoring by Federal regulators and suspension of their license if they violate any provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and imprisonment of up to a year accompanied by a fine of $1,000.[1] All facilities covered by the Animal Welfare Act were required to establish a specialized committee that included at least one person trained as a veterinarian and one not affiliated with the facility. Such committees were to regularly assess animal care, treatment, and practices during research, and were required to inspect all animal study areas at least twice a year. The committees were also required to ensure that alternatives to animal use in experimentation would be used whenever possible.

Although hygienic living conditions were necessary for animals not during experimentation to prevent unintentional infection, there were no such provisions against intentionally infecting animal subjects with disease for the purpose of the experiment.

Research facilities are those that use animals for teaching, experimentation, surgery, or testing purposes. Research facilities must be registered, and include state and local government-run research laboratories, universities, and colleges, diagnostic laboratories, and pharmaceutical firms. Federal facilities, elementary and secondary schools, and agricultural research institutions are among those exempt from registration. AWA requires researchers to provide anesthesia or pain-relieving medication to minimize the pain or distress caused by the experiment

Exclusions

There is much debate as to the actual definition of an animal, but for the purpose of AWA, birds, rats, mice, horses, and other farm animals were excluded from its protection as initially legislated in 1966.[1] The most commonly used animals in laboratories are rats and mice, and therefore they were not regulated in the original law. Purpose-bred rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act, but are regulated under PHS policy which applies only to research receiving federal funding from certain federal agencies, including the NIH. These are not federal laws but conditions of funding.

Certain conditions are also excluded from coverage by AWA. Animals that are killed prior to usage, such as frogs used in a biology class, are also not included, so long as they are killed humanely.

Facilities that do not receive Federal funding, such as bear armories, were also not covered by the Act.

The act was amended to include all warmblooded animals in 1970.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966

Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act

 (18 U.S.C.874 and 40 U.S.C 276c).  All contracts and subgrants in excess of $2000 for construction or repair awarded by recipients and subrecipients shall include a provision for compliance with the Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. 874), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 3, "Contractors and Subconractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States").

The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient shall be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the contraction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he is otherwise entitled. The recipient shall report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency.

Davis-Bacon Act

as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a to a-7). When required by Federal program legislation, all construction contracts awarded by the recipients and subrecipients of more than $2000 shall include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.276a to a-7) and as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction"). Under this Act, contractors shall be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the minimum wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor.  In addition, contractors shall be required to pay wages not less than once a week. The recipient shall place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each solicit ion and the award of a contact shall be conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination.  The recipient shall report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency.


A law that sets wage rates for laborers employed by contractors working for the federal government.

Shelby Amendment

Introduction

In the late 1990's, proponents of government transparency made several attempts to increase public access to federally-funded scientific data. The impetus for this movement arose largely from the private sector's frustration over the inaccessibility of data used to support regulations, best exemplified by the controversy surrounding the 1997 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air pollution standards.¹ Sympathetic policy makers claimed that, considering the financial burden they were often asked to impose on businesses, they deserved a chance to inspect the data underlying controversial regulations. Scientists and academic institutions warned that while increasing openness was a valid aim, the privacy of research subjects and the preservation of scientific autonomy should be paramount.

The Shelby Amendment

Inserted in the Treasury, General Government, and Civil section of Fiscal Year (FY) 1999's Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Public Law 105-277) was a provision to change a federal regulation in order to allow broader access to federally-funded research data. The provision, called the Shelby Amendment after its sponsor, tasks the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to change OMB Circular A-110 so that all federally-funded research data can be accessed through the mechanisms set forth in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The provision reads:

"Provided further, That the Director of OMB amends Section __.36 of OMB Circular A-110 to require Federal awarding agencies to ensure that all data produced under an award will be made available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act."

The bill was passed by Congress and signed by the President, but many groups complained about the lack of debate on the measure and the secrecy under which it was proposed.² The office of Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), however, pointed to the related colloquies that had been held on the Senate floor, and noted that similar legislation had been proposed several times before.³ Still, many opponents of the Amendment bemoaned the lack of substantive debate on such an important topic, and launched a fight to overturn the provision, among them Rep. George Brown, Jr. (D-CA) who unsuccessfully tried to repeal the provision.⁴

Proposed Revision of A-110

OMB subsequently filed a proposed revision in the Federal Register on February 4, 1999 and allowed for a 60-day public comment period before taking further action. OMB's proposed revision focused exclusively on published research used to support federal regulations. It read:

"Pursuant to the direction of Pub. L. 105-277, OMB hereby proposes to amend Section __.36 of OMB Circular A-110 to read as follows: (c) The Federal Government has the right to (1) obtain, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the data first produced under an award, and (2) authorize others to receive, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such data for Federal purposes. In addition, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for data relating to published research findings produced under an award that were used by the Federal Government in developing policy or rules, the Federal awarding agency shall, within a reasonable time, obtain the requested data so that they can be made available to the public through the procedures established under the FOIA. If the Federal awarding agency obtains the data solely in response to a FOIA request, the agency may charge the requester a reasonable fee equaling the full incremental cost of obtaining the data."

Public Response to the Proposed Revision

OMB received over 9,000 comments on its proposed revision, with 55 percent of the respondents favoring the changes.⁵ Some heralded the move as a boon to the economy, claiming that it would help to "avoid situations in which data that cannot withstand vigorous scrutiny is used to support new regulation."⁶ According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business group, the new provision would provide "a basis for the bureaucracy imposing $700 billion in annual regulatory costs..."⁷

Many supporters outside of industry praised the revision for allowing taxpayers to view directly the research they themselves subsidize.⁸ Some comments even included stories of past frustrations over the inaccessibility of data. The Salt Institute, for example, described a hard-fought battle over the accuracy of a government-funded study on nutrition.⁹ Still, many of the supporters complained about the narrow scope of the provision, favoring applicability to all government-funded research, not just published regulatory data.¹⁰

Scientific and academic organizations took a strong stance against the new rules. While for the most part, they appreciated the restriction of the changes to published regulatory data,¹¹ they raised a number of concerns both about the Shelby Amendment and the vague language in the A-110 revision. They felt that by not effectively defining the terms "data" and "published" OMB had opened the door to a number of potential problems.

Several groups worried about the premature release of data and its potentially harmful consequences. In controversial studies, data released too early could allow interested parties to thwart potential regulation by harassing and intimidating scientists.¹²

The revision left some respondents concerned about collaborative research between federally-funded institutions and the private sector. They worried about unintended consequences on the Bayh-Dole Act, which awards patent rights to universities and businesses over federally-funded research. Release of data might jeopardize intellectual property protection and thus hamper public-private collaboration.¹³

Other criticisms of the revision focused on human research subject confidentiality.¹⁴ Some groups felt that "�compulsory premature disclosure of data could discourage the participation, or alter the behavior, of study participants, thereby jeopardizing important research�"¹⁵ Critics feared that if people suspected their personal medical information could be accessed by the public, they might not participate in the first place.

Another pragmatic complaint concerned the lack of specifics with regard to reimbursement mechanisms. The American Lung Association expressed anxiety that "much of the burden related to FOIA requests will be passed on to grantees, who have no ability to recoup the costs."¹⁶

Finally, a theme that appeared in many comments was the assertion that the FOIA procedure was an inappropriate mechanism to share research data. According to Rep. George Brown, "OMB's revision would eliminate the distinction between a grant and a contract. A grant is provided to support an activity we deem to be in the public interest; a contract is used for procurement."¹⁷

Second Revision to A-110

OMB released its second proposal on August 11, 1999 in the Federal Register. The proposal addressed the concerns of vagueness raised in many of the comments and attempted to improve the definitions of key terms.

"Research Data" was limited to recorded material and made to exclude preliminary analyses, trade secrets, copyrighted or patented material, and drafts of scientific papers. In addition, the FOIA exemption used to protect personal medical files was added to the provision.

The term "Published" was redefined so as to include material published in a peer-reviewed journal or cited by a Federal agency. The scope of the revision was limited to citations that actually supported federal regulations; guidelines and memos were excluded.

OMB also sought comments on a plan to restrict the proposal to regulations costing over $100 million. Finally, the proposal called for estimates on reimbursement costs and ideas for potential reimbursement mechanisms.

Final Revision to A-110

After receiving more than 3000 comments, OMB posted the final revision of Circular A-110 in the Federal Register on October 8, 1999.

OMB offered additional modifications to some key terms in order to address issues such as intellectual property rights. A three year data retention requirement for federally-funded scientists was set, but the concept of a $100 million impact threshold was removed.

After reviewing several suggestions, OMB detailed a reimbursement plan in which a Federal agency would serve as the middleman between the FOIA requester and the data provider.

The revised A-110 Circular became effective November 6, 1999.

STEVENS AMENDMENT

      The Stevens Amendment is a federal law enacted in 1991 that requires funding information to be included on all publications related to projects using federal funds.  This information must appear on all significant publications and documents prepared or printed with NCLB funds.  The statement must be on documents such as curriculums, district newsletters, student newsletters, published student project reports, or on a label on an oral history recording, etc.  The amount listed should be the cost of the document itemized by the amount from each NCLB Title project that funded the publication.  If local funds are used in cooperation with the title project(s), both amounts must be shown.  The statement must include:

• the dollar amount of federal funds for the project;
• the percentage of the total cost of the project that will be financed with federal funds;
• the percentage and dollar amount of the total cost of the project that will be financed by non-governmental sources.

Taken from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B4UiR7fAEw0J:www.maine.gov/education/nclb/fy04forms/FY04%2520SPECIFIC%2520GUIDANCE.rtf+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


The Stevens Amendment requires that when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, grantees shall clearly state: 1) the total cost of the program, and 2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or program. 

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against any individual with respect to hiring, compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA)

The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) is a United States federal law that covers hours and safety standards in construction contracts.
The Act applies to federal service contracts and federal and federally assisted construction contracts over $100,000, and requires contractors and subcontractors on covered contracts to pay laborers and mechanics employed in the performance of the contracts one and one-half times their basic rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. This Act also prohibits unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous working conditions on federal and federally financed and assisted construction projects.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Work_Hours_and_Safety_Standards_Act

Small Business Act - Section 8

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) established a program that authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into all types of contracts with other agencies and to let subcontracts for performing those contracts to firms eligible for program participation. The SBA's subcontractors are referred to as "8(a) contractors." When, acting under the authority of the program, the SBA certifies to an agency that the SBA is competent and responsible to perform a specific contract, the contracting officer is authorized, in the contracting officer's discretion, to award the contract to the SBA based upon mutually agreeable terms and conditions.

The law requires that an 8(a) firm, such as an economically disadvantaged Indian tribe, must certify, on an annual basis, that it meets the statutory requirements regarding ownership and control.

The applicable regulations provide that individuals who are not socially and economically disadvantaged may be involved in the management of an 8(a) firm, and they may even be stockholders, partners, officers and/or directors of the firm.

Individuals (or other entities) involved in the management of an 8(a) concern may not:

a. Exercise actual control or have the power control the 8(a) concern.

b. Be an officer or director or more than a 10% owner, stockholder, or partner of another firm in the same business as the 8(a) concern.

c. Receive excessive compensation from the 8(a) concern as directors, officers, or employees.

d. Be former employers of the disadvantaged owner(s) of the 8(a) concern, unless it is determined that the relationship does not give the former employer actual, or the potential to, control.

e. Have an equity ownership interest of more than 10% in another 8(a) concern.

Nondisadvantaged individuals or entities may be found to have control or have the power to control in any of the following circumstances, which are illustrative only and not all inclusive:

a. The nondisadvantaged individual or entity provides critical financial or bonding support or licenses to the 8(a) concern which directly or indirectly allows the nondisadvantaged individual or entity to gain control of the 8(a) concern.

b. A nondisadvantaged individual or entity exercises voting control of the 8(a) firm through a nominee.

c. A nondisadvantaged individual or entity controls the corporation of the disadvantaged owners through loan arrangements.

d. Other contractual relationships exist with nondisadvantaged individuals or entities, the terms of which would create control over the 8(a) firm.

Taken from: http://www.cohenseglias.com/government-contracts.php?action=view&id=88

Fly America Act

The Fly America Act refers to the provisions enacted by Title 49 of the United States Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart I, Chapter 401, 40118 – Government-Financed Air Transportation.
The Fly America Act is applicable to all travel funded by United States federal government funds and requires the use of "U.S. flag" airlines (not to be confused with flag carriers) with a few exceptions. These individuals include U.S. federal government employees, their dependents, consultants, contractors, grantees, and others.

The Fly America Act is incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) at Subpart 47.4—Air Transportation by U.S.-Flag Carriers and is, therefore, applicable to all U.S. government contracts issued to U.S. and non-U.S. companies, except for commercial item contractors, which are exempt from the act under Part 12.503 of the FAR.

According to the United States Department of State (Transportation Dept, Aviation), the Fly America Act applies equally to non-U.S. nationals and non-U.S. companies or their representatives both within the U.S. and extraterritorially, regardless of enforcement difficulties or possible infringements of international law and personal liberty that this could represent.

The Fly America Act is generally regarded by non-U.S. interests as being anti-competitive and as unfairly favoring U.S. airlines and, particularly for non-U.S. contractors, can result in significant travel budget issues. However, it does offer U.S. airlines some recompense for the U.S. Government's Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program and provides balance against some of the existing, largely obsolescent and, in many cases, inequitable bilateral U.S./non-U.S. Air Transport Agreements. This partly accounts for the U.S. State Department's reluctance to grant exception in accordance with 40 USC 40101 (e), International Aviation Policy or any other exemption provisions (see below). The U.S. is systematically replacing these ATAs by Open Skies agreements, which are considerably more liberal in their reciprocal arrangements. The most recently signed agreement is the Open Skies Agreement with the EU. A further treaty is being negotiated with China.

The Fly America Act does not prohibit travel on carriers associated with nations that have a "bilateral or multilateral agreement" with the United States; however, travelers must complete a declaration that such an agreement exists. Because rapidly expanding Open Skies agreements are considered qualifying "bilateral or multilateral agreement[s]", the provisions of the Fly America Act are less restrictive than in the past. A full list of Open Skies partners is available from the U.S. State Department.^[1]

Buy America Act

The Buy American Act (BAA - 41 U.S.C. §§ 10a–10d) passed in 1933 by Congress and signed by President Hoover on his last full day in office (March 3, 1933),^[1] required the United States government to prefer U.S.-made products in its purchases. Other pieces of Federal legislation extend similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize Federal funds, such as highway and transit programs.

The Buy American Act is not to be confused with the very similarly named Buy America Act, which came into effect in 1983. The latter, a provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, is 49 U.S.C., section 5323 (j), and applies only to mass-transit-related procurements valued over US$100,000 and funded at least in part by federal grants.^[2]

In certain government procurements, the requirement purchase may be waived if the domestic product is more expensive than an identical foreign-sourced product by a certain percentage, if the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality, or if doing so is in the public interest.
The President has the authority to waive the Buy American Act within the terms of a reciprocal agreement or otherwise in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Government Procurement Code, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) 1996 Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), the United States provides access to the government procurement of certain U.S. agencies for goods from the other parties to those agreements. However, the Buy American Act was excluded from the GPA's coverage.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_American_Act

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

What generally will be released:

• Application information only after the initial award
• Notice of Grant Award information
• Interim and terminal progress reports
• Reports of expenditures 
• Final report of grantee performance conducted by grantor

What generally will NOT be released:

• Pending or disapproved applications
• Salaries of named personnel
• Information subject to the Privacy Act of 1974
• Confidential personal or medical information
• Summaries of discussion of application by advisory bodies
• Proprietary information 

What is the Bayh Dohl Act?

Bayh-Dole permits a university, small business, or non-profit institution to elect to pursue ownership of an invention in preference to the government.
The Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act is United States legislation dealing with intellectual property arising from federal government-funded research. Adopted in 1980, Bayh-Dole is codified in 35 U.S.C. § 200-212[1], and implemented by 37 C.F.R. 401[2]. Among other things, it gave U.S. universities, small businesses and non-profits intellectual property control of their inventions and other intellectual property that resulted from such funding. The Act, sponsored by two senators, Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas, was enacted by the United States Congress on December 12, 1980.

Recipient requirements
Small businesses and non-profit organizations can retain the title in a federally funded "subject invention." In exchange, the organization is required to
•    Report each disclosed invention to the funding agency
•    Elect to retain title in writing within a statutorily prescribed timeframe
•    File for patent protection
•    Grant the federal government a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced on its behalf throughout the world
•    Actively promote and attempt to commercialize the invention
•    Not assign the rights to the technology, with a few exceptions
•    Share royalties with the inventor
•    Use any remaining income for education and research
•    Give preference to U.S. industry and small business
[edit] Subject inventions

A subject invention is defined as "any invention of the contractor that is conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement."[1] In Stanford v. Roche, the US Supreme Court made clear that "of the contractor" means "owned by or belonging to the contractor."[2] Thus, subject inventions represent a subset of all inventions that may be made under a federal funding agreement; namely, those for which the contractor has obtained ownership:
"The Bayh-Dole Act does not confer title to federally funded inventions on contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to those inventions; it simply assures contractors that they may keep title to whatever it is they already have.... Only when an invention belongs to the contractor does the Bayh-Dole Act come into play."[3]

The CFR addresses the relationship between federal funding and other funding that may supplement the federally supported research. If an invention is made outside the research activities of the federally funded research "without interference with or cost to the government-funded project," then the invention is not a subject invention. Similarly, an invention is not a subject invention if it arises in closely related research outside the "planned and committed activities" of the federally funded project, and the closely related research does not "diminish or distract from the performance" of the federally funded project.[4]

Many institutions have assumed that where federal funds have been used anywhere in a lab, a subject invention exists.

Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment

Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352) Contractors who apply or bid for an award of $100,000 or more shall file the required certification.  Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee o any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352.  Each tier shall also disclose any lobbying with non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award.  Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the recipient.

Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act

(40 U.S.C. 327-333) Where applicable, all contracts awarded by recipients in excess of $2000 for construction contracts and in excess of $2500 for other contracts that involve the employment of mechanics or laborer shall include a provision for compliance with Sections 102 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333), as supplemented by Department of Labors regulations (28 CFR part 5). Under Section 102 of the Act, each contractor shall be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours.  Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated as a rate not less than I _ times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours int he work week. Section 10 of the Act is applicable to construction work and provides that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surrounding or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous...... These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence.

The Solomon Amendment

The 1996 Solomon Amendment is the popular name of 10 U.S.C. § 983, a United States federal law that allows the Secretary of Defense to deny federal grants (including research grants) to institutions of higher education if they prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment on campus.

 The Solomon Amendment relating to ROTC and military recruiting was passed in 1996.^[2] It denied federal grants from 8 federal agencies, including research grants, to colleges and universities that prohibit or prevent the U.S. armed forces from recruiting on campus in a manner "at least equal in quality and scope" as other employers or that fail to allow for ROTC programs as part of their academic programs subject to the same standards as other academic programs. It was recodified in 1999.^[3] The law was amended in 2002 to cover recruiting by the Coast Guard as part of the Department of Homeland Security.^[4] It also provides an exception for any institution with "a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation."^[5]

 It was revised in later years, most importantly in 1999, when Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) sponsored an exemption for financial aid funding (Pub L. 106-79 Sec. 8120), and again in 2001, when the Republican leadership of the House Armed Services Committee included language denying all federal funding to a university if any of its schools blocked access to recruiters. This alteration significantly strengthened the reach of the Solomon Amendment, since recruiters were most often denied access to law schools, which receive little federal money.

Taken from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Amendment

USA Patriot Act

The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.^[1]

The act, a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, dramatically reduced restrictions in law enforcement agencies' gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:^[2] roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.^[3]

Walsh-Healey Public Contract Act (1936)

A law that requires minimum wage and working conditions for employees working on any government contract amounting to more than $10,000.