Congressional History and Legislative Intent of Statute 18 U.S.C.1832
<p>To start off, I am only a high school student helping a friend of mine with a little predicament. She has asked me to research about the Congressional history and the legislative intent of a statute: 18 USC 1832.</p>

<p>From what she has mentioned, when Congress passes something and makes it a law, there's some "intent" at the time. This intent may change from time to time resulting the law getting modified. She wants to know how the law has evolved since 1996. </p>

<p>Specifically, she wants to know if an "extraterritorial jurisdiction" clause is present in the statute, and if so, when and how Congress passed it?</p>

<p>I have no clue what any of this means, can anybody help me? It would be great if you could give us some ideas or direct me to a good reference spot to find this answer. </p>

<p>This is rather urgent so if anybody could help me out here, it would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>The current law as encoded in 18 USC 1832 is the result of <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-110/pdf/STATUTE-110-Pg3488.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pub. L. 104–294 Title I</a> passed in 1996, then <a href="https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ236/PLAW-112publ236.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">amended in 2012</a> and again <a href="https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ153/PLAW-114publ153.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">in 2016</a>. Legislative intent is irrelevant to the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction. In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/247/opinion.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Morrison v. Nat. Australia Bank</a>, 561 U.S. 247 (and prior decisions), the court held that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It is a “longstanding principle of American law ‘that legislation of
  Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only
  within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’...</p>
  
  <p>Thus, “unless there is the affirmative intention of the Congress
  clearly expressed” to give a statute extraterritorial effect, “we must
  presume it is primarily concerned with domestic conditions.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The court specifically rejected attempts by lower courts to invent such a clause (which does not exist in the actual statute), based on legislative hints (e.g. committee reports, from when the law / amendment was passed).</p>

<p>While the language of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1832" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 1832</a> does not say anything about extraterritoriality, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1837" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 1837</a> <em>does</em>: it says specifically </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United
  States if—</p>
  
  <p>(1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent
  resident alien of the United States, or an organization organized
  under the laws of the United States or a State or political
  subdivision thereof; or</p>
  
  <p>(2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United
  States.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(If you look at the original law, ch. 90 is composed of sections 1831-1839, and this is reflected in the header "chapter 90" in the Cornell website). This was in the original law, and has not been amended.</p>

united-states legal-history statutes congress legislative-intent