THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION CITES WAYS IN WHICH THE PROPOSED REFORMS WOULD RESULT IN CONSIDERABLE EXPANSION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE ARTICLE IS SERIOUSLY MISLEADING, GROSSLY EXAGGERATES THE PROSPECTS OF FEDERAL CASELOAD EXPANSION, CONFUSES SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS WITH JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS, AND NEGLECTS TO CONSIDER SIMPLE DRAFTING REMEDIES FOR CONCERNS THAT ARE JUSTIFIED. INSTANCES IN WHICH THE LEGISLATION NARROWS THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL PROSECUTION (SEX OFFENSES, OBSCENITY, RIOT, PROSTITUTION, GAMBLING) ARE NOTED. ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN THE QUIGLEY ARTICLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXPANSIONARY NATURE OF THE PROPOSED REFORMS ARE COUNTERED. SUBSTANTIVE POINTS WITH REGARD TO TRESPASS, RIOT, THEFT, RECKLESS 'RECEIVING,' ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, GRADING, AND INCREASED SENTENCE ON APPEAL ARE DISCUSSED, WITH REFERENCES TO THE FAILURE OF THE QUIGLEY ANALYSIS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE AND JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. THE HOPE THAT JUSTIFIABLE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATIION WILL BE ADDRESSED AND THAT THE LEGISLATION WILL THEN BE ENACTED IS EXPRESSED. SEE ALSO NCJ-47814 AND 47816. (LKM)