The problem with Federal habeas corpus today is not so much that Federal courts want to continue reviewing State court judgments but they feel obliged to do so because of the language of section 2254, which has remained unchanged over the years. This section of 28 U.S.C. mandates Federal court review on a factual dispute even when a State court has already conducted an evidentiary hearing which fully and fairly resolved the merits of the issue. The proposed amendment to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) contained in section 1 of H.R. 3416 would prohibit U.S. magistrates from conducting evidentiary hearings in State habeas corpus cases without consent of the parties. The proposed amendment to 28 U.S.C. section 2244 contained in section 2 of H.R. 3416 codifies the Supreme Court's decision in Wainwright v. Sykes that the Federal courts will not consider issues not properly raised at the State level unless a petitioner demonstrates 'cause and prejudice' for failure to comply with State court procedures. Further, the proposed amendment provides for a 3-year statute of limitations for habeas corpus petitions. Such a provision is essential for ensuring the finality of criminal judgments. Section 3 of H.R. 3416 modifies 28 U.S.C. section 2254 (d) to prevent Federal courts from holding an evidentiary hearing on a factual dispute when a State court has already conducted an evidentiary hearing which fully and fairly resolved the merits of the issue. Congress should act favorably on H.R. 3416 to halt the current abuses of habeas corpus. Fifty-eight footnotes are provided.