THE BILL WOULD APPLY TO THE RIGHTS OF THOSE CONFINED TO STATE-OPERATED INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING PRISONS, MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, NURSING HOMES, JUVENILE CENTERS, AND FACILITIES FOR THE CHRONICALLY ILL. IN THE BILL'S PREPARATION, HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF TESTIMONY DOCUMENTED UNSANITARY AND UNSAFE INSTITUTIONAL LIVING CONDITIONS WHICH RESULTED IN DEATHS AND MUTILATIONS. CASES OF TORTURE, BEATING, AND INADEQUATE CARE WERE ALSO DOCUMENTED. ALTHOUGH THE BILL IS SUPPORTED BY THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, IT HAS RECEIVED STRONG OPPOSITION FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL (NAAG). THE NAAG ARGUES THAT THE BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNNECESSARY, WOULD CREATE CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, AND PROVIDES JUDICIAL REMEDY WHERE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE SOLUTIONS SUCH AS STATE AID WOULD HAVE GREATER IMPACT. NAAG FURTHER SUGGESTS THAT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 PROVIDES ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR THE INSTITUTIONALIZED. HOWEVER, DOCUMENTED ABUSES AND VIOLATIONS BELIE THESE ARGUMENTS, SUGGESTING THAT STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS ARE INCAPABLE OF PROTECTING THEIR INSTITUTIONALIZED RESIDENTS AND THAT CURRENT REMEDIES AND LOCAL RESOURCES ARE INDEED INADEQUATE. WHILE THE MAJOR ARGUMENT OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS BASED ON THE 10TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE STATES, THE COUNTER ARGUMENTS HAVE FOCUSED ON THE CONSTITUTION BEING THE 'SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND' AND ON THE 13TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS. ALTHOUGH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS NEVER LOST A CASE IN WHICH IT HAS INTERVENED ON THE RIGHTS OF AN INSTITUTIONALIZED INDIVIDUAL, IT HAS NOT HAD SIMILAR SUCCESS IN INITIATING SUITS BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD THE STATES' CLAIMS OF FEDERALISM; I.E., STRICT SEPARATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY. SUPPORTERS OF HR 9400 WANT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVOLVED IN INSTITUTIONALIZED RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE OF THE DEPARTMENT'S CREDIBILITY; QUALITY STAFF; AND FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIVE, AND PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES. FURTHER, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT DEPARTMENT INVOLVEMENT IN MAJOR AND SIGNIFICANT CASES COULD PROVIDE A MEANS OF SETTING FAR-REACHING PRECEDENTS FOR STATE INSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS WITH A RELATIVELY MODEST COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES.