> ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in" height="1.15625in"}

**Legislative
Bulletin...............................................June 4, 2008**

**Contents:**

> **H.Con.Res.311---**Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the
> Greater Washington Soap Box Derby
>
> **H.Con.Res.335---**Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a
> celebration of the 100th anniversary of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority,
> Incorporated
>
> **H. R. 3712---**To designate the Federal building and United States
> courthouse located at 1716 Spielbusch Avenue in Toledo, Ohio, as the
> "James M. & Thomas W.L. Ashley Customs Building and United States
> Courthouse"
>
> **H. R. 5599---**To designate the Federal building located at 4600
> Silver Hill Road in Suitland, Maryland, as the "Thomas Jefferson
> Census Bureau Headquarters Building"
>
> **H.R. 1343---**Health Centers Renewal Act of 2007
>
> **H.R. 5669---**Poison Center Support, Enhancement, and Awareness Act
> of 2008
>
> **H.R. 5940---**National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of
> 2008
>
> **H.Con.Res. 366---**Expressing the sense of Congress that increasing
> American capabilities in science, mathematics, and technology
> education should be a national priority
>
> **H.Res. 1180---**Recognizing the efforts and contributions of
> outstanding women scientists, technologists, engineers, and
> mathematicians in the United States and around the world on Mother's
> Day, 2008
>
> **H.R. 5893---**Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film
> Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2008
>
> **H.R. 5972**---United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical
> Corrections Act of 2008
>
> **H.R. 3058---**Public Land Communities Transition Act of 2007

**H.Con.Res.311---Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the
Greater Washington Soap Box Derby (*Hoyer, D-MD)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 311 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 311 would authorize the Greater
Washington Soap Box Derby Association to sponsor a public soap box derby
race on the Capitol Grounds on June 21, 2008, or on such other date as
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules
and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

According to H.Con.Res. 311, the event must be free of admission charge
to the public and must be arranged not to interfere with the needs of
Congress. Further, the Association must assume full responsibility for
all expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with
the event.

The resolution provides that the Capitol Police Board would provide
enforcement of the restrictions concerning sales, advertisements,
displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds.

[RSC Bonus Fact]{.underline}: In the 109^th^ Congress, H. Con. Res. 86,
which authorized use of the Capitol Grounds to the Greater Washington
Soap Box Derby Association, passed the House and the Senate unanimously.
The following concurrent resolutions reflect the results of an LIS
search for concurrent resolutions in the 109^th^ Congress that passed
the House and authorized use of the Capitol Grounds:

 

-   [H.Con.Res 135]{.underline}---Authorizing the use of the Capitol
    Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law
    Enforcement Torch Run

-   [H.Con.Res. 136]{.underline}---Authorizing the use of the Capitol
    Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service

-   [H.Con.Res. 161]{.underline}---Authorizing the use of the Capitol
    Grounds for an event to commemorate the 10th Anniversary of the
    Million Man March

-   [H.Con.Res. 349]{.underline}---Authorizing the use of the Capitol
    Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby

-   [H.Con.Res. 359]{.underline}---Authorizing the use of the Capitol
    Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law
    Enforcement Torch Run

-   [H.Con.Res. 360]{.underline}---Authorizing the use of the Capitol
    Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service

-   [H.Con.Res. 265]{.underline}---Authorizing the use of the East Front
    of the Capitol Grounds for performances sponsored by the John F.
    Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (from the 105^th^ Congress)

[Committee Action]{.underline}: H. Con. Res. 311 was introduced on March
6, 2008, and referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management and on
May 15, 2008, the Subcommittee held a mark-up and reported the
resolution by voice vote.

[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}: The resolution does not authorize
expenditures.\
\
[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline} No.\
\
[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline} No.\
\
[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}: Sarah Makin; 202-226-0718;
[**sarah.makin@mail.house.gov**](mailto:sarah.makin@mail.house.gov).

**H.Con.Res.335---Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a
celebration of the 100th anniversary of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority,
Incorporated (*Watson, D-CA)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 335 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 335 would allow Alpha Kappa Alpha
Sorority (AKA) to sponsor a public event on the Capitol Grounds to
celebrate the 100^th^ anniversary of AKA.

Under the resolution, the event is prohibited from charging admission to
the public, and may not interfere with the needs of Congress.

The resolution provides that the Capitol Police Board would provide
enforcement of the restrictions concerning sales, advertisements,
displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds.

**[RSC Bonus Fact]{.underline}**: The only precedent for authorizing use
of the Capitol Grounds by a sorority or fraternity was in the 97^th^
Congress, when Congress passed [S. Con. Res.
64](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/D?d107,d104,d101,d098,d095,d109,d106,d103,d100,d097,d094,d108,d105,d102,d099,d096,d093:43:./temp/~bdQrR1:@@@X:dbs=y:|/billsumm/billsumm.php?id=2|),
which allowed the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity to conduct a reception in the
rotunda of the Capitol on March 31, 1982, to commemorate Roger Williams
for his contribution to religious toleration and freedom in the United
States.

[Committee Action]{.underline}: H.Con.Res. 335 was introduced on April
24, 2008, and referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management and on
May 15, 2008, the Subcommittee held a mark-up and reported the
resolution by voice vote.

[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}: The resolution does not authorize
expenditures.\
\
[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline} No.\
\
[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline} No.\
\
[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}: Sarah Makin; 202-226-0718;
[**sarah.makin@mail.house.gov**](mailto:sarah.makin@mail.house.gov).

**H. R. 3712---To designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 1716 Spielbusch Avenue in Toledo, Ohio, as the
"James M. & Thomas W.L. Ashley Customs Building and United States
Courthouse"*(*C*aptor, D-OH)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.R. 3712 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3712 would designate the Federal
building and United States courthouse located at 1716 Spielbusch Avenue
in Toledo, Ohio, as the "James M. & Thomas W.L. Ashley Customs Building
and United States Courthouse."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: James Ashley and his
great-grandson Thomas Ashley both represented served the State of Ohio
in Congress. James Ashley was a native resident of Pittsburgh who moved
to Toledo, Ohio and worked as a wholesale drug salesman. He served as a
Republican in the House from 1859 to 1869. His great-grandson, Thomas
Ashley, also from the Toledo area, served in World War II and served in
as a Democrat in the House from 1955 to 1981.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3712 was introduced on October
1, 2007, and was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. On October 31, 2007, the committee held a mark-up and
reported the bill, as amended, by voice vote.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} A CBO score of H.R. 3712 is
unavailable, but the only costs associated with a U.S. federal building
renaming are those for sign and map changes, none of which significantly
affect the federal budget.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Although no committee report
citing constitutional authority is available, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish
Federal buildings.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Sarah Makin;
<sarah.makin@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-0718.

**H. R. 5599---To designate the Federal building located at 4600 Silver
Hill Road in Suitland, Maryland, as the "Thomas Jefferson Census Bureau
Headquarters Building" *(Maloney, D-NY)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H. R. 5599 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5599 would designate the Federal
building located at 4600 Silver Hill Road in Suitland, Maryland, as the
"Thomas Jefferson Census Bureau Headquarters Building."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5599 was introduced on March
12, 2008, and was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management and on May 15,
2008, the Subcommittee held a mark-up and reported the bill by voice
vote.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} A CBO score of H.R. 5599 is
unavailable, but the only costs associated with a U.S. federal building
renaming are those for sign and map changes, none of which significantly
affect the federal budget.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Although no committee report
citing constitutional authority is available, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish
Federal buildings.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Sarah Makin;
<sarah.makin@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-0718.

**H.R. 1343---Health Centers Renewal Act of 2007 *(Green, D-TX)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1343 would reauthorize the Health
Centers Program through FY 2012. The program, which is administered by
the Health Resources and Services Administration, awards grants to
Health Centers that provide treatment to traditionally underserved
communities. H.R. 1343 authorizes annual funds for the Health Center
Program as follows:

-   \$2.188 billion in FY 2008

-   \$2.451 billion in FY 2009

-   \$2.757 billion in FY 2010

-   \$3.116 billion in FY 2011

-   \$3.537 billion in FY 2012

The bill authorizes a total of \$14 billion in spending over the next
five fiscal years, subject to annual appropriations. In addition, the
bill would expand the scope of an existing government program to extend
federal liability protection under the Public Health Service Act to
volunteer medical practitioners working at community health centers.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to findings listed
in the bill, there are over 1,000 federally-aided health centers in the
U.S., which serve 16 million people annually. Among those facilities
there are many different types of Health Centers, serving a varied group
of the population. *Community Health Centers* receive funds to serve an
assortment of people in historically underserved geographic areas across
the county. *Migrant Health Centers* receive grants for serving seasonal
agricultural workers. *Healthcare for the Homeless* *Health Centers* are
given grant awards for providing primary and substance abuse care to the
homeless. Finally, Public *Housing Primary Care Programs* are located
near public housing and serve the residents who live there. All four of
these programs are funded through the Health Centers Program.

In 2002, President Bush unveiled a new Health Center initiative, which
aimed to utilize the Health Center Program to increase access to primary
care. According to HRSA, "Through this Initiative, investments in the
Health Center Program have nearly doubled---growing from a little more
than \$1 billion in FY2000 to the nearly \$2 billion it is today---and
Health Centers have experienced an unprecedented period of sustained
expansion and quality improvement." Despite the apparent success of the
President's earlier initiative and the increased investment in the
program, H.R. 1343 drastically increases authorized funding for the
Health Centers Program. Legislation that passed the House in 2006 would
have reauthorized the health centers program at \$10.1 billion over five
years; H.R. 1343 would provide a \$14 billion, five-year reauthorization
for the Health Centers Program---increasing authorization levels by 40%
from two years ago.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
have several concerns regarding this legislation, including but not
limited to:

-   [Funding for Illegal Aliens]{.underline}: According to the
    Congressional Research Service, Migrant Health Centers are not
    required to check a patient's immigration status prior to providing
    medical care. Some conservatives may be concerned that Migrant
    Health Centers may be using taxpayer funds to provide illegal
    immigrants with free health care through the Health Center Program.

-   [Funding Levels]{.underline}. Some conservatives concerned that the
    amount of spending contemplated by this legislation---which would
    provide a 40% increase in funding over a bill the House passed in
    2006, and authorize 15% more funding for FY2009 than the White House
    budget request. Some conservatives may believe that the significant
    increases in funding to community health centers provided under the
    current Administration mean that additional increases in
    authorization and appropriation levels are not warranted at this
    time.

-   [Congressional Findings]{.underline}. Some conservatives may also be
    concerned that the legislation's stated goal of doubling the number
    of patients treated at community health centers by 2015 may be used
    as a justification for further spending increases in future years.

-   [Process]{.underline}. Some conservatives may believe that a \$14
    billion authorization measure should not be considered under
    expedited House procedures normally reserved for matters such as the
    naming of post offices.

-   [Expansion of Government Liability Program]{.underline}: Some
    conservatives may be concerned with a proposed expansion of a
    federal liability program for health center workers that has its
    roots in the flaws of the current medical liability system. Some
    conservatives may instead champion the comprehensive liability
    reform that all medical practitioners---private and public,
    volunteer and paid---need in order to restore the integrity of the
    doctor-patient relationship and reduce the amount of harmful
    litigation.

-   [Native Hawaiians]{.underline}: Some conservatives may be concerned
    that the bill funds health care services specifically for Native
    Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians are a racial group, not a tribe, and
    dispensing benefits to them would likely be subject to strict
    scrutiny in federal courts. Providing additional assistance to this
    group is not only duplicative of numerous current federal education
    programs, but is also likely unconstitutional.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1343 was introduced on March 6,
2007, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
on Health. The Subcommittee held a mark-up on April 23, 2008, and
reported the bill to the full committee by voice vote. On May 7, 2008,
the full committee held a mark-up and reported the bill by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score for H.R. 1343 was not
available at press time.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes, the bill would expand access to a
federal liability protection program under the Public Health Service Act
for volunteer practitioners at community health centers.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** A Committee Report
citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits was not available.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A Committee Report citing
constitutional authority was not available.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
[[andy.koenig@mail.house.gov]{.underline}](mailto:andy.koenig@mail.house.gov);
202-226-9717

Chris Jacobs;
[[christopher.jacobs@mail.house.gov]{.underline}](mailto:christopher.jacobs@mail.house.gov);
202-226-8585

**H.R. 5669---Poison Center Support, Enhancement, and Awareness Act of
2008 *(Towns, D-NY)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5669 would reauthorize the Poison
Control Enhancement and Awareness Act from FY 2010---FY 2014. Under
current law, the program is set to expire in FY 2009.

The bill would authorize \$38 million annually for the poison control
program. Of those funds, \$35 million would be authorized annually to
provide grants to poison control centers and poison control programs;
\$1 million would be authorized to maintain the poison control program's
toll-free phone number; and \$1.5 million would be authorized annually
to support the poison control media outreach campaign.

Poison centers or professional poison organizations may be awarded
grants for any of the following purposes:

-   Establish best practices for poison prevention and emergency
    programs.

-   Research, develop, and implement patient management guidelines for
    common toxic exposure.

-   Improve national toxic exposure surveillance.

-   Develop and enhance technology and capabilities of organizations in
    the poison control field.

-   Collect data on poisoning and toxic occurrences.

-   Support toxicological expertise.

-   Improve capacity of poison centers.

Programs under the Poison Control Enhancement and Awareness Act were
last reauthorized in 2003 at a level of \$30 million annually from FY
2004---FY 2009.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The Poison Control Enhancement
and Awareness Act authorizes funds for the Poison Control Program, which
is operated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA),
a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Poison
Control Program makes grants available to poison control centers, which
operate in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S.
territories. The centers provide treatment counseling and poison
information. In addition, the centers collect data and work to detect
potential poisoning or biological outbreaks. According to HRSA, "For
every dollar spent on Poison Control Center services, \$7 is saved in
medical spending."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5669 was introduced on April 1,
2008, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
on Health. The Subcommittee held a mark-up on April 23, 2008, and
reported the bill to the full committee by voice vote. On May 7, 2008,
the full committee held a mark-up and reported the bill by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 5669 would
authorize \$38 million in FY 2010 and \$188 million over the FY
2010---FY2014 period, subject to appropriation.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** A Committee Report
citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits was not available.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A Committee Report citing
constitutional authority was not available.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 5940---National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008
*(Gordon, D-TN)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5940 would amend the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act to change certain research,
education, and business transfer guidelines of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The NNI was established in 2001 as an
inter-agency program designated to coordinate federal nanotechnology
research. The NNI engages in a variety of research, education, and
product development activities. H.R. 5940 would modify the NNI as
follows.

***National Nanotechnology Program Amendments***

-   Requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to
    develop a strategic plan to guide the NNI's inter-agency
    coordination activities. Requires that the plan specify near and
    long-term objectives and the metrics for assessing progress towards
    those objectives.

-   Requires the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) to
    develop an agency-wide database of projects funded under the
    Environmental, Health, Safety, and Education Societal Dimensions,
    and the Nanomanufacturing programs within the NNI. The bill would
    require that the database be searchable by the public.

-   Requires the NNCO to develop and maintain publicized information on
    nanotechnology facilities funded through the NNI.

***Review of National Nanotechnology Program***

-   Requires the Director of the NNCO to conduct triennial reviews of
    NNI's research priorities, effectiveness, and accomplishments.

-   Requires that the results of the review are presented to Congress
    and made available to the public.

-   Provides \$500,000 annually from FY 2009---FY 2011 to fund the
    reviews.

***Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology***

-   Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
    to designate an Associate Director of Science and Technology as the
    Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology. The
    Coordinator would be responsible for coordinating planning within
    the Environmental, Health, Safety, and Education Societal Dimensions
    component of the NNI.

-   Requires the Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology
    to convene and chair a panel to periodically update a research plan
    for coordinating the Environmental, Health, Safety, and Education
    Societal Dimensions component of the NNI.

-   Provides that, as a part of the Educational component of the
    Societal Dimensions program, the NNI should support efforts to
    introduce nanoscale science, engineering, and technology into
    undergraduate science and engineering education. The bill would
    authorize \$10 million in both FY 2009 and FY 2010 to support
    nanoscience in undergraduate education.

***Technology Transfers***

-   Requires agencies that operate nanotechnology facilities through the
    NNI to provide access to their facilities for companies to develop
    and test prototype nanoscale products, devices, or processes. The
    agencies would also be required to publicize the availability of any
    nanotechnology facilities.

-   Requires each agency that participates in the NNI to publicly
    encourage small businesses to submit applications (through the Small
    Business Administration science programs) for support in developing
    nanotechnology related products.

***Research in Areas of National Importance***

-   Requires the NNI to provide support for nanotechnology projects that
    have significant potential to contribute to national economic
    competitiveness and for other "significant social benefits."

***Nanomanufacturing Research***

-   Requires the NNI's nanomanufacturing component to conduct research
    that focuses on the development of tools for the rapid
    characterization of nanoscale materials and uses nanoscale materials
    to achieve industry-level production rates.

-   Requires interdisciplinary research centers supported by the NNI to
    conduct research on environmentally neutral nanoscale manufacturing.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Nanotechnology is the
scientific study of how to effectively and commercially use materials on
a molecular and atomic level. The National Nanotechnology Initiative was
established as an inter-agency program to coordinate federal
nanotechnology research in 2001. According to their
[Website](http://www.nano.gov/), the NNI operates nano-level technology
research and activities that is being conducted throughout 25 agencies.

The program's budget is the comprised of the R&D funds of the 13
participating companies with authorized R&D budgets. The NNI received
roughly \$1.5 billion from these agencies in FY 2007. The stated goals
of the NNI are to advance the world's foremost nanotechnology R&D
program, to transfer new technologies for the benefit of the public and
U.S. competitiveness, and to support education resources involving
nanotechnology.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5940 was introduced on May 1,
2008, and referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, which
held a mark-up on May 7, 2008, and reported the bill by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: H.R. 5940 would authorize \$10.5
million in FY 2009 and \$21.5 million over the FY 2008---FY2011 period,
subject to appropriation.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** A Committee Report
citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits was not available.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A Committee Report citing
constitutional authority was not available.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.Con.Res. 366---Expressing the sense of Congress that increasing
American capabilities in science, mathematics, and technology education
should be a national priority *(Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 366 would express the sense of
Congress that increasing American capabilities in science, mathematics,
and technology education should be a national priority. However, the
complete text of the resolution was not available at press time.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 366 was introduced on
June 3, 2008, and referred to the Committee on Science and Technology,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution does not authorize
expenditures.\
\
**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.Res. 1180---Recognizing the efforts and contributions of outstanding
women scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians in the
United States and around the world on Mother's Day, 2008 (Reichert,
R-WA)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1180 would express the sense that the
House or Representatives:

-   "Recognizes the important contributions of women and mothers to
    science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and the health of
    many industries that have created new jobs, boosted economic growth,
    and improved the Nation's competitiveness and standard of living;

-   "Recognizes the need to increase the number of women participating
    in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics;

-   "Supports the role of women and mothers in science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics; and

-   "Encourages the people of the United States to use this Mother's Day
    to give appropriate recognition not only to our mothers but also to
    women scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians who
    have made important contributions to our everyday lives."

The resolution lists a number of findings, including:

-   "Women have been vitally important to the fields of science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics and have transformed the
    world and enhanced and improved the quality of life around the
    globe;

-   "The contributions of women and mothers are central to progress and
    to the development of knowledge in many areas, including chemistry,
    physics, biology, geology, engineering, mathematics, and astronomy,
    and these contributions boost economic growth, create new jobs, and
    improve our knowledge and standard of living;

-   "It is important to emphasize the extensive variety of careers
    available in the world of science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics and to honor the tremendous women that have contributed
    and will contribute to the advancement of knowledge in these
    disciplines;

-   "In order to ensure our Nation's global competitiveness, our schools
    must continue to cultivate female scientists, technologists,
    engineers, and mathematicians from every background and neighborhood
    in our society to create the innovations of tomorrow that will keep
    our Nation strong;

-   "A disproportionately low number of female students are pursuing
    careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and it
    is crucial that we focus attention on increasing the participation
    of women; and

-   "Mother's Day presents a great opportunity to encourage industry,
    government, and academia to reach and educate millions of children
    on the important contributions women have made to science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1180 was introduced on May,
7, 2008, and referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, which
took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution does not authorize
expenditures.\
\
**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 5893---Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film Preservation
Programs Reauthorization Act of 2008 *(Brady, D-PA)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5893 would reauthorize the National
Recording Preservation Board, the National Recording Preservation
Foundation, the National Film Preservation Board, and the National Film
Preservation Foundation through FY 2017. The bill would authorize
\$750,000 each fiscal year from FY 2009---FY 2010 to fund all four
programs. From FY 2012---FY 2017, the bill would authorize \$1 million
each year to fund all four programs.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The National Recording
Preservation Board and the National Recording Preservation Foundation
were each established by the National Recording Preservation Act of
2000. Each group is administered by the Library of Congress for the
purpose of preserving and increasing the availability of historic and
rare American audio recordings. The National Recording Preservation
Board is responsible for selecting which recorded sounds are included in
the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry. The National
Recording Preservation Foundation is the nonprofit fundraising entity
that is concerned with preserving "America's sound recording heritage."
The two entities work simultaneously and often in tandem, but are
essentially separate wings of the same organization.

The National Film Preservation Board was established by the National
Film Preservation Act of 1988. The National Film Preservation Foundation
was created by Congress in 1996 at the behest of the Library of
Congress. The two entities function in the same manner as the National
Recording Preservation Board and the National Recording Preservation
Foundation.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5893 was introduced on April
24, 2008, and referred to the Committee on House Administration and the
Committee on the Judiciary. On May 7, 2007, the Committee on House
Administration held a mark-up and reported the bill, as amended, by
voice vote. The Committee on the Judiciary took no official action on
the legislation.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 5893 would
cost \$1 million in FY 2009 and \$6 million over the FY 2009---FY2013
period, subject to appropriation.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** A Committee Report
citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits was not available.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A Committee Report citing
constitutional authority was not available.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 5972---United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical
Corrections Act of 2008 *(Brady, D-PA)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5972 would clarify a number of the
administrative authorities of the Chief of the Capitol Police, including
the Chief's role in determining compensation, approving hiring and
terminations, and appointing police officials. CBO estimates that the
bill would have no impact on mandatory or discretionary spending.

The bill would establish the position of Chief Administrative Officer,
who would be appointed by the Chief of the Capitol Police and be paid
\$1,000 less than the Chief annually. The bill would also require the
Chief of the Capitol Police to give notice to the House and Senate
Committees on Administration before hiring, firing, or promoting an
officer. In addition, the Chief would be required to notify the House
and Senate Committees on Administration prior to making advance payments
to Capitol Police Officers for subscription services. The bill would
also repeal a requirement that officers must buy their own uniforms.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), the Capitol Police were established in
Congress in 1828 for the sole purpose of protecting the U.S. Capitol
Building. Today, the mission of the Capitol Police has grown to "provide
the Congressional community and its visitors with the highest quality of
a full range of police services." The Capitol Police are funded through
the annual Legislative Branch Appropriation bill, and they are regulated
by Congress directly. Therefore, a federal law must be passed to change
an aspect of Capitol Police administration.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5972 was introduced on May 6,
2008, and referred to the Committee on House Administration. On May 7,
2007, the Committee on House Administration held a mark-up and reported
the bill, as amended, by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 5972 would
have no impact on mandatory or discretionary spending.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** A Committee Report
citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits was not available.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A Committee Report citing
constitutional authority was not available.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 3058---Public Land Communities Transition Act of 2007**

***(DeFazio, D-OR)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Note]{.underline}**: The legislation under consideration today is
likely to be an amended version of H.R. 3058 which does not include
funding for payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). PILT payments are made to
states and counties with large tracts of federal land to supplement
property tax revenue that cannot be collected from the federal
government. A section reauthorizing PILT was included in the reported
version of the bill, but is not contained in the amended version
considered today.\
\
**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3058 would require the Department of
Interior to make direct payments to certain states and counties that
contain federally owned forest land in order to offset decreasing
profit-sharing funds from federal logging and mining activities on the
land. According to CBO, the mandatory cost of direct payments under H.R.
3058 would be \$1.9 billion over five years.

Any state, county, or territory that received payments under the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 would be
eligible to receiving funding. Payments provided to states and counties
under this program would be required to go towards funding for schools
and roads.

The bill would allow eligible states and counties to choose between
receiving direct payments from the federal government or a share of
federal revenue derived from the commercial use of the federal land.
Counties that choose to opt out of direct payments would receive 25% of
revenues from activities on National Forest lands and 50% of revenues
from activities on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in lieu of
direct payments. Direct payments given by the Department of Interior
would be mandatory spending, and not subject to appropriation. The
Committee on Natural Resources estimates that since federal revenues
from activities on public lands have dramatically decreased, most
counties would choose to receive direct payments rather than share
revenue.

H.R. 3058 would stipulate that the amount of funding allocated to a
specific county would be determined by three criteria: 1) past payments
under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000, 2) the acres of federal lands in the county, and 3) the overall
economic circumstances of the county.

Direct payments to counties would be reduced annually through FY 2011.
The bill would provide payments to California, Louisiana, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington under
the same reduction formula. Payments to these states in FY 2008 would be
equal to payments made under the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act in FY 2006. In FY 2009, payments would be 90% of
the FY 2006 level. In FY 2010, payments would be 81% of the FY 2006
level. In FY 2011, payments would be 73% of the FY 2006 level.

In order to pay for the estimated \$1.9 billion mandatory cost of
payments made under this program, H.R. 3058 would retroactively apply a
"conservation of resources fee" on companies that hold certain royalty
free federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The fee would
affect leases that were initially negotiated by the Clinton
Administration in 1998 and 1999 and would be applied retroactively
starting from the first day of FY 2006. Each lessee would be given the
option to renegotiate their 1998 or 1999 contract to include the fee.
However, if a lessee does not request to have its 1998 or 1999 lease
renegotiated to include royalty price thresholds, it could opt to
instead pay a fee of \$9 per barrel of oil or \$1.25 per million British
thermal units (BTUs) of natural gas (in 2005 dollars), for producing
leases when the price of oil exceeds \$34.73 per oil or the price of
natural gas exceeds \$4.34 per million BTUs (retroactively effective on
production beginning October 1, 2006). Non-producing leases would be
subject to a \$3.75-per-acre annual fee. According to CBO, imposing the
fees on oil and gas companies would increase revenue by \$2.8 billion
over the FY 2008---FY2012 period and \$7.4 billion over the
FY2008---FY2017 period.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Since 1908, the federal
government has been required to share 25% of its profits from economic
activities on federal land with counties in which the federal land
exists. The arrangement is meant to assist counties that contain a large
amount of federal land---which cannot be taxed by state and local
governments. The 1908 revenue sharing law required that all of the
federal funds that counties received had to go to local schools and
roads. Therefore, the main sources of revenue for many of these county's
public schools and roads were their share of federal logging and mining
operations. In recent years, however, increased environmental
restrictions and an increase in the amount of imported minerals have led
to a significant decrease in the amount of revenues from economic
activities on federal land.

In an effort to compensate states for their loss of revenue, Congress
passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000, which made payments to states and counties that wished to move
from the revenue sharing system to the newly created direct payment
system. According to Committee Report 110-505, the average annual cost
of these payments was \$400 million, the vast majority of which went
exclusively to counties in Oregon, Washington, and California. The
program, which was intended to be a temporary program to help transition
counties from a revenue structure dependent on economic activity on
federal land, expired in FY 2006. Efforts to pass a long-term extension
of the program failed in the 109^th^ Congress, and a one year extension
of the program was included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act of 2007.

During debate of reauthorization of the payment program, the Bush
Administration proposed extending funding for payments by selling
approximately 300,000 of National Forest System lands. While this idea
appealed to many western residents who would prefer that the federal
land was returned to local control rather than have payments made to
local counties, environmental groups and Congress opposed the plan and
it was abandoned.

In a continuing effort to fund the rural schools payment program, the
Committee on Natural Resources reported H.R. 3058, using the disputed
"conservation of resources fee" as a pay-for. The fee, which has been
considered numerous times in Congress, is a controversial provision that
requires the government to reverse contracts made with oil and natural
gas companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The leases were originally
made in 1990s and allow companies to conduct drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) without paying royalties. The original purpose
of the leases was to encourage companies to drill for valuable resources
in the deepwater of the OCS. The initial intent was for royalties to be
applied at a certain price trigger, that is, when the price of oil and
gas reached a certain level. However, leases made in 1999 and 1998 did
not include price triggers, and those lease holders are exempted from
royalty fees regardless of fuel prices.

H.R. 3058 would retroactively apply conservation royalty fees to oil and
gas companies now drilling on the OCS. The imposition of fees is highly
controversial, as many argue that the provision rewrites contracts
entered into in good faith by oil and gas companies. In addition, many
industry experts argue that the huge costs imposed on oil and gas
companies by the retroactive fees would discourage further exploration
and production of energy resources on the OCS, increase the already
skyrocketing cost of energy in the U.S., and add to our nation's
dependence on foreign sources of energy. According to the Independent
Petroleum Association of America (IPPA), which opposes H.R. 3058,
"Punitive taxes and fees on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry are
ultimately anti-consumer and contrary to the goal of providing stable
and cost-effective supplies of energy. This legislation will discourage
new domestic oil and gas production by discouraging the tremendous
capital investments needed to find and produce these American energy
resources." The bill is also opposed by the National Association of
Manufactures (NAM).

Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee initially indicated that
the provision would merely be a place holder and that a new pay-for
would be inserted before the bill was considered on the floor. The bill
was forwarded from the Committee with understanding that it would not be
considered on the floor with the retroactive fees on offshore oil and
gas production. However, negotiations on other offsets stalled and H.R.
3058 is being considered with the retroactive conservation fees as the
pay-for.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
have numerous concerns with H.R. 3058, including:

*[Retroactive Fees on Oil and Gas Producers]{.underline}:* Some
conservatives may be concerned that mandatory federal spending in H.R.
3058 will be paid for by retroactively increasing fees on oil and gas
companies with leases that allow them to operate on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). Some conservatives may be concerned that these
lease holders entered into good-faith leases with the federal government
that did not include "conservation of resources fees" and did not
provide for a trigger mechanism to impose such fees. Some conservatives
may be concerned that the retroactive imposition of the fees would be an
attempt by the federal government to re-write the terms of OCS leases
because some in Congress now find them unfavorable.

Some conservatives may also be concerned that the imposition of
"conservation of resources fees" may set back attempts to boost domestic
production of oil and natural gas. At a time when the U.S. imports 61%
of its oil, some conservatives may be concerned that the country is not
developing enough of its own energy resources and that these fees on
companies producing on the OCS may hinder that effort. In addition, some
conservatives may be concerned that re-writing federal OCS leases may
discourage oil and gas companies from making future energy production
leases with the U.S. government. As Americans face the highest energy
prices on record and our growing dependence on foreign energy threatens
the security of our nation, some conservatives may believe that the
Congress should encourage increased domestic energy production rather
than punish domestic energy producers with billions in new fees.

*[Increased Mandatory Spending on Domestic Programs]{.underline}*: Some
conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 3058 would increase mandatory
spending to provide payments to counties that receive reduced shares of
profits from commercial activities on federal land as a result of
environmental restrictions. Some conservatives may argue that funding
for rural schools could be obtained through local utilization of federal
land, rather than increasing mandatory spending. As the federal
government has accumulated its highest debt in history and a \$52.7
*trillion* unfunded liability that must be met by future
generations---amounting to over \$450,000 in debt for every American
family---some conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 3058 increases
mandatory spending rather than exploring federal land-use options to
raise revenue.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3058 was introduced on July 17,
2007, and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and the
Committee on Agriculture. On September 26, 2007, the Committee on
Natural Resources held a markup and reported the bill, as amended, by
voice vote. On January 15, 2008, the Committee on Agriculture discharged
the bill.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score for the amended version
of H.R. 3058 was not available at press time. However, a score for the
original version of the bill estimated that the extension of payments
for schools and roads in counties eligible for federal land revenue
sharing programs would result in an increase in direct spending of
\$1.942 billion over the FY 2008---FY 2012 period. CBO estimates the
revenue increase from the retroactive imposition of conservation fees on
oil and gas companies with Gulf of Mexico drilling leases from 1998 and
1999 would increase revenues by \$2.875 billion over the FY 2008---FY
2009 period.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes, H.R. 3058 would provide mandatory
payments for local governments that received payments the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** Yes, according to CBO, "H.R.
3058 would impose fees on certain holders of federal oil and gas leases
in the Gulf of Mexico." CBO estimates those fees would be approximately
\$275 million in FY 2008 and would exceed the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 annual threshold for private-sector mandates (\$131 million
in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation)."

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** According to the
Committee on Agriculture, in [House Report
110-505](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr505)),
"H.R. 3058 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) or
9(f) of rule XXI."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Committee on
Agriculture, in [House Report
110-505](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr505)),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, but does not
cite a specific clause. House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that
all committee reports contain "a statement citing the *specific*
*powers* granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law
proposed by the bill or joint resolution." *\[emphasis added\]*