![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in"
height="1.15625in"}**Legislative
Bulletin...........................................February 6, 2007**

> **Contents:**
>
> **H.R. 161** --- Bainbridge Island Japanese American Monument Act of
> 2007
>
> **H.R. 512 ---**Commission to Study the Potential Creation of the
> National Museum of the American Latino Act of 2007
>
> **H.R. 235** --- To allow for the renegotiation of the payment
> schedule of contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the
> Redwood Valley County Water District
>
> **H.R. 356** --- To remove certain restrictions on the Mammoth
> Community Water District's ability to use certain property acquired by
> that District from the United States
>
> **H.R. 386 ---** Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District Conveyance Act of
> 2007
>
> **H.R. 482 ---** American River Pump Station Project Transfer Act of
> 2007

H.R. 161 --- Bainbridge Island Japanese American Monument Act of 2007
(*Inslee, D-WA*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 161 would adjust the boundary of the
Minidoka Internment National Monument (hereafter referred to as the
Monument) located in Idaho, and provide various federal assistance and
federal grants in support of the Monument and the Nidoto Nai Yoni
Memorial (hereafter referred to as the Memorial). Specifically the bill
would:

-   Adjust the boundary of the Monument to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni
    ("Let it not happen again") Memorial, and commemorates the Japanese
    Americans of Bainbridge Island, Washington, who were the first to be
    forcibly removed from their homes and relocated to internment camps
    during World War II.

-   Direct the Interior Secretary to administer the Memorial, and -- for
    the purposes of developing, interpreting, operating, and maintaining
    the memorial -- enter into agreements with: 1) the City of
    Bainbridge Island; 2) the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park Camp
    Recreational District; 3) the Bainbridge Island Japanese American
    Community Memorial Committee; 4) the Bainbridge Island Historical
    Society; 5) successor entities to all such named entities; and 6)
    other appropriate individuals or entities.

-   Authorize the Secretary to make grants to the City of Bainbridge
    Island and other non-federal facilities to support the Memorial, and
    to enter into cooperative agreements with the city to assist with
    the operation and maintenance of the Memorial.

-   Require the Secretary to coordinate the development of interpretive
    and educational materials and programs for the Memorial and the
    Minidoka Internment National Monument site in the State of Idaho
    with the Manzanar National Historic Site in the State of California.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 161 was introduced on January
4, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, which took
no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 161 is
unavailable. The bill provides for operation and maintenance of a
memorial, and also allows federal grants to the city where the memorial
resides, but it is unclear how much cost would be incurred.

**[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}:** A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

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." *\[emphasis added\]*

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Derek V. Baker;
[derek.baker@mail.house.gov](mailto:Derek.baker@mail.house.gov);
202-226-8585

> **H.R. 512 --- Commission to Study the Potential Creation of the
> National Museum of the American Latino Act of 2007 (*Bacerra, D-TX*)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

Note: The House passed a similar bill, H.R. 2134, by voice vote on
September 27, 2006.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 512 would establish a new commission to
study the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino
Heritage to develop a plan of action for the establishment and
maintenance of this museum in Washington, D.C. The specific provisions
of the bill are as follows:

-   **Creates a new commission to study the creation of a National
    Museum of the American Latino Heritage,** and provides that the
    Commission must consist of 23 members (appointed within 6 months of
    enactment) and appointed by the President (7 members) and House and
    Senate majority and minority leadership;

-   Requires the Commission to develop a fundraising plan for supporting
    the creation and maintenance of the Museum through contributions by
    the American people, and a separate plan on fundraising by the
    American Latino community;

-   Directs the Commission to examine and report on: (1) the
    availability and cost of collections to be acquired and housed in
    the Museum; (2) the impact of the Museum on regional Hispanic- and
    Latino-related museums; (3) possible locations for the Museum in
    Washington, D.C.; (4) whether the Museum should be located within
    the Smithsonian Institution; (5) the governance and organizational
    structure from which the Museum should operate; and (6) how to
    engage the American Latino community in the development and design
    of the Museum;

-   **Allows the Commission to convene a national conference on the
    Museum** (within 18 months after the Commission members are
    selected) comprised of individuals committed to the advancement of
    American Latino life, art, history, and culture;

-   Requires the Interior Department to provide the necessary funds for
    the Commission's administrative services, facilities, and functions,
    **allows Commission members to be compensated for each day they are
    engaged in working for the Commission (at a daily rate determined by
    the Interior Secretary);**

-   **Provides that Commission members are entitled to travel expenses,
    including per diem for their work on the Commission;**

-   Requires the Commission to submit final reports and plans regarding
    the creation of the Museum within two year of the Commission's first
    meeting, and terminates the Commission's authority 30 days after
    submission of the final report; and

-   **Authorizes appropriations of \$2.1 million for the first year
    after enactment, and \$1.1 million for the second year, totaling
    \$3.2 million to carry out this Act.**

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}:** Outside organization,
such as the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, have opposed recent
additions on the National Mall, arguing that the Mall is becoming
overcrowded with museums and memorials and confusing to navigate. The
Native-American History Museum was recently completed and opened, and
the National Museum of African-American History (P.L. 108-184) was
passed in 2003 and is slated for construction.

In addition, the Mall has two upcoming construction projected have also
been approved: a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., (to be located
near the Jefferson Memorial), and a new visitor's center linked to the
Vietnam Veteran's Memorial (P.L. 108-126). In addition, several other
projects are being proposed or pushed in Congress for inclusion on the
National Mall, including a monument for President Eisenhower.

In 2003, Congress declared a moratorium on future construction on the
National Mall, and based this on a 2001 report by the NCPC that that
declared the Mall "a finished work of civic art."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 512 was introduced on January
17, 2007, and referred to the House Committees on Natural Resources and
House Administration, neither of which took official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO estimate for H.R. 512 is not
available. However, a previous CBO estimate concluded that if the bill
were enacted, "***the federal government would spend about \$3 million
over the next three years to establish the commission and to develop a
plan for the proposed museum***" (*emphasis added*).

**[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}:** A committee report citing
constitutional authority is not available. 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." *\[emphasis added\]*

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Joelle Cannon;
joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov; 202.226.0718.

H.R. 235 --- To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of
contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley
County Water District (*Thompson, D-CA*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

An almost identical bill, H.R. 5516, passed the House during the 109^th^
Congress by a voice vote on September 27, 2006.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 235 would allow the Redwood Valley
County Water District to enter into finance agreements to fund new water
improvements. Once the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley
County Water District renegotiate a schedule of payments for debts owed
by the Redwood District to the U.S., the schedule will commence when the
Redwood District's new obligations have been repaid. The due date of the
first payment owed by the District to the United States will be the date
when interest will start to accrue.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}:** On May 25, 2006, Senator Diane
Feinstein introduced an identical bill in the Senate, and stated the
following regarding the purpose of the bill:

> This legislation seeks to implement prior congressional action taken
> in 1988 to require the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts
> owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States.
> It is an absolutely essential step if the Redwood County is to obtain
> a firm and reliable water supply.
>
> In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project
> to supply water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, in
> Northern California. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling \$7.3
> million partially financed this project.
>
> Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This
> occurred for several reasons: The initial use projections developed by
> the District and reviewed by the Bureau were seriously flawed; the
> District\'s ability to raise funds was restricted when a moratorium on
> new hook-ups was imposed; and concerns for endangered species reduced
> the District\'s water allotment by 15 percent.
>
> As a result of this situation, in 1998 Congress passed Section 15 of
> Public Law 100-516 that indefinitely suspended the District\'s
> obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of
> Interior to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This loan
> renegotiation has never taken place and now the District finds its
> water supply highly uncertain. The Bureau of Reclamation acknowledged
> in a 2000 report that the District needs a reliable water supply in
> order to solve its current financial dilemma.
>
> The District has recently identified two potential new projects,
> either of which could supply a firm and reliable source. No government
> funds will be sought for these projects, and the District will rely on
> private financing, a strategy that the Bureau is encouraging. However,
> before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it
> must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment
> subsequent to repayment of the new loans.
>
> This legislation requires the District to repay the United States the
> currently suspended loans once the new loans have been repaid. The new
> water project will provide enough revenue to allow the District to
> repay both its private loan and the United States government. By
> providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding
> problem, the legislation creates a win-win solution for the Bureau of
> Reclamation and the Redwood Valley County Water District.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 235 was introduced on January
4, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, which took
no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 235 is
unavailable. Resources Committee staff state that the stream of revenue
from the Redwood District may be slowed or delayed, but the bill would
not result in a loss of revenue to the district. Additionally, they
state that the Bureau of Reclamation staff has asserted this bill would
not result in a significant budget impact.

**[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}:** A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

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." *\[emphasis added\]*

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Derek V. Baker;
[derek.baker@mail.house.gov](mailto:Derek.baker@mail.house.gov);
202-226-8585

H.R. 356 --- To remove certain restrictions on the Mammoth Community
Water District's ability to use certain property acquired by that
District from the United States (McKeon, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

An almost identical bill, H.R. 853, passed the House during the 109^th^
Congress by a voice vote on December 13, 2005.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 356 would allow the Mammoth Community
Water District to be used for other

public purposes beyond treating wastewater and office storage.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}:** According to the Committee
Report (House Report 109-109, for H.R. 853), the federal government
conveyed 25 acres from the U.S Forest Service to the Mammoth Community
Water District in 1987, so long as the land was used for the same
purposes for which they were being used *prior* to the time of
conveyance. As a result, roughly 13 acres of this land continues to be
used for storage, but is no longer needed for that purpose. The District
may not change its use without congressional authorization.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 356 was introduced on January
9, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, which took
no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 356 is
unavailable. However, CBO stated that the identical bill from last
Congress (H.R. 853) would have no impact on the federal government.

**[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}:** A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

The Committee finds authority in Article I, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution. 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.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Derek V. Baker;
[derek.baker@mail.house.gov](mailto:Derek.baker@mail.house.gov);
202-226-8585

> **H.R. 386 --- Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District Conveyance Act of
> 2007 (Hastings, R-WA)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1564 would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to convey to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District (Yakima
County, WA) all U.S. right, title, and interest in and to the buildings
and lands of the Yakima Project, WA. This conveyance would remove the
Project's eligibility for federal funds as a reclamation project and the
U.S. Government's liability for anything related to the Project.

The legislation effectively states that Congress expects such conveyance
to occur within one year of this bill's enactment.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was introduced on January
10, 2007, and referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no CBO estimate available
for this bill. However, in 2005, CBO estimated that a similar piece of
legislation would have no significant effect on 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-]{.underline}**

[**Sector Mandates?**:]{.underline} No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: No committee report citing
constitutional authority is available. 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" *\[emphasis added\]*.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Joelle Cannon;
joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov; 202.226.0718

> **H.R. 482 --- American River Pump Station Project Transfer Act of
> 2007 (Doolittle, R-CA)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

Note: The House passed a similar bill, H.R. 4204, by voice vote on May
9, 2006.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 482 would authorize the transfer of the
ownership of the American River Pump Station Project, located at Auburn,
California, which includes a pumping plant, to the Placer County Water
Agency, in accordance with the terms of an agreement made between the
U.S. and the Water Agency. The bill provides that federal costs
associated with the construction of the American River Pump Station
Project are not reimbursable.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: A committee report is not
available for H.R. 482. However, the following additional information
was included the RSC Legislative Bulletin for H.R. 4204, which the House
considered and passed in the 109^th^ Congress.

In order to build the Auburn Dam on the American River north of
Sacramento, California, the federal government purchased the land
containing the Place County Water Authority's pumping station, and
demolished the station. Construction of the dam was halted 30 years ago
due to an earthquake and Congress has no plans to complete the dam.

Since 1990, the Bureau of Reclamation has been required to spend between
\$225,000 and \$450,000 a year to install, uninstall, and re-install
seasonal water pumps to help the county water authority meet its water
needs. However, according to the Bureau, the pumps are unreliable and
inadequate for that purpose, and expensive. Because the American River's
water level rises during the winter, the pumps must be removed and
re-installed when the water levels return to their spring levels.

By contract, the federal government is required to build Placer County
another pumping station. Congressional approval is needed for the
transfer of land and pumping station back to Placer County. The cost of
the pumping station is to be borne by the Bureau of Reclamation, with
some funds coming from Placer County and the State of California. The
funds for the construction of the pumping station are assumed to come
from the Bureau of Reclamation's budget, because the bill authorizes no
new expenditure.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 482 was introduced on January
16, 2007, and referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score for H.R. 482 is not
available. However, in a previous score, CBO estimated that the bill
would have no significant impact on the federal budget and that the
Bureau of Reclamation would save between \$225,000 and \$450,000 in
annual maintenance costs for the seasonal water pumps.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: No, the bill reduces federal land holdings
in the State of California.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is not available.

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" *\[emphasis added\]*.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Joelle Cannon;
joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov; 202.226.0718.

\###