![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.122916666666667in"
height="1.007638888888889in"}

# Legislative Bulletin..............................................September 29, 2006

**Contents:**

> **H.Res. 1028** --- Supporting the goals and ideals of Red Ribbon Week
>
> **H.R. 6228** --- Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006

**H.R. 6203**---The Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Commercial Application Act

**S. 3728**---North Korea Nonproliferation Act

> **H.Res. 1028 --- Supporting the goals and ideals of Red Ribbon Week**

--- *as introduced* (Souder, R-IN)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Friday, September 29, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the resolution.

Note: The 104^th^ Congress changed House rules to prohibit a bill from
being considered on the House floor if "it establishes or expresses a
commemoration", which is defined as "a remembrance, celebration, or
recognition for any purpose through the designation of a specified
period of time"
([[http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/legisProc/rules/rule12.html]{.underline}](http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/legisProc/rules/rule12.html))

This resolution resolves that the House supports the ideals and goals of
the day, and encourages citizens to participate in activities with
respect to Red Ribbon Week. Because the resolution merely states support
for, and urges action on, but does not establish a commemorative week,
the parliamentarian's office has ruled that it is allowable under House
rules.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1028 resolves that the House:

-   "supports the goals and ideals of Red Ribbon Week;

-   "encourages children and teens to choose to live a drug-free life;
    and

-   "encourages the people of the United States to promote drug-free
    communities and to participate in drug prevention activities to show
    support for healthy, productive, and drug-free lifestyles."

[]{.mark}

The resolution lists a number of findings, including the following:

-   "the purpose of the Red Ribbon Campaign is to commemorate the
    service of Enrique 'Kiki' Camarena, a Drug Enforcement
    Administration Special Agent who died in the line of duty in 1985
    while engaged in the battle against illicit drugs;

-   "the Red Ribbon Campaign is nationally recognized and is in its
    twenty-first year of celebration, helping to preserve Special Agent
    Camarena's memory and further the cause for which he gave his life;

-   "the Governors and Attorneys General of the States, the National
    Family Partnership, Parent Teacher Associations, Boys and Girls
    Clubs of America, and more than 100 other organizations throughout
    the United States annually cosponsor Red Ribbon Week during the
    period of October 23 through October 31;

-   "although public awareness of illicit drug abuse is increasing, the
    silent abuse of prescription medication, with over 6,000,000 such
    abusers, has gone almost unnoticed and demands attention; and

-   "parents, youth, schools, businesses, law enforcement agencies,
    religious institutions, service organizations, senior citizens,
    medical and military personnel, sports teams, and individuals
    throughout the United States will demonstrate their commitment to
    healthy, productive, and drug-free lifestyles by wearing and
    displaying red ribbons during this weeklong celebration."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: For more information regarding
Red Ribbon Week, please visit:

<http://www.tcada.state.tx.us/redribbon/>. An almost identical
resolution, H.R. 485, passed the House last year by voice vote on
October 25, 2005.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1028 was introduced on
September 20, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce's Subcommittee on Health, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution authorizes no
expenditure.

**[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}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

H.R. 6228 --- Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 --- *as amended*

(Young, R-AK)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Friday, September 29, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 6228 would amend Section 29c the
International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-192;
94 Stat. 35; the "Wright Amendment") to remove and amend the current
restrictions on commercial transportation between Love Field airport in
Dallas, Texas and other U.S. and foreign destinations. The specific
provisions of the bill are as follows:

-   Expands the allowable commercial flights of air carriers operating
    at Love Field before November 1, 1979 (Southwest Airlines) to
    provide through-service and ticketing between Love Field, Texas and
    any U.S. or foreign destination, so long as the flight goes through
    one of the following destinations: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
    Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Alabama. The
    above provision expires eight years after the date of enactment of
    this Act.

-   Prohibits non-stop commercial flights between Love Field and any
    point outside the continental U.S., and prohibits the federal
    government officials from designating Love Field as an initial point
    of entry or a last point of departure for the U.S.;

-   Limits charter flights at Love Field to:

1)  only operate within the continental U.S., and

2)  no more than 10 per month per air carrier, that are beyond the
    states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana,
    Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama.

-   Restricts carriers who lease gates at Love Field to only those gates
    they are currently leasing (e.g. -- carriers may not expand the
    number of gates being leased at Love Field);

-   Requires the City of Dallas (which operates Love Field) to reduce
    the number of available gates at Love Field to no more than 20
    gates, and may not exceed 20 gates in the future.

-   Stipulates that nothing in this Act affects general aviation service
    at Love Field.

-   Prohibits the U.S. Transportation Department and the Federal
    Aviation Administration from making any findings, determinations,
    orders, or rules, that are inconsistent with the signed contract
    (dated July 11, 2006) between the city of Dallas, the city of Fort
    Worth, the DFW International Airport Board, and others regarding
    Wright Amendment issues. In other words, the provisions of this Act
    were agreed upon by those parties, and the federal government (by
    this Act) is codifying the agreement and prohibiting other federal
    entities from changing the contract terms.

-   Stipulates that the provisions of this Act only apply to Love Field,
    and no other airport in the country.

-   Provides that all the provisions of this Act will take effect when
    FAA notifies Congress that aviation operations in the airspace
    serving Love Field and the Dallas-Fort Worth area can be in full
    compliance with FAA safety standards.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}:** The Wright Amendment, as it
exists today, is summarized below:

> [94 Stat. 35; P.L. 96-192]{.underline}
>
> a\) All air carriers are prohibited from providing commercial flights
> between Love Field and points outside of Texas, unless the carrier is
> a charter air carrier (limited to 10 flights per month), or a commuter
> airline carrying 56 passengers or less.
>
> b\) All air carriers are prohibited, with the exception of Southwest
> Airlines, from providing commercial flights between Love Field and
> points outside of Texas (i.e. -- it only allows carriers to fly
> between Love Field and certain locations that were in operation on
> November 1, 1979, and only Southwest qualifies).
>
> c\) Stipulates that the restrictions of Sections a) and b) do not
> apply to Southwest Airlines as long as Southwest ***only*** provides
> commercial flights between Love Field and the following destinations:
> Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, Alabama,
> Mississippi, and Texas, ***and*** if Southwest does not provide
> through service or ticketing with another airline, ***and*** the
> Southwest does not provide service to any point outside these specific
> states.

The text of the original Wright Amendment (established in 1978), and the
Shelby amendment that later modified it (in 1997), may be viewed
[here](http://www.setlovefree.com/wrighttext.html) (Southwest Airlines
website) and [here](http://www.keepdfwstrong.com/thefacts/wright.html)
(DFW website).

Two bills were introduced earlier this Congress, H.R. 2646 and H.R.
3383, by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, which would have repealed the Wright
Amendment outright, allowing Southwest airlines to compete with DFW and
provide commercial transportation as they so choose, in accordance with
FAA and DOT rules and regulations. Neither bill was considered.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}:** Conservatives and
local residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area are mixed on
this issue. The Wright Amendment was originally enacted in 1978 to
ensure that the newly built DFW International Airport (in 1974) would
thrive amidst local competition from neighboring (and much smaller) Love
Field airport.

The primary arguments against the Wright Amendment are that it imposes
federal restrictions on a local and state issue, that it infringes upon
private property and private market interests, and that it hurts
competition and artificially inflates commercial transportation costs by
restricting the available flights in the DFW market.

The primary arguments for maintaining the Wright Amendment are that it
ensures DFW remains a viable and active airport -- and is not undercut
by a smaller neighboring airport -- and thus creates thousands of local
jobs and sustains the local economy. DFW also argues that if Southwest
were to move its operations to DFW Airport (which has the available
gates), it would increase competition and reduce fares among the other
airlines. DFW Airport, one of the largest and busiest airports in the
country, and its related affiliates represent one of the top employers
in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

There is significant history and controversy on this issue, particularly
in Texas. For additional information, visit either Southwest Airlines'
[Set Love Free](http://www.setlovefree.com/) website or DFW's [Keep DFW
Strong](http://www.keepdfwstrong.com/index.html) website.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 6228 was introduced on
September 28, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 6228 is
unavailable, but the bill does not authorize new expenditures.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}:** As noted above, it alters existing federal
restrictions on a locally owned and operated airport.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}:** Yes, as noted above, the bill
would alter federal regulations on commercial air transportation, add
and gate leasing restrictions at a locally operated airport. It should
be noted that the involved players (city of Dallas, city of Fort Worth,
DFW International Airport, Love Field, and Southwest Airlines) have all
agreed to the above provisions.

**[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. 6203---The Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Commercial Application Act---*as introduced* (Biggert, R-IL)

**[NOTE]{.underline}: This bill would create 12 new authorizations for
federal programs authorized at \$2.25 billion over five years (including
the "such sums").**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Friday, September 29^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6203 would create a variety of **new
federal programs** for alternative energy development. Highlights of the
bills are as follows:

[]{.mark}

-   Directs the Secretary of Energy ("the Secretary") to carry out a
    program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial
    application for [motor and other fuels from biomass]{.underline}.
    Not less than 10% of the funds appropriated to this program would
    have to be competitively awarded to higher education institutions
    working on biomass fuels. [Authorizes \$150 million for FY2007 and
    "such sums" for FY2008 and FY2009, all from funds already authorized
    to be appropriated for bioenergy programs in the Energy Policy Act
    of 2005 (EPACT).]{.underline}

[]{.mark}

-   Directs the Secretary to carry out a program of research,
    development, demonstration, and commercial application for
    technologies to enable practical [onboard storage of hydrogen for
    use as a fuel for light-duty motor vehicles]{.underline}, with the
    goal of enabling such vehicles to travel 300 miles before refueling.
    No specific authorization of funds is provided.

-   Directs the Secretary to carry out a program of research,
    development, demonstration, and commercial application for [advanced
    solar photovoltaic technologies]{.underline}, with the goal of
    making electricity generated by solar power cost-competitive
    by 2015. [Authorizes \$148 million in FY2007 (as requested in the
    President's FY2007 Budget Proposal) and "such sums" for
    FY2008-FY2011]{.underline}.

[]{.mark}

-   Directs the Secretary to carry out a program of research,
    development, demonstration, and commercial application for [advanced
    wind energy technologies]{.underline}. [Authorizes \$44 million in
    FY2007 (as requested in the President's FY2007 Budget Proposal) and
    "such sums" for FY2008-FY2011]{.underline}.

-   Emphasizes that the Secretary should continue to carry out the
    research, development, demonstration, and commercial application
    activities still authorized in EPACT for [distributed energy,
    micro-cogeneration, and geothermal energy, hydropower, and ocean
    energy]{.underline}. No new authorizations.

-   Directs the Secretary to carry out a program of research,
    development, demonstration, and commercial application for
    technologies needed to develop [plug-in hybrid electric
    vehicles]{.underline} and electric drive transportation. [Authorizes
    \$100 million in FY2008 and "such sums" for
    FY2009-FY2011]{.underline}.

[]{.mark}

-   Establishes a competitive grant pilot program to provide up to [25
    grants annually]{.underline} to state governments, local governments
    and public entities, metropolitan transportation authorities, or
    combinations thereof to carry out a projects for the demonstration
    of [plug-in hybrid electric vehicles]{.underline}. No single grantee
    could receive more than \$10 million under this program for the
    FY2007-FY2011 period. [Authorizes \$50 million in FY2008 and "such
    sums" for FY2009-FY2011]{.underline}.

[]{.mark}

-   Directs the Secretary to establish a grant program to states for
    them to award funds to demonstrate [advanced photovoltaic solar
    energy technology]{.underline}. All states that apply and meet the
    requirements of the program would be eligible to receive funding,
    proportional to each state's population. States would be required to
    award funds in a competitive allocation to eligible recipients and
    to require a contribution of at least 60% per award from non-federal
    sources (including the state). No award given by a state could be
    more than \$1 million, and unexpended funds would have to be
    returned to the Treasury after three years. The Secretary would have
    to report to Congress after five years on the results of this
    program. [Authorizes \$50 million in FY2008 and "such sums" for
    FY2009-FY2011]{.underline}.

[]{.mark}

-   Directs the Secretary to establish a grant program for businesses
    and organization to [construct or renovate energy efficient
    buildings]{.underline} to demonstrate innovative energy efficiency
    technologies (as defined in the bill). Grants would be for up to 50%
    of the design and energy modeling costs, not to exceed \$50,000 per
    building. 50% of the grant would available to the grantee
    immediately upon competitive selection, while the remaining 50%
    would become available only after independent certification that the
    affected buildings are energy efficient as defined in the bill. The
    Secretary would have to report to Congress on the success of this
    program three years after first grant is awarded. [Authorizes \$10
    million in FY2008 and "such sums" for FY2009-FY2011]{.underline}.

[]{.mark}

-   Updates the types of activities that may be funded, minimum criteria
    and priorities for qualifying applications, duration of funding, and
    grantee evaluation requirements for Section 917 of EPACT, which
    requires the Secretary to distribute grants to establish a network
    of [Advanced Energy Efficiency Technology Transfer
    Centers]{.underline}. Prohibits these funds from being used for
    facility construction. No new authorizations.

[]{.mark}

-   Authorizes the Secretary to contribute funds to the National Science
    Foundation's (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and Research
    Traineeship program in support of [graduate education related to
    energy research and development]{.underline}. Also authorizes the
    Energy Department's high performance building technology programs to
    contribute to NSF's ongoing curriculum development activities for
    improving undergraduate and graduate interdisciplinary engineering
    and architecture education related to the design and construction of
    high performance buildings. No new authorizations.
    [NOTE]{.underline}: this section is the same as Rep. McCaul's Green
    Energy Education Act (H.R. 5644), which was removed from the House
    floor schedule yesterday.

-   Directs the Secretary to enter into an arrangement with the National
    Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a detailed study of, and make
    further recommendations on, the October 2005 NAS recommendation to
    establish an [Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy]{.underline}
    (ARPA-E).

-   Directs the Secretary to carry out a program of research,
    development, demonstration, and commercial application for
    facilities that [convert coal into pipeline quality gaseous
    fuels]{.underline} for direct use or subsequent chemical or physical
    conversion. No specific authorization of funds is provided.

[]{.mark}

-   Directs the Secretary to carry out a program of research,
    development, demonstration, and commercial application for materials
    to be added to biobased fuels and [ultra low sulfur diesel
    fuels]{.underline} to make them more compatible with existing fuel
    storage and delivery infrastructure. Also directs the Secretary to
    carry out a program of research, development, and demonstration for
    methods to [test sulfur content in fuels]{.underline}. Furthermore,
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology would be required
    to develop a [physical properties database]{.underline} and standard
    reference materials for alternative fuels. No specific authorization
    of funds is provided. [NOTE]{.underline}: this section is the same
    as Rep. Gordon's ultra low sulfur diesel fuel bill (H.R. 5658),
    which was removed from the House floor schedule yesterday.

[]{.mark}

-   Amends Sections 931 and 932 of EPACT to require the Secretary to
    carry out certain [bioenergy research]{.underline}. Earmarks
    authorizations of \$75 million over FY2007 to FY2009 from within
    existing authorizations in EPACT.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 6203 was referred to the
Science Committee on September 27, 2006. Though the committee took no
official action on H.R. 6203, it reported a similar bill, H.R. 5656, was
marked up by the committee on June 27, 2006, and ordered reported to the
full House by voice vote.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned that the bill would create 12 new federal programs
authorized at \$2.25 billion over five years.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: Although a CBO cost estimate is not
available for H.R. 6203, RSC staff calculations using a conservative
approximation of typical CBO methods shows this bill as authorizing
\$342 million in FY2007, and a total of \$2.25 billion over the
FY2007-FY2011 period. The CBO cost estimate for the related bill, H.R.
5656, estimates authorizations of \$692 million in FY2007 and a total of
\$3.68 billion over the FY2007-FY2011 period. Thus, the total
authorizations in H.R. 6203 are about \$1.4 billion [less]{.underline}
than those in the original committee-reported bill (H.R. 5656).

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill would create 12 new federal
programs.

**[Note]{.underline}**: Under House Republican Conference Rules, "any
bill or resolution" creating new programs or reauthorizing sunset
programs may [not]{.underline} be considered by the House on the
Suspension Calendar. This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected
House Leadership. H.R. 6203 received such a waiver.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Although a committee report
for H.R. 6203 is unavailable, for H.R. 5656, the Science Committee (in
House Report 109-611) cites constitutional authority in Article I,
Section 8, but fails to 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." *\[emphasis added\]*

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718

S. 3728---North Korea Nonproliferation Act---*as received* (Sen. Frist,
R-TN)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Friday, September 29^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill. On July 25, 2006, the Senate passed the bill by
unanimous consent.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 3728 would amend the Iran and Syria
Nonproliferation Act (Public Law 106-178) to extend the provisions of
such Act to North Korea after January 1, 2006 (and would retitle the law
as the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act).

The legislation states that it should be the policy of the United States
to "impose sanctions on persons who transfer such weapons, and goods and
technology related to such weapons, to and from North Korea in the same
manner as persons who transfer such items to and from Iran and Syria
currently are sanctioned under United States law." The bill cites the
following facts as justification for such policy:

-   "North Korea's manifest determination to produce missiles, nuclear
    weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction and to proliferate
    missiles, in violation of international norms and expectations; and

-   "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1695, adopted on July
    15, 2006, which requires all Member States, in accordance with their
    national legal authorities and consistent with international law, to
    exercise vigilance and prevent\--

> \--missile and missile-related items, materials, goods, and technology
> from being transferred to North Korea\'s missile or weapons of mass
> destruction programs; and
>
> \--the procurement of missiles or missile-related items, materials,
> goods, and technology from North Korea, and the transfer of any
> financial resources in relation to North Korea\'s missile or weapons
> of mass destruction programs."

The bill would also express a sense of Congress urging "all governments
to comply promptly with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1695
and to impose measures on persons involved in such proliferation that
are similar to those imposed by the United States Government pursuant to
the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Public Law
106-178; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note), as amended by this Act."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The Iran and Syria
Nonproliferation Act requires the President to prepare biannual reports
identifying any foreign country, corporation, or individual that has
transferred sensitive nuclear, chemical, biological, or missile
technology, goods, or services to Iran or Syria. The President is
required to impose sanctions against those responsible for the transfers
or report the reasons for not doing so.

For more information on UN Security Council Resolution 1695, please
visit this webpage: <http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/prs/69022.htm>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The Senate-passed bill was not
referred to a House committee and is being held at the desk.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: The Administration supports
this legislation.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO cost estimate for a
substantively identical bill (H.R. 5805) reported that the bill would
have no significant impact 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-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: The bill could impose
private-sector mandates on foreign persons and corporations involved
with prohibited activities with North Korea.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718